“Democracy’s worst fault is that its leaders are likely to reflect the faults and virtues of their constituents—a depressingly low level.”

Now, why does that resonate so hard? Great line even though it is not representative of Stranger in a Strange Land’s major theme.

Stranger in a Strange Land is Heinlein’s best known and most popular book. It is not his most controversial novel but seems that way because it is the most widely read one. His later books  Friday and  I Will Fear No Evil are, to my mind, much more controversial, but also verges on being unreadable. This is not the case with Stranger in a Strange Land, which is a hoot from beginning to end.

Robert Heinlein did not want Stranger in a Strange Land to be labeled as science fiction because he wants readers to view the novel as a sociopolitical allegory exploring the origin of a new religion, social mores, sexual liberation and other challenging themes. It is very easy to find stacks of in-depth analyses of this book online, but when I first read it in the 80s I was unaware of the themes, subtexts etc. At the time I only read sci-fi for the escapism and this book did not disappoint.

Looking at the basic plot it is not surprising that Stranger in a Strange Land is labeled as science fiction. The story concerns Valentine Michael Smith, known to the public as “the Man from Mars”. Mike (as he generally referred to by the other characters) was born on Mars, his parents and the rest of the crew the colonization starship Envoy mysteriously died. 25 years later another expedition from Earth discovers Mike as the lone survivor, having been raised by Martians. Mike is brought back to Earth, he is soon taken into the care of bestselling author Jubal Harshaw. This is where he learns—at superhuman speed—the English language and the peculiarities of human culture. Once he “groks”* humanity he sets out to found a new religion based on Martian philosophy, featuring learning the Martian language, developing telekinesis, polygamy, “thou art God” and various other alien practices. His “Church of All Worlds” picks up many followers but is viewed with disdain by the authorities and followers of the established religions, who are out for his blood.

Heinlein, Clarke, and Asimov are often referred to as the “Big Three” sci-fi authors. During my formative years as a sf reader, Heinlein was my favorite of the three, followed by Asimov then Clarke†. He just seemed like the funniest, the most “badass”. A couple of years ago I reread his  Starship Troopers, a book I enjoyed very much as a teenager, and found it to be overly didactic and consequently rather dull. Prior to this Stranger in a Strange Land reread I half expected to be similarly disappointed. This turns out not to be the case, the didacticism is there, but presented in a much more entertaining package. I particularly enjoyed the early parts of the book when Mike is depicted as a sort of space Mowgli. His sudden withdrawal into a corpse-like meditative state, his incomprehension of nudity, money, ownership and all social mores in general, makes for some great comedy. While the book is not exactly densely plotted I enjoyed his development from idiot child to a Crocodile Dundee-like character, and eventually to a messiah.

Art by SharksDen

The first half of the book reads more like a conventional sci-fi romp, the second half, which consists of more dialogue than plot, is where Heinlein throws his challenging ideas at the readers. From the several discussion forums I have read, quite a few readers decided to abandon the novel when the sexual issues come in thick and fast. As a more mature reader I could not help but notice the sexisms in the book, a lot of the bantering in the dialogue is fun, but the female characters are often talked down to by the men. The (non-graphic) depiction of free love is also cringe-inducing. As for the seemingly libertine ideas put forward by Mike, Jubal and several characters I would have to be crazy to agree with them all, but Heinlein’s intent was never to convince the readers of these ideas but to provoke them to think, to try looking at “conventional wisdom” from new angles, even crazy ones.

Heinlein’s literary skills are ahead of most of his sci-fi contemporaries when he is not busy being sexist, his prose and dialogue fairly sparkle. Jubal Harshaw is probably the most vivid and vibrant character I have ever encountered in a sci-fi book; he obviously has all the best lines, probably because he acts as an avatar (self-insert) for the author. Valentine Michael Smith is almost as memorable because of his oddness. Unfortunately, none of the female characters are well developed or believable.

For me, Stranger in a Strange Land is a flawed gem that sensitive female readers will probably find distasteful and feminists will find intolerable. I suspect Heinlein would have approved this state of affairs, as his intent for the book is to challenge the readers through satirizing the accepted social mores. If you can tune out the sexism (a product of its time) it is well worth reading; certainly required reading for anyone who wants to be “well read” in science fiction.

Notes:
* “Grok” is the most famous neologism from this book. In essence it is a level of understanding so profound that the subject (or object) of this understanding becomes a part of you and vice versa.

† The ranking is the reverse these days, I like Clarke best, then Asimov, then Heinlein. Lately, I have come to appreciate Clarke’s epic hard sci-fi plot and speculations more than the other two biggies possibly because I read very few Clarke books in the 80s, at the time finding him too dry and not very humorous.

• This review is of the “uncut” version as Heinlein first conceived and written it, first published in 1991. The abridged version was published in 1961, both versions have their fans (and detractors ). I read the 1961 version in the 80s, unfortunately I can’t remember what the differences are; but I do think some of the dialogue in this uncut edition is rather longwinded. The 1962 Hugo Award was, of course, for the abridged version. Thanks, Denis for raising this issue.

• Some of the background info for this review was gleaned from this Mental Floss article.

• An interesting Goodreads group discussion about this book, which remains a problematical read for many, and Heinlein would not have wanted it any other way.

• From Quora: Why are Heinlein, Clarke, and Asimov called the Big-Three of Science Fiction?

Quotes:
“The Universe was a damned silly place at best . . . but the least likely explanation for its existence was the no-explanation of random chance, the conceit that some abstract somethings “just happened” to be some atoms that “just happened” to get together in configurations which “just happened” to look like consistent laws and then some of these configurations “just happened” to possess self-awareness and that two such “just happened” to be the Man from Mars and the other a bald-headed old coot with Jubal himself inside.”

“When one is of my age, one is necessarily in a hurry about some things. Each sunrise is a precious jewel . . . for it may never be followed by its sunset.”

“Gratitude is a euphemism for resentment. The Japanese have five different ways to say 'thank you'-and every one of them translates literally as resentment, in various degrees.”

“could not avoid having government, any more than an individual man could escape his lifelong bondage to his bowels.”


Valentine Michael Smith

UPDATE 5/30/21: My BookTube review is up! Additionally, I comment a bit more on what I said below about the problematic stuff. Thanks to my friend carol. for pointing things out to me.

Well, that was...something. 3/5 stars

Stranger in a Strange Land is a very famous and award-winning sci-fi novel by Robert Heinlein. It is known for being the first sci-fi book to end up on the New York Time's Bestseller List and is included in the Library of Congress' 88 Books that Shaped America. I can understand how this book blew people away in the early 1960s. Its message of questioning everything and endorsement of free (heterosexual polyamorus) love was a precursor to the hippie movement and the other social movements of the era. Being a millennial, I cannot say that it blew me away, but I respect the place it holds in sci-fi literature--even for all its glaring flaws.

The story is about a young man named Valentine Michael Smith, or simply Mike, who was born on Mars to human spacefarers who went mad and killed each other. Mike was raised by the Martians until another human exploration team from Earth went to Mars and discovered him. Once he is taken back to Earth, he experiences a culture clash, primary with governmental control and religion, and becomes embroiled in a world-wide conspiracy to capture him and brings Mars under Earth's control.

And then in the last third of book, he creates a sex cult.

For one, this was a step up from The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. Yes, Heinlein's politics and social critiques are there, but there is much more showing here than telling. Jubal Harshaw, a retired professor, is basically Heinlein's mouthpiece for the entire novel. Basically, to sum everything up: Society is controlling you and you should break free from it...yay. Some of Jubal's beliefs were a little ridiculous, such as saying that cannibalism is perfectly natural for society to embrace, especially if one is of Native American descent. Granted, this may have been done for shock value; but still, there were other things expressed by Jubal and other characters that were either ridiculous and/or unacceptable. Queer love should not be free and those who express it should be corrected and that 9 out of 10 times it's a woman's fault that she was raped--yes, you read that right. There were other really, perverted things in here I just didn't like. As a friend pointed out to me in my review of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Heinlein was a man of his time so I wasn't as horrified as I was before and I should remember to acknowledge that.

All the characters were basically ciphers for some sort of belief. Mike represented the innocence of someone not yet blighted by modern humanity's influence, while also challenging certain social beliefs. Jill just represented women. And Jubal was of course, as I said, Heinlein. Occasionally, Heinlein does make a few good points such as how commercialized certain religious denominations can be, how the government is very untrustworthy, and how most people rarely accept hearing ideas different from their own. There were also some times where the comedy made me genuinely laugh. Yes, Heinlein was crusty, pervy old man in his later years, but he did strike comedy gold from time to time.

It would be a lie if I said this book never made me think or that Mike was uninteresting. His innocence did create an interesting perspective to everything. Oddly enough it reminds of The Left Hand of Darkness a little bit, about how another race or culture doesn't have the exact definition of certain things (i.e. property, government, religion and spirituality) that we have. So, let's tackled the Thou Art God thing.

When I first read this line and how Mike came to forming it I was a bit confused. But as the novel progressed, I think I cam to understand what it meant. Obviously, the church Mike forms in the last third of the novel is not considered to be a religion by him and includes people form all walks of life in it. According to Mike, whoever groks (as in greatly understand something) is God. So, Thou Art God becomes both a greeting but also a spiritual statement. Thou Art God because you truly understand as what the higher power understands.

At least, that's how I take it. I could be wrong.

I think the story's biggest downfall was using Freudian theory as it its skeleton. This is done subtextly and anyone who knows Heinlein knows he occasionally cavorted with a form of it from time to time; though he was also skeptical of it. At one point in the novel, it is mentioned that the Martians have reproductive organs--some of them can carry and gestate babies and others can inseminate--but they are not bound by the definitions of man/male and woman/female and that the primordial sexual drive (sees pleasure principle) does not influence them. It is interesting at some points in the story, but other times it's just weird and creepy. Like, at one point the book claims that many of the female characters, if not all of them, have an inherent maternal drive.

So...those are my thoughts on the world's most famous sci-fi novel. I think the next time I read Heinlein I'll take a stab at one of his juveniles and then I'll go into I Will Fear No Evil.

"Nine times out of ten, if a girl gets raped, it’s at least partly her own fault." The most quoted sentence from this book.

He's right it is. A woman should shroud herself in black, even wear a veil over her eyes and for extra protection she should wear a big size of Doc Martin boots so it could be a man under the shroud (Michael Jackson used to do that) and always be accompanied when she goes out. Which should be rarely. Very rarely. When she is in the house (most of the time) she should have the view through windows obscured and a chain on the door. No man who is not related to her should enter. Not workmen, not the police, not her son's friends from school. No one. Then she won't be raped.

If she doesn't do all of the above, and she she is raped it is obviously her fault. If she does do all of the above and she is raped, then she should examine her conscience and see if there was something else she could have done to protect herself and didn't.

This sounds like Saudi Arabia right? Or Afghanistan or any of those countries. This is because I was reading how there are very few rapes in these countries. It wouldn't have anything to do with the harsher penalties that the courts often apply to the victim rather than the rapist would it?  Rape in Saudi Arabia worth reading this in it's (short) entirety.

I suppose if you hold the attitude of it must be her fault '9 times out of 10' her punishment is just and knowing that, she isn't going to complain. Is this the world Heinlen, a large number of British and Caribbean judges (I don't know about American ones so much) would like to see? I don't think so, but then they still blame women. "She was drunk", "she wore a short skirt", "she was out alone at night", or even simply, "she was out", "she opened the door to a workman", she, she, she... Normal men don't rape, they like the woman to enjoy sex too. Rape is a crime of assault and violence. Normal men who like the idea of hard, violent sex like women who enjoy that kink too. Rape is never, ever, ever the response to lust by a normal man.

It would be best if a woman home-schooled her daughters so that they are never exposed to risk but since they will not be going out very much, probably education beyond reading, writing and using a computer is pointless as housework, cooking and childcare will be all she really needs and she can get that from the endless reality shows she will no doubt watch as there isn't anything else much to do. A lot of men in the world would like to see this, minus the computer use. A lot of men in the world actually enforce this on women. And they still have rape in those countries.

The book was brilliant and I read it years before I had my consciousness raised (horrible phrase). Just glanced at it again today and was reading some reviews and this rant just bubbled up, as they do.

5 stars for being a brilliant book. 1 star for attitude towards women, total misogyny. Average 3 stars.

n  “Nine times out of ten, if a girl gets raped, it’s at least partly her own fault.” (511)n

Perhaps this is the single most quoted statement from this work, and also the statement by which Heinlein is critiqued and berated, the same statement by which this philosophically charged work is sullied by 1-star ratings. Whether by inadvertent straying into a faulty conception and erroneous application of intentional fallacy or the failure to recognize that Heinlein sought this work to stand as historicization of the prevailing attitudes at the time of writing juxtaposed with those of the future, as represented by the Man from Mars, the loss of substance predicated upon such mistakes are saddening.

Most reviews needlessly nitpick this book by implacably quoting sexist remarks offered to us by a cantankerous Jubal, who symbolized the attitude of a bigoted past, but that is missing the big picture, and missing the very idea this book seeks to impart. That is the point, to present homophobic, sexist, resistant-to-change personas that stand for the past, because in the end, we see that Jubal, is opened up to a new philosophy, divested of all improprieties and finds himself realigning his beliefs, a belief which is open to change.

By doing so, Heinlein, through Jubal and the Man from Mars, asks the reader, by extension, to reexamine beliefs and conventions. To disregard this by literally focusing on the sexism is to lose the quintessential aspect of the book.

See beyond the literal. Challenge the conventions.



This book is included in The Hugo Awards Reading List

This review, along with my other reviews, has been posted at imbookedindefinitely

Another classic that I can live without. I read this book because it was recommended (by every science fiction source out there). This was one of Heinlein's weakest (in my opinion) and in spite of all these kudos...I "greatly dislike" this one.

Why? I really didn't get into it from the word go. It's not really representative of (at least most of) Heinlein's work. It's slow moving, preachy, and for me just flat annoying. I didn't like the "Oh so loved" main character, and didn't get into the story.

My opinion...didn't like it, can't recommend it. Decide for yourself I suppose.

Robert Heinlein was a good friend of AI legend Marvin Minsky (check out his people page! It's interesting!), and I've heard that they often used to chat about AI, science-fiction, and the connections between them. Here's a conversation I imagine them having some time between 1961, when Stranger in a Strange Land was published, and 1966, when The Moon is a Harsh Mistress appeared:

"Bob, this book's not so bad, but I felt it could have been so much better! OK, love the idea of the guy from Mars, who doesn't understand how people work and has to learn the most basic things about emotions, society, etc from first principles. You have some good stuff there. But I think you got a bit distracted with the super-powers and the sex. Sure, put in sex, all for it, but don't get Mike so involved in that part of the book. He should be more abstract I think. And I wasn't so thrilled by the fact that he never actually does anything much with his powers, except for start a minor cult and get martyred. Seems a bit negative. What does his martyrdom achieve, exactly?

Wait. I have an idea. Why don't you rewrite it so that he's an artificial intelligence? Really, that makes more sense. He's even more alien than a human raised by Martians. Oh, don't worry about that, I can help you with the technical details. Feel free to drop in at the AI Lab any time, we're all huge fans. People will be delighted. So, yes, as I was saying, he needs to do something. Maybe he's... the central computer in a future Lunar society? And he helps them start a revolution, and break free from Earth's tyranny? Even though what he's really most interested in is understanding how humor works? I don't think you need to change that much else. Call him Mike again by all means, so that people see the link. And you should absolutely martyr him at the end. Only, I think this time you should do it in a subtler and more ambiguous way. But sure, leave the door open about whether he's really dead."

"Hey, thanks Marvin! Terrific ideas! You know, sometimes I think you should be the science-fiction writer, and I should be the AI researcher. I'll definitely come by soon. With a draft, I feel inspired. Going to start as soon as I put the phone down. Take care!"

I am delightfully surprised with Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" and the places in my mind it had taken me, placed me and left me. It is a really powerful novel; and also a very influential one as well. I can easily see how and why this novel was hip and cool to read during the so called "hippie movement" era.

I am very curious however, if this book is close to at all with the free lovin', peace and love ideology and attitude that supposedly many people had during this time? And if so, it somewhat gives me a better understanding of how all these people came to their belief system.

It is still radical to me; but the beliefs I have right now would be just as radical to the people in the 60's and in the 70's.

I can almost grok it but not completely... maybe someday? But thou art God, and never thirst, my Brother's.

Ratings:-

Apparently a classic of the sci-fi cannon, I'd never heard of this book until it came up on a book club here. It took me a long time to read only because of lack of time, and a rather annoying trait the author has that I'll go into later.

This is one of those books that tells us more about the period it was written in than anything else, so it's important to note that it was first published in 1961 and later again in 1968 - when moon fever was running high and people seemed to have high expectations for human achievement.

Events are set in an undisclosed future but the older characters seem to remember the first moon landing, so I wouldn't be surprised if Heinlein was thinking of it being set around about now. With a mix of very daggy technology like "stereo tanks" (TVs) and large, clumsy listening devices, alongside hover crafts and spaceships to Mars, the scope of the setting is hampered by a 50s' imagination.

Stranger in a Strange Land is about Michael "Mike" Smith, the "Man from Mars", offspring of two of scientists on board the original mission to Mars, who was raised by Martians. He is more Martian than human, especially in his thinking and outlook and philosophy, when he is brought back to Earth. Heir to a shitload of money care of his parents' heritage, it's unsurprising that the bigshots on Earth are wanting to keep him locked up tight. A nurse at the hospital where he is first kept, Jill, offers him a glass of water and in that one action becomes a "water brother" - the highest accolade for Mike. She rescues him from the politicians with the help of her journalist friend Ben and takes him to the home of a grumpy, reclusive man, Dr Jubal Harshaw, who lives with three young women who serve as secretaries - Anne, Miriam and Dorcas - and two men who take care of the property - Duke and Larry.

Mike's particular talents slowly reveal: he can vanish things, including people, if he recognises there is a "wrongness" in them; he can withdraw from his own body and shut down his body so there is no heartbeat; he can teleport and think telepathically; he can absorb books in minutes and regulate his own body, making it muscular and mature at will; and so on. All of this can be done with understanding of the Martian language, which Jill starts to learn.

He's completely ignorant of human ways, of human concepts - things like jealousy, possessiveness etc. are all alien to him. He doesn't understand religions and he has never laughed.

After months on the road with just Jill, learning and "grokking", he finally knows why humans laugh and how to do it himself, and gets the human condition. It leads him to start his own "church", though it's more of a way of life open to people of all religious denominations, with free love and open mindedness, and abilities gained through mastery of the Martian language. With Mike set up as a new Messiah, a prophet, there's only one logical conclusion for this story.

As a story, Stranger in a Strange Land is enjoyable and original. Yet, as a story, it's also bogged down with sermons, with Heinlein's opinions, and a very out-of-date mentality. It reads very 60s and 70s, though it was written before then. Not as far-sighted as it would like to be! It's especially noticeable in the relations between men and women, which have that faintly liberated tinge that's all really lip service, and a great deal of sexist language. Which is ironic, really, considering Mike's free love cult. There's also an affectionate insult for a Muslim character who's nicknamed "Stinky" that I couldn't help but be offended by.

It does make it hard to read, though, when you come across lines like this, as spoken by Jill very matter-of-factly: "Nine times out of ten, if a girl gets raped, it's partly her fault." (p304) While today the statistics are more like "nine of ten times, a woman's rapist is someone she knows", the idea that it's "partly her fault" is still considered true by way too many people. To hear this come out of Jill's mouth makes it especially awful.

Another example is Jubal saying: "Pipe down, Anne. Close your mouth, Dorcas. This is not a time when women have the vote." (p382) Granted, they ignored him and did what they wanted anyway, but there're a lot of these flippant, dismissive remarks all through the book. Product of its times, sure: just not at all futuristic.

Then we come to the proselytizing, which the book is rife with. Today, reading this book, the opinions shared are very "yes, so?" - old hat, in other words. Though it is fun to read the rants, the set-up is cringe-worthy. Jubal is the main lecturer, and the characters around him serve as props. There are a great many "Huh?"s from educated and knowledgeable people so that Jubal can share his abundant wisdom. One "huh?" is okay, but when each long paragraph of Jubal is responded to with a "huh?" it gets a bit silly. Frankly, it's bad writing. It reminded me somewhat of The Da Vinci Code, which also uses characters to expound the author's theories on religion etc. at great length.

While these things did at times make it harder to read the book, essentially the book is easy to read and often quite fun too. Jubal's sermons (and when Jubal isn't around, other characters fill the role, like Ben and Sam) can be a bit heavy-handed and obvious but a lot of it I agree with, so it wasn't rubbing me up the wrong way. Mike is a challenging character to write, because in order to write a naive, ignorant character to this extent, you need to be incredibly self-aware. Heinlein has fairly good success here, and Mike's growth, maturation, development and resolutions fit the character and work. He has charisma and is definitely intriguing; yet because he lacks the human flaws, he's also somewhat unapproachable and alien: a good balance to achieve.

An innocent and naive Marsian is heavily influenced and changed by getting in contact with humankind, a weird kind of hero´s journey to the shoals of primate nature.

I would call it possibly his best work, as it deals with sexual freedom, the development of tribalistic rituals, colonialization and property rights, and has a character that goes through a development curve and isn´t kind of always the same without changes as in his other novels.

How religion, paganism, and consumerism could fuse is an always welcomed topic in sci-fi and Heinlein added his version of it to the varieties. It was his declared intention to provoke the stiff moralizers of that time and much of the influence of his work could be led back to his conscious provocation of scandals. Or it was just for the art, but I objectively think that this is the red line through all of his works, to boost his sales by beeing progressive and just wait for the bigots and their bite reflexes while counting his money.

Heinlein had already clumsily been dealing with nakedness as a sexual topic in „The puppet masters“, and the improvement regarding integrating that element more subtle is visible. Now it are more the elements of free love, alternative lifestyles, and breaking of conventions that are in the main focus.

He didn´t write Sci-Fi like Asimov and Clarke, that did worldbuilding, but just transferred timeless human problems with sexuality, politics, religion, ethics, and philosophy to a period of the future and didn´t include a cultural revolution that would normally come with a new age. Including that would have forced him to do more plotting and storyboard work to get the quicker flow of today´s series, something he didn´t want or could do.

Because there will always be controversy around Heinleins´ work and changing world views, I want to add some personal opinion at the end of each review of one of his works.

It seems a bit as if Heinlein had been a lifelong searcher for the right ideology, as he switched from one extreme to the other, leaving marks of it throughout all of his works. This is the biggest contrast to others, who kept their work clean from bias and agenda and it certainly built both his legend, fanbase, and critics by provoking and polarizing. Of course, it´s the freedom of art to integrate serious elements, as long as they are not dangerous, but the thin red line tends to be pretty blurry and while some see him as a visionary for alternative society models the others describe him as a conservative, hate-filled, insecure man.

I don´t really care what his motives might have been, his work is something special and different, it´s just a prime example of why professional artists should keep their work clean from personal agendas, because that just, justifiably, feeds the trolls and ruins ones´ reputation as for example seen with the great three titans of sci-fi. Asimov: robots, psychohistory, foundation. Clarke: epic, subtle, philosophical, each time reading finding new depths, extremely complex. Heinlein: Meh, his writing was average, but did you know what kind of mindset he had regarding... See? While people will endlessly debate about the ingenuity of and inspiration from Asimovs´and Clarkes´work, they will remember Heinlein as the kind of strange uncle with borderline attitudes.

Tropes show how literature is conceptualized and created and which mixture of elements makes works and genres unique:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...

Overlong piece of cardboard. Absolutely terrible.

Pedantic, banal, and frequently offensive. All the characters but one were flat. The one character with any actual character was a preachy asshole who looks a lot like a mouthpiece for the author. The plot was boring and completely squandered the premise. The prose was dull and the philosophy was cynical and tyrannical.

The book is transparently a playing out of the author's junior high, male power fantasies, while trying to be religiously subversive (emphasis on trying). Incessantly toxic and misogynistic, with smatterings of racism and homophobia for fun (and presented as such). The finale--the moment of supposed emotional culmination--was the hamfisted Jesus 2.0 martyrdom of the sex-cult ubermensch, who might as well have been conceived of by Ayn Rand.

Lowlights include stating that rape is often the fault of women and the planned selling of a baby because she is female. Additionally, the ridiculous exclamation of "Thou Art God" by the Martian man during coital climax, and a lengthy discussion between the preachy asshole and a Muslim linguist (referred to as "Stinky") about whether the four women present have souls and whether they are pretty enough to be Hooris (the virginal maidens of Paradise) followed by the sequential proposition of each by "Stinky". There is also a scene of coercive sex featuring what is essentially telepathic (and supposedly loving) group rape of the old preachy asshole... but, of course, he likes it.

Outside of the appalling moments, the story is rather mundane and can be summed up in several episodes as 1) a lengthy stay at a hospital, 2) a political conference, 3) a stint in a carnival, 4) the rise of a semi-religious sex cult, and then 5) the hamfisted conclusion.

The man from Mars has a couple of impressive powers, which he uses initially to innocently kill some people, but then subsequently he uses them primarily to undress people, dupe "marks" out of their money at a carnival, induce others to join his cult, and to dictate a Martian dictionary. There's very little in the way of truly speculative fiction here and it mostly consists of sock-puppet dialogue. Also, the chapter endings were awkward.

I wished to cease reading this continually, but persevered in order to say just how terrible it is. It is certifiable trash. If you own this book, burn it. If you're considering reading it, don't. I have read this book to save you. It is no wonder people thought so little of science fiction.

I must admit that I had to stop at around page 150 and that I could not read this book to the end, thing that I try hard to avoid doing.
Firstly, I could not stand the just-under-the-surface sexism and chauvinism of the text. This might be, to some extent, somewhat forgivable in a masterpiece like Asimov's Foundation series (IMO), but when appearing in a lesser book, and especially when compounded with other issues, it becomes a showstopper.
The characters are monochromatic shallow caricatures to which I could not even begin to relate, the plot is frankly boring, not in the least credible, and quite predictable.
At page 150 I was left wondering what the heck I was doing wasting my time on this cultural fossil out of the fortunately bygone period when, as it appears in the book, the greatest aspiration of women was to obtain the admiration of the available alpha male or, even better, get a marriage proposal.

Lifes too short for this.
Maybe some books just age terribly and time hasn't been kind to this. I liked the concept but just found it a terrible pain to read, and it was just annoying in large parts.
The political satire the author tries to make are just a bit too ham fisted and the story just doesn't seem important at all. The whole grok word thing just felt cheap randomly substituting one word for for other random words doesnt hint an Alien language just a lazy author and it just got really old really quick.
None of the characters even the Martian lead Smith were worthy of giving a crap about and just plod along with nothing interesting to do but occasionally philosophize in an overblown way.
It may have had impact at the time of its release but the quality of scifi has increased infinitely since this was seen as top drawer and it pales in comparison to what has followed .
This book reminded me of those times you are stuck talking to a drunk who thinks he is vastly superior to you and is imparting untold wisdom of the ages but is really just talking crap.
Basically you can grok this book up your grok and grok it.