Stranger in a Strange Land

Full review at sff book review

I liked this book a lot, but for different reasons. While other Heinlein's gripped me for their story line as much as for the ideas and the way they're integrated into the plot, this one mostly convinced me because of its ideas and the character of Jubal Harshaw.
If I judged purely for plot, I wouldn't rate it this highly because, honestly, it felt a little stitched together and I was missing a driving force in the plot. Altogether, this was a great novel that deserved its Hugo award and I understand why it is still so widely read and loved.

The book starts interesting, then it slows down, then gets interesting again. It tells the story of the first and only human born on Mars.

Due to some legal reason, he is entitled to become the world's richest man. However, he does not know how to be human. He never met his parent, being raised by real Martians.

The book could be divided roughly in three very distinct parts: his arrival, his learning process, and his indoctrination endeavor.

At first, he has some trouble adjusting to life on Earth, and some people try to take advantage of his entitled wealth. But paired with a brilliant retired layer, he soon becomes very intelligent. He then goes on to spread his message in an sort of attempt of world domination. (not really, I just don't mean to give spoilers here)

The most, maybe only, fictional aspect of the world seems to be the respect for the laws people seem to have. The book is memorable by the many cleaver plot and dialogs. It even has a very beautiful message that makes you think.

Having loved Starship Troopers (the movie), this one was always only my list to read. The story, thought of by Heinleins Wife, is simple – take The Jungle Book, but make the man from Mars. The story went in unexpected places – to politics, metaphysics, sex and commune lifestyles. I see why this one was such a big hit in the 60s.

I had to do reading sprints to finish this one. it had a strong start but the second half of the book was deeply frustrating. I understand using fiction to illuminate problems in the world but a balance is important. if story is completely sacrifice on the alter of social commentary, than it will never live as strong in the mind as a well told story that changes you.

A man born and raised on Mars comes to Earth. He learns about Earth customs and a few people learn his more advanced ways. He believed he could improve the state of the world, but disguises his project as a new religion. He starts a commune/cult that includes a partner-swapping good time!

The Martian/human offers innocence and purity, as well as freedom from negatives like fear and illness, guilt and hate, material greed, jealousy, and violence. Of course most of the world doesn't understand and wants to destroy him or lock him up.

Somehow it's not as exciting as it sounds. There is a LOT of philosophizing, discussion and theorizing by the characters, more telling and exposition than showing. No real tension between characters, not many obstacles to face or any antagonists, and not a lot of plot. It starts off really well but doesn't pick up any momentum.

There's an article here on Tor.com that defines this and some other issues with the book.

I feel obligated to give three stars for “liking” the book, since it's a sci-fi classic and it is noteworthy that Stranger in a Strange Land finally earned some respect for the sci-fi genre in general.

It's just not speaking to me intellectually or emotionally as a reader. I gather it was a huge deal when it was published in 1961 and credited for some of the counterculture ideas from later in the 1960s.

TLDR: I wouldn't bother

Wouldn't bother to write a review at all had this book been only disappointing. But no, it wasn't just disappointing, it was fucking enraging. The sexism & chauvinism of this book is overwhelming. The general opinion on the web is that this book is a product of its time, the sexist 60s. Even if you manage to block out the fundamental sexism of the book, you start to realise how all of it was probably meant to thrill the minds of the time with ideas that were ‘radical'. Its ideas of the future, aliens etc start off feeling merely dated & quickly become downright annoying. Such sensationalist drivel. Nothing profound here. This one's not lasting the test of time.

I enjoyed the book, but the way the story takes such a dramatic shift after part 2 was a little jolting at first. In the end, the way I feel about Stranger is similar to my feelings on Starship Troopers. The overall message of the book contains some excellent points about religion, faith and morality, but I can't say I buy into the entire message.

Having loved Starship Troopers (the movie), this one was always only my list to read. The story, thought of by Heinleins Wife, is simple – take The Jungle Book, but make the man from Mars. The story went in unexpected places – to politics, metaphysics, sex and commune lifestyles. I see why this one was such a big hit in the 60s.

Honestly, a really weird novel, even for science fiction. The first few chapters are fairly average, but has some intrigue to it for the most part on the first read. Of course, not fully knowing the details of Valentine's upbringing kept me theorizing on what could have potentially happened before the events of the novel in between the two missions to Mars, but other than that, it was a slow read up until halfway through the book where it truly begins to get really REALLY weird.
The cult concept was interesting, and in my opinion, could have been pretty gripping, especially since I enjoy those types of ideas in stories, but this is where one of the novel's biggest flaw begins to show. Even from the start, the characters didn't feel all that believable and fell into outdated stereotypes, but going into the second half, some of the characters actions feel so ridiculous. Needless to say, a lot of the characters actions and the way they're presented can genuinely come off as misogynistic and homophobic. It doesn't help that a large chunk of the story revolves around sexual unity, to an uncomfortable degree.
I know that's the point, yet I wouldn't actually mind if it was actually done to push a strong narrative instead of what I'd respectfully refer to as the author's wet dream. The guy literally has a self insert character that ends up writing this very novel at the end of the story. Admittedly, it had some cool ideas, but it was just executed so poorly that the entire thing feels like a joke. The protagonist even dies at the end in such an anti-climactic way. Oh yeah, there's also cannibalism. I'm obviously against that in real life, but in terms of the novel, I liked the concept and think it's one of the better plot points that comes back at the end when his followers eat Valentine, showing that they had fully integrated into his Martian culture.
Ultimately, I was more surprised and taken aback after finishing. I didn't even know what to think at first, but I did enjoy how weird and stupid it gets by the end. Humanity literally got powers from having sex with Valentine in their daily religious orgies, and killed off the Martians that decided to attack them at the end.
It's nonsensical to an extent, so at the very least, there's that to be entertained by. Still not sure how it won an award though. That gives me the impression of it being a pretentious piece of literature that was simply the first to do what it did. It just didn't age well with time.

Well... the story is fascinating.
The religion... I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did create real life congregations.

(I went and checked: “In 1968, Oberon Zell-Ravenheart (then Tim Zell) founded the Church of All Worlds, a Neopagan religious organization modeled in many ways after the fictional organization in the novel. This spiritual path included several ideas from the book, including polyamory, non-mainstream family structures, social libertarianism, water-sharing rituals, an acceptance of all religious paths by a single tradition, and the use of several terms such as “grok”, “Thou art God”, and “Never Thirst”. “)

I hate the 1950s and 60s misogyny.
I am bothered by the “men want to look, women want to be looked at” idea. I would say Chippendales and Twilight et al. have very effectively destroyed that myth.
I hate it when adult women are called “children”.
I hate the “I love you, adore you, respect you, appreciate you, now go and make me a sandwich, kiddo” BS. Frankly, if you call another human being a child, don't have sex with her. Go talk to your hand, buddy.

“Nine times out often, if a girl gets raped, it's at least partly her own fault.”

And women like to be looked at and pose in “naughty pictures”, and men like to look and “naughty pictures”... That's “goodness”. Sure. But isn't it nice that they are not gay.

“she had explained homosexuality to him, after he had read about it and failed to grok it - and had given him practical rules for avoiding even the appearance thereof and how to keep such passes from being made at him, since she assumed correctly that Mike, pretty as he was, would attract such passes. He had followed her advice and had set about making his face more masculine, instead of the androgynous beauty he had first had. Nevertheless Jill was not sure that Mike would refuse such an invitation from, say, Duke - but fortunately Mike's male water brothers were all decidedly masculine men, just as his others were very female women. Jill hoped that it would stay that way; she suspected that Mike would grok a “wrongness” in the poor in-betweeners anyhow - they would never be offered water.”

Mike's death is... disturbing. Makes me hate USonians with their mob lynching mentality. Yes, yes, I know, #notallamericans and #notjustamericans. I don't care. I hate all with mob lynching mentality, but when it happens in some 3rd world country, it is considered barbaric, called with the right name and condemned. Not so when it happens in USA. Then it's suddenly excusable, defendable, understandable, and WE who condemn it as we condemn it where ever it happens, and who does it, it's WE who are the bad guys. Despicable. Yes, I do expect more of a country that is supposed to be democratic, modern and literate.

Heinlein is one of those giants of Sci-Fi. If you are familiar with the genre you will have heard his name mentioned, and Stranger in Strange Land is considered to be one of his best works. It is an intriguing concept - a man raised by aliens is returned to Earth without knowing anything of Earths culture. How would someone without any cultural basis in Earth react to how we live our lives?

The concept is a good one and some of the ideas presented are fascinating - how would you react to the opposite gender if you had never met someone from it before? How would you understand concepts of wealth and economy without any basis in them? Unfortunately, I do not think this has aged well - a frequent problem with classic sci-fi. When you are trying to predict the future, what sounds futuristic in the early 60s may not be so 60 years later. The main challenge I have is in some of the social ideas presented. Heinlein writes women incredibly poorly. It feels like from a different time. This really detracts from the story for me. Other things such as the quasi-religious concepts are drawn out into somewhat bizarre but ultimately dull places, with some strange fetishization which is distracting.

This is not a bad book, but it definitely reads poorly in the modern society. The basic concepts and ideas are intriguing, but the social mores are decidedly dated.

Despite the anachronistic treatment of women, this really is a great example of the way genre can be used to simultaneously push a particular framework while telling a moving story. There's a lot of heavy preaching here, but at the end I had that fantastic gulp of sadness when I have to leave the fictional world behind.

Also, I'm REALLY interested in how my beloved [redacted] can be so influenced by this book without getting whiplash over how blasphemous it is to their faith!

This is a book I used to know well in its somewhat-abbreviated original version, but I haven't been reading Heinlein much in the 21st century.

Reading it again, I find that it's better than I remembered. It has defects, but it still makes a good story and does some things well.

The remarkable thing about it is that it was written gradually during the 1950s and completed by 1960. Had it been written in the late 1960s, one could say that it was of its time.

The first 25 chapters (63% of the book) are gripping stuff, with plenty of action and things to think about. The rest of the book wanders off into an unrealistic wish-fulfillment hippie daydream; it remains readable, but it's hard to see the point of it.

Heinlein apparently said that he wasn't preaching a way of life (though he seems to be doing so), just challenging conventional thinking. Well, yes, but if you challenge conventional thinking, shouldn't you propose something to put in its place? The lifestyle described towards the end of the book isn't a serious proposal, because it wouldn't work without the mind-enhancing qualities of the fictional Martian language; and indeed the characters in the book recognize that the language is essential.

The book portrays a human brought up by Martians, and does it well. The fictional religion of the Fosterites is also well imagined.

Demerits include the treatment of women, which is a bit jarring by modern standards, and Heinlein's tendency to lecture and instruct the reader about life (which continues in his later books).

The book contains plenty of able women with good qualities, but there's a vague sense that they remain subsidiary to men. Perhaps this is just the way people still thought in the 1950s, and not to be blamed on Heinlein specifically. I'm 47 years younger than Heinlein and not well acquainted with the mentality of his generation.

The book is set in the future, we don't know when, but probably in the first half of the 21st century (around now!). There has been a Third World War, which seems to have caused no lasting damage. There's an advanced space drive that enables a trip to Mars in 19 days; there are flying taxis that drive themselves. But there are no mobile phones, computers are barely mentioned, and people still use typewriters. Such are the limitations of foresight.

This uncut version of the book, published for the first time in 1991, is 37% longer than the original cut version from 1961, but to be honest I don't notice much difference. It's the same story, stretched out a bit. When I first read the uncut version in 1992, I thought it was a slight improvement. Now I think that the best policy could have been to take the best of both versions; I think that in some places the cut text is snappier. But I haven't bothered to go through comparing the two page-by-page. Really, you can read either version and get much the same experience, although Heinlein himself preferred the uncut version and cut it only reluctantly at the insistence of his publishers.

In modern terms, you could think of the 1961 edition as the cinema version and the 1991 edition as the extended DVD.

The concept of a Martian - a human being by birth, but in essence, a Martian - rehabilitated on Earth is an arresting idea, and a great canvas. In Heinlein's work, this canvas is mainly coloured through lens of social commentary and a new moral philosophy that became a manifesto for the counter cultural movements of the 60s.

Although divided in 5 main parts, the novel can really be said to be composed of halves. The first half is where the narration is the focus, the story keeps moving and there is a real sense of ‘happening.' The second half lags in terms of action but brings out the core concepts and ideas of the novel in full, successively developing from satire, taking on government and civilisation, to the formulation of a new philosophy which underlined the beginning of the Free Love movement that came in later in the decade.

Typically, Heinlein employs the use of two main characters as the main propogator's of his thought and ideas. They are, of course, Jubal Harshaw and Mike himself.

Sex

The core of Heinlein's philosophy lies in sex, and how sex is perceived and ought to be perceived amongst humanity. When Mike, the man from Mars discovers that human beings share something that has no equivalent in the Martian culture, he is fascinated. On Mars, there is no distinction of ‘male' and ‘female' as such. The female equivalents are mere ‘nymphs', who, by any accounts, do not figure into much prominence. However, as Mike discovers, things are different on Earth. Men and women co-exist. The male and the female are distinct, yet harmonise with each other. Sex is the basis for this harmony, the basis for all humanity. Sex is important. Sex is good.

This is where Heinlein goes a step further for his time; his attitude towards sex in belief and practice were radically different from existing social norms for his time. To Heinlein, and consequently Mike, sex is not a commodity, to be hoarded and practised in the privacy of two individuals behind closed doors. Instead, sex is shared goodness, to be given and taken and exchanged at large. Where Mike comes from, jealousy as a concept does not exist. This lack of jealousy, lack of possessiveness manifest themselves in his attitude towards sex. Because jealousy doesn't exist, polygamy is no problem.

Jubal explains Mike philosophy in contrast with religious indictments. The Bible declares: Though shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife. But this, as Jubal wryly observes, is a natural impossibility. As long as men continue to live, they continue to be subject to their desires, whether physical or otherwise. Mike and his philosophy are exactly opposite. What the Church is saying is don't eye your neighbour's wife, full stop. What Mike is saying is: You want to covet my wife? Take her! And have some good rocking sex while you're at it.

For Mike, sex isn't off-hands and restricted between two people. Love and sex, intertwined as they are, deserve to be shared among people, their goodness shared across all people in the Nest.
Far from something to be ashamed of or to be guilty about, sex was a goodness, to be cherished and enjoyed and shared.

Of course, this is almost a line-by-line blue print of the hippie movement that came in later during the 60s. This book was published much before it happened, and was there just at the right time when it did. The Free Love movement of the 1960s underscores Mike's philosophy.

Heinlein's thesis of religion

While everyone was busy having orgies, it did not escape Heinlein to incorporate commentary on religion as well. This he does through the portrayal of the religious order, the Fosterites, who are of the Christian denomination but differ widely in essentials. While Christians unnecessarily torment themselves with original sin, Fosterites embrace it, accept it, and get ready to put it behind themselves. The ultimate aim of life according to Fosterites is to be happy.

Heinlein criticises Christianity's doublespeak. Christianity and Islam are quick to mete out judgement to their followers, to dictate moral, social, political and sexual rules and judgments to their followers. Yet, at the same time, their scriptures are full of inconsistencies and sexual deviance. A case in point in Lot's offering of his two virgin daughters to a mob banging on his door. Lot trades his young daughters so as to have ‘the mob stop banging on the door.' This is the God who complies with such an act, who rewards this morality while simultaneously frowning upon a million other things. Such a God is a hypocrite.

Fosterism then, as a religion seeks to eliminate this bias, to do away once and for all with the doublespeak and hypocrisy of religion. However, their unabashed glorying in happiness and hedonistic pleasure is initially disquieting to Jubal and Jill.

Conclusion

I can see why Stranger in a Strange land became such a landmark novel when it was published. It must have provoked and outraged and shocked people of its time - it still does today, in certain places and among certain people. However, any hope of life on Mars, our direct neighbour, let alone a civilisation as highly advanced as the one portrayed in the novel, in light of successive Martian expeditions over the decades is rendered unrealistic at best.

There are also some major flaws with the book, most particularly Heinlein's portrayal of women. Women are either shown as passive and ‘go-along-with-what-he's-saying-and-doing', like Miriam, Dorcas and Anne, or manipulative and controlling, like Mrs. Douglas and Patty and, to some extent, Jill. My main gripe with Heinlein was Jill saying, ‘Nine out of ten times, when a woman gets raped, it's her own fault.'

However, all these things considered, the redeeming hallmarks of Stranger are its social commentary and its original ideas about religion and civilisation, which, in the post-60s, post-hippiedom world might strike us as tired and tested, but which were strikingly original and timely for the time it was published in. If you can put aside the 50s-60s attitudinal drawbacks behind, this is a quintessential science fiction read.

Heinlein books are not easy to ready. If you read them as science fiction you will be disappointed, but if you read them as view on society then you will be utterly delighted.

This book is just fantastic, a very interesting view on our society, on politics, religion and so on.

After reading this with a different expectation than when I read “Moon is a harsh mistress” I thinking I need to read “Moon is a harsh mistress” again but this time not as a science fiction book, but as book that writes about our society in the bounds of science fiction. Similar like reading a Philip K. Dick novel.