Rating: 
Summary: By far and away one of the best books ever
Review: This book is so amazingly good it is almost scarry. You could nearly live by this book and the characters are always interesting and different. When you finish it for the first time you have to be thinkin what in hell was this guy thinkin? But when you look at it again and again you begin to realize how Michael Valentine Smith encompasses everything good in life from Ghandi to Alexander the Great.
Rating: 
Summary: A good book with challenging ideas.
Review: Robert Heinlein is excellent in this book. As usual, it is more of a discussion of what he believes rather than a plot driven narrative. While I do not always agree with him, he always makes me think.Central to "Stranger in a Strange Land" is the question, "What does it mean to be human?" Heinlein shows us the best and worst of human nature and accepts it as our own. However, he understands that our baser nature can (and should) be overcome. Also, I found his ideas on humor and the nature of man especially interesting, even though this is a minor section of the book. One of my few reservations is of a moral nature rather than a literary one. I disagree with Heinlein's views on sexuality. While I would not characterize them as casual, they would make a minister or priest uneasy. All in all, Heinlein has taken a difficult subject and done a worthwhile job with it.
Rating: 
Summary: I am in the middle of the book but this isnt a review anyway
Review: Ok I love the book so far. But what I wanna say is what is all the stuff about his philophys? Who cares if you dont agree with them He isnt asking you to Its a story a FICTIONal one Geez you people think you have to agree with any ideas you read about in a book. How STUPID
Rating:
Summary: I grok
Review: This is probably the greatest book I've evry read. It was the first that can be substantiated as "meaningful literature" that I chose to read on my own. I'd had a passing interest in Heinlein, and was ready then to dleve into his masterpiece, to see what he was all about. The beginning was deceptive, and justly so. It sucked in hardcore Sci-Fi fans with its talk of spaceships and interplanetary politics. But once it was past all that meaningless stuff, we come to realize what this anomolous man from Mars is doing, what he's thinking. Michael is simultaneously the main character and the predominant metaphor in the book. He has no sense of "moral right" (really social right) and thus does what he feels is right. He is essentially a space hippie. What Heinlein creates in Michael is a very apt social commentary. Saying "hey, why the hell do we do that anyway?" not worrying about offending anyone and not once consulting the books of propper ettiquet. Some of the reviews have called the social commentary of this book childish. Indeed it is. Heinlein deals with all the things adult society's childish views on the world have influenced how everyone is expected to act. We are kept in check by guilt on all of these things. Guilt is such a strong emotion that it can hold us in check quite well without anyone else's intervention. Thus with no pretense of propper ettiquette and thus no sense of guilt, Michael exposes what we've been holding ourselves back from. Free love, absence of religion or conceding to a higher being allow us to attain our full and greatest potential--to transcend. This I'm sure was a powerful and shocking work in it's day, and still is now, seeing how most of us haven't taken the hint RAH dropped. But for we few neo-hippies or whatever we are are spreading the word. Watch out!
Rating: 
Summary: sexist and silly
Review: I can't believe I plowed through this whole thing. Many times I wanted to put it down, but I forced myself to finish it. Heinlein had a good idea, but he ruined it with the second half of the book. All a Man from Mars can do is start a cultish commune? How much more interesting this book could have been had the author explored a different vein instead of going into the ranch and all the stupid stuff with the commune. The thing that really bothered me about this book is how idiotic the women are. They are all a bunch of ditzes and their main purpose seems to be to serve the men. Of course, the book is a product of its time, but I wanted to smack Jill (I think that was the main female's name .. its been awhile since I read this book.) She and the other women were completely dependent on the men. I'm sure that's a man's fantasy for the future, but I wish Heinlein would have given women some credit.
Rating:
Summary: Thought-provoking but overrated
Review: At the ripe old age of thirty, I just finished reading this book for the first time. It's full of startling and intriguing ideas (the Fair Witnesses, the church that conquers sin by bringing previously sinful activities into the church) but is at the same time populated by cardboard characters and marred by a clumsy and unbelievable yet predictable plot. Other reviews have already noted some of its many flaws. It's not even really science fiction; there are too many fantastic elements that are never adequately explained, though Heinlein does occasionally extrapolate how these elements might change society. Still, I'd put it more in line with the philosophical fiction of Ayn Rand -- interesting ideas, mediocre execution. If you missed the Sixties, reading this book will help you grok what they might have been like. And if you just like having your mind stimulated by new ideas, you might find some grist for your mental mill here. (I'm pretty widely read in SF, and some of the ideas in this novel were new to me.) If I had read it ten years ago I'm sure it would have well and truly blown my mind. But today, I can't consider it a masterpiece, though I'm still glad to have read it.
Rating: 
Summary: Amusingly overrated
Review: Heinlein can't get enough of himself. You can tell this after reading any two of his books. There is always a Heinlein-as-character in the novel -- he has lots of money, if handsome, built like Arnie, and always has scads of women around him. Boy, talk about protecting a fragile ego! I had heard many people talk about this book for years, particularly those of a more hippy mindset; the amazing thing is that if you read it, Heinlein is against almost everything his core of fans seem to have found in him. The book is anti-drug. Yes, it is also anti-government, but it is certainly nowhere near as anti-tehcnology as many have made it out to be. The characters, except for Our Favorite Martian, are flat and unbelievable; the plot is ludicrous; the style is boring. Women should be lining up in droves to condemn this book for its rampant sexism. Why do people love it so? I leave that to others to decide. Personally, I'm heading off to read something by someone with a real idea.
Rating:
Summary: One of Heinlein's BEST
Review: Question authority? Question the NORM? This book more than anything else questions the morals and beliefs of society. Heinlein accomplishes this by creating one of his most compelling and interesing characters Mike, a martian with human ancestery. Finding out what authority and societal norms Heinlein challenges, I will leave to you, the future reader. But I will add this, Heinlein goes beyond simply challenging society and shows how living in alien cultures can completely change our values and psyche. To conclude, this review hardly does Stranger in a Strange Land justice. All I can say is this, if your will to think different and love a good sci-fi, you'll love this book.
Rating:
Summary: Expand Your Views On Life
Review: What can I say, when I first read this book, when I was 15, it changed my outlook on life. When I reread it today it still does. The new version from Heinlein's widow has about 150k more words that were cut both for length and content when it was published. If you can get that version it is by far the best.
Rating:
Summary: Two Different Reviews
Review: As for writing goes, this is a very very well written novel. Five stars. As for the ideas, I found it naive and presumptuous. Heinlein is known for "digging deep" and asking the questions we pathetic mortals forget to ask, yet his conclusions are too simplistic. One star. This was written in the early 60s, and I wonder if Heinlein would've made the same conclusions if he wrote it now, it post-hippie post-AIDS post-modern America.
| 
