Well, I don't quite know what the hell that was. I'd gotten it into my head at some point that you weren't anything until you got reading this out of the way, but it was probably one of the most odious reading experiences I've had in my adult life -- especially for a book I volunteered to read. One bonus star for the last five pages or so being not-quite-as-totally-awful as the rest of it, and that's about it. And I feel dumb writing a bunch of obvious shit for the five people in the world besides me who haven't read this yet.

But for those five people, I can tell you what I've learned:

1) If you have a choice between reading the version of a book that got everyone excited about it, or the unabridged version published decades later because it was the author's "preferred" version, LORD GOD READ THE SHORTER ONE. Do not make the mistake I made. "Unabridged" does not mean "cooler." It means "longer." It means "unedited, sloppy, and even questionable." But mostly it means "longer."

2) Anyone who says they're able to "look over" the unrelenting misogyny of this book is, like, freaking insane. The misogyny. is. Unrelenting. It is so completely unrelenting that I kept wondering if the whole thing was a put-on. Like, huge swaths of text about how Martian idealism will negate Earthly material needs are interrupted just to mention that even with said idealism, women will never want to stop shopping. I mean, are you kidding me? That can't be anything but trolling, right? Like, I have read books written in the past before, dudes. The delivery date on this book is no excuse for the fact that the women in this book -- I mean, I don't know how to describe it. It's crazy. It'e like they're supposed to be a different species or something. Either Heinlein is pulling the reader's leg, or he's a gender-specific sociopath.

3) This is not really a separate point, but since there's like 100 pages (at least) devoted specifically to the beauty of orgies, up to and including lady-orgies, I'm shocked at the lengths Heinlein goes to in order to emphasize that none of the male characters are gay, or would ever consider being gay. Again, it's a dated book, or whatever? But the introduction clearly states how Heinlein was trying to break every taboo he could think of, up to and including cannibalism.

Cannibalism. But no gay dudes. Even the Martian is like "Of course, as I preach the power of sexual utopia, I could never ever, never ever, never ever hook up with a dude. But I could totally teach all the ladies to be better at hooking up with dudes. I could do this by having sex with all of them."

HELL'S YEAH BRO! ALL YOU BRO!

4) Jubal Harshaw. We need to talk about Jubal Harshaw. If you talk to anyone about this book, after you get through the rampant misogyny and the no-gay-dudes and the this-book-is-terrible, some asshole will go "Yeah, but Jubal Harshaw, amirite?" Like the idea that you have one character that sort of has a personality makes up for all the other characters having less than none. Let me frame it for you this way -- at the beginning of the book, Jubal Harshaw is a hack writer living in self-imposed exile surrounded by women who are basically all secretaries / mothers / daughters / girlfriends to him. By the end of the book, the Martian cult members all believe he is the father of their Martian Jesus, and then he gets laid by a young woman who's used her spooky Martian powers to transform herself into a clone of the one female character everyone in the book is in love with.

So maybe that sounds like a cool spot to be in, right? Not to mention Harshaw is written as being the smartest person on the planet, negotiating with the media and the government in one swoop in order to protect the Martian Jesus -- not in a pure-holy-genius way, but a this-old-maverick-can-outthink-all-you-whippersnappers-and-corporate-shills kind of way. Like the pure doggone common sense of being a middle-aged fiction writer will get you a harem of mom-secretary-daughter-girlfriends, make you more powerful than the UN, and make you the father of Martian Jesus.

Heinlein was a middle-aged fiction writer when he wrote this. SO IT'S NOT EVEN YOUR WISH-FULFILLMENT. IT'S HEINLEIN'S. AND THAT DUDE'S FREAKING DEAD.

4)We need to talk about the Martian sex cult. First, I'm calling it this because it's totally what it is, even thought technically it's a bunch of humans living in sexual utopia through learning Martian mind tricks. But Martian sex cult is funnier and truer. As I said earlier, there's at least 100 pages devoted to an attempt to break down the reader's preconceived notions about sex cults not being creepy, and how they make everyone happier. But look, maybe Heinlein didn't have old episodes of "Real Sex" to watch on the internet, but now we do, okay? And sex cults are creepy, fireals. In fact, 100 pages talking about their non-creepiness does not make them less creepy. Guess what it makes them the exact total fucking opposite of.

And I'm just saying, maybe if there'd been one little guy-orgy in all those pages, like to replace all the dudes talking about how they were having sex with each other's wives? I'm just saying that would be a start. But mostly no. Because even then? You have this psychotic group-think thing that is totally mind-wipingly terrible and makes me hate everyone alive for liking anything about this book.

5) In reviewing this, I'm going through it in my mind and heart again, and you know? I fucking hate it. I fucking hate this book. I was never actually convinced that Heinlein wrote all this stupid contradictory gender-politics stuff or insane cult stuff in order to troll the reader, which would be the one way I could possibly excuse everything else. The book is ethically dishonest, Heinlein was a scumgoat, and Jubal Harshaw is a turd.

But the cover? It's pretty cool.

Stranger in a Strange Land, Robert A. Heinlein

The story of Valentine Michael Smith, a human who comes to Earth in early adulthood after being born on the planet Mars and raised by Martians. He struggles to understand the social mores and prejudices of human nature that are so alien to him, while teaching them his own fundamental beliefs. Though he is a man in his twenties, Smith looks at absolutely everything on this new planet through the ignorant eyes of a baby, and faces the job of learning how to be a human being.

تاریخ نخستین خوانش سالها پیش از امروز شاید سال1972میلادی

عنوان: غریبه‌ای در سرزمین غربت؛ نویسنده: رابرت آنسون هاین‌لاین؛ موضوع داستانهای نویسندگان ایالات متحده آمریکا - سده20م

رمان علمی و خیال انگیز «غریبه‌ای در سرزمین غربت»، اثری از «رابرت آنسون هاین‌لاین» نویسنده ی «ایالات متحده آمریکا» است، که نخستین بار در سال1961میلادی منتشر شده است؛ این اثر «هاین‌لاین»، از ستایش شده‌ ها در گونه ی ادبی علمی و خیال انگیز بوده است، و در همان سال انتشار برنده ی جایزه ی «هوگو» برای بهترین رمان علمی و خیال انگیز سال شد، اندیشه های آینده نگرانه «هاین لاین» که همانند «ژول ورن» و «آیزاک آسیموف» از زمانه ی خویش پیشروتر، و پدید آورنده ی خیالهای خویش بوده اند، آن خیالها در این کتاب جلوه گر هستند؛ کتاب در رده ی آثار خیال انگیز و برتر از دیگر کتابها بوده؛ و داستان کتاب درباره ی «والنتاین مایکل اسمیت» است، یک انسان سبز که به زمین می‌آید، او در سیاره ی «مریخ» به دنیا آمده، و توسط مریخیان بزرگوار گردیده، نویسنده در این رمان به بررسی شخصیت قصه و در جهت تحول نهایی فرهنگ زمینی می‌پردازند؛ این کتاب را سالها پیش از امروز خوانده ام باید دوباره اگر زنده ماندم به اوراق کتاب بنگرم و یادمانی نو از خوانش آن بنگارم

تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 01/02/1401هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی

One must read Heinlein's signature work to understand what all the fuss is about, from both sides.

For the RAH fans and Sci-Fi crowd, this is an excellent book, a masterpiece of the genre. For the opponents, and I understand there are many, he systematically makes a lot of folks mad, from conservatives and theologians, to feminists, and even pro-government liberals. He was way ahead of his time, and yet also rooted in a pre-war mindset that was probably infuriating to young baby boomer readers and especially to the baby boomer’s parents. But the influence on the genre and on the larger culture is unmistakable.

And the next thing is that this really transcends the science fiction genre. Heinlein, excusing his later life meanderings into the weird and sexually uninhibited, was a great writer. He uses a Sci-Fi story about a man from Mars as a vehicle for him to explore and to expound upon a great many subjects, most notably theology, ideology, social and sexual mores, and popular culture.

Love it or hate it, or don't GROK it at all, this work will no doubt inspire strong emotion, this is a powerful book and a must read for SF fans.

*** 2021 reread - Share water, brother.

This time around (I think this is the third time I’ve read it) I was picking up on both the theological vibe Bob was throwing down as well as some subtle and nuanced humor I had missed before.

The biblical and other religious references are unmistakable but I think RAH was also having some fun in a way that Kurt Vonnegut did in his inimitable novel Galapagos. We see a literary paradox where religious systems are tilted off kilter while at the same time the fundamental nature of religion is supported. The gambling and drinking Fosterites, though, is a gem in SF literature and should not be missed.

The sexuality.

It’s Heinlein and people are going to get naked and are going to get busy. Have fun with it. Misogynistic? Eh. Yes, there are a few clearly objectionable scenes, one stands out, but if someone can get past this, it’s a great book. And no doubt, Bob loved the ladies.

I need to make this an annual re-read, too much fun.

I have heard both good and bad things about this book. Overall, I did not enjoy it. The concept started out great: a human raised by Martians who is brought to Earth. His parents were part of an expeditionary team to Mars but lost contact during the mission. Twenty-five years later the sole survivor, a boy found and raised by the Martians, is discovered by another mission team and is brought to Earth.

Once on Earth he immediately becomes challenged and is viewed as the alien. His concept of interpersonal relationships, awareness, child-like speech patterns, and boundaries are very different. He had to relearn everything yet retained his psychic abilities and superior intelligence. The book gradually becomes heavily filled with sex/sexism, concepts of religion and church fanaticism, and free love. The plot is driven by the combination of these concepts to the very end.

The first part of the book was quite original and had a lot of potential. Then I felt the remainder of the book derailed by meshing these concepts in attempts to push the boundaries of social norms. I would recommend it anyway because you may have a different take on it. Thanks!

Mixed feelings here. The first half of the book reads like a suspenseful mystery/action flick with some sharp observations about language and culture clashes. And I loved it. The second half deals with whacky religion and uninhibited sex. Public nudity, open marriage, sex used for growing closer - it's all very out there and provocative, especially for 1960s. But since it's 1960 you also get a fair share of sexism. Women are often excluded from male conversations, patronised: "girl", "dearest", "child" - that's apparently the way to talk to a grown woman; and given the roles of caretakers only - cooks, secretaries and nurses. And of course the heights of their ambitions outside the church is marriage, within the church there's no place for ambitions but sex with holy people*.

So yeah, Heinlein made my inner feminist groan a lot. "Nine times out of ten, if a girl gets raped, it's partly her fault." - charming, isn't he? And don't even get me started on his ideas about religion... But the book gives plenty food for thought, technology and gadgets aren't as outdated as you'd think, and the conspiracy plot was truly gripping. So Stranger in a Strange Land - despite being irritating and infuriating at times, was never a waste of time. And I think I grok it.



______________________________________
Does that sound Mormon like to you Gretchen? I know little about Mormons, I doubt they are that extreme, but I kept imagining them as I read. And I guess they do stick with that outdated, little sexist attitude towards women. So your friend's mother definitely has a point.

This book started really well with a compelling story and whimsical characters but the narrative slows and we endure long critiques of philosophy and religion.

I don't think it's aged well either, it's pretty sexist - which I suppose is typical of the time period.

I just felt like it went from a exciting and mysterious read to just plain dull.

It's also WAY to long, which made it tedious to get through and I was reading the uncut version.

Not my jam.

I will try to keep this short, but I have a hard time concealing my distaste for this book and what it represents in the SF canon. I think that the idea that an enlightened individual creating a highly sexual new spirituality is a fantastic idea. That's just it, though. The premise is outstanding. The thing that makes me recoil is that this is a story with so much potential, that is so affected by its author's worldview that it becomes unpalatable. It's painful to me to read about a future where we have flying personal vehicles and bounce-tube elevators, but where all the doctors are still men and all the nurses are still women in cute uniforms. Or that a main character calls herself a "spinster" at 28. It's not like this was written entirely pre-women's movement -- it's not like it was unforseen that conceptions of gender and power might have shifted. It's just that you get the distinct idea that the author did not want them to shift.

Did I mention the film noir-speak? That and the overt homophobia were unnerving. That's my bit.

[UDATE, 5 years on. Maybe I'm just older and more jaded, but I feel much less outraged now that an author in 1961 would be sexist and homophobic, or hold this particular vision for a sexual revolution. I'm sure my grandchildren will view me as backwards in a bunch of ways, too, and they'll likely be right. The thing that still bugs me, why I'm not just deleting this whole grammatically problematic post, is that this book is loved as a still-relevant social critique instead of what it is: a museum piece. That's my bit, for now, anyway.]

I read this for a class (Reading in Science Fiction), with all the good reviews and the fact that it's own cover hailed it as "The Most Famous Science Fiction Novel Ever Written" I couldn't wait to read it. Now, I can read a good book in a matter of days depending on how many pages it has and what's going on; this book took me nearly six months to finish.
While it had a good idea with the character of Valentine Michael Smith and his origins, his growth, it was poorly executed. The focus should have been on him, maybe even from his point of view, but instead it kept switching from character to character giving an unbalanced, slightly unconnected feeling to the chapters. Eventually Valentine Michael ends up as almost a background character to the other characters; most especially Jubal Harshaw, who in my opinion is nothing more then a glorified version of the author himself who was narcissistic enough to believe we'd love Jubal and arrogant enough to have thought we wouldn't notice.
It's a shame that this book is written the way it was: the juvenile style of the writing takes the wonderful ideas of a martin-raised man, "Thou art God" and Groking (drinking things in so deeply they become a part of you) and ignores them in pursuit of more "important" topics such as sex and the books version of himself which may have been enjoyed back when it was written, but is now tedious and out-dated.
I'm afraid the only way I'd like this book is if the copyright runs out and it's rewritten by a competent author, but 'til then I give it two thumbs down and recommend finding something else to read.

Stranger in a Strange Land thinks more than it moves. There's tons of dialogue on philosophical topics only rarely broken up by the occasional plot-pusher. It often reminded me more of Plato's Symposium rather than the sci-fi novel I expected. I'm not saying that's bad, but sometimes when you're hit with the unexpected it throws you off and lowers the enjoyment level of the whole thing slightly. About halfway through I realized what was happening, readjusted my expectations and enjoyed the book for what it was. So, no harm, no foul.

Sex, religion, politics...all those tasty taboos and touchy topics are discussed, dissected, and often lampooned. However, without delving too deep into spoiler territory I will at least say that going in I would've expected the examination to be centered on an alien culture and people. Instead planet Earth and its people are put under the microscope. Religion receives a right going-over. Although I personally try to avoid the stuff when possible, that was the subject that, in the end, garnered most of my interest. For example, although I found it a tad melodramatic and obvious in its final culmination of the Jesus parallel Heinlein was working with, the ending took me by surprise. I mean, I "saw it coming" in a way, so perhaps it was surprise at my own emotional attachment. As "talky" as I felt the book to be and as detached as I thought I was, I found I cared about the main character Smith more than I thought I did. "No! Don't let it end like this!" might have slipped out of my inner monologue.

That being said, the book is docked one star in the rating, because in my opinion the preponderance of philosophy bandied about through out Stranger in a Strange Land is almost too much to bare. Some of it was downright delicious, some I could swallow, some I refused, while some I spat out as idealistic nonsense. Heinlein was not so naive as to believe all the dogma he wrote. He created characters to voice these disparate ideas, values, opinions, etc. Take them as you will, he seems to be saying. The important thing is that you listen with an open mind.

On a mission to read all books on a "100 Best SciFi of all time" list, I came to Stranger in a Strange Land. After hearing so much about it over the decades, I figured I would love it. Drink it in. Grok it fully.

Sadly I have to admit I threw in the towel with only 20% to go, fearing it would dissolve even further into more tedious religious speculation and surprisingly uninteresting sexual exploration. (I've read sex scenes that were awkward, destructive and even gory, but "boring" sex is definitely a first.)

This book is less sci-fi as I know and love it, and more a decidedly cerebral, and sometimes abrasive, statement about the early 1960's culture in which it was written. Call me intolerant, but there were simply too many dated statements and assumptions thrown out for me to stomach, especially when I was looking for something otherworldly, adventurous and exciting. My displeasure rippled with all the "women have their place" acceptance, rose at some comment about how nine out of ten women are in some way responsible for their rapes, and bubbled over while I tried to endure the never-ending "growing closer" nonsense.

Apparently I do not have the patience of a Martian.

Stranger in a Strange Land could have been titled more straightforwardly Jesus Christ in pre-hippie America. This hefty book is, in a nutshell, about a Man from Mars (that is: a Man from Heaven), who lands somewhere in the USA, doesn’t “grok” (that is: understand) much about human culture, but starts getting some attention, performs a couple of miracles (telekinesis, telepathy), and gathers a few followers around him. As time goes on, this small group of fans becomes a cult; the general hoi polloi gets angry at the Man from Mars because of his blasphemous Peace-and-Love doctrine and end up bumping him off; the end. Read the Gospel instead: it’s the same plot, only much shorter.

The novel is a bit surprising, coming from the author of Starship Troopers, where he displayed many militaristic right-wing opinions about society and politics. In this book, written only two years later, Heinlein seems to have shifted his stance entirely, advocating “water-sharing”, “growing closer”, “grokking in fullness”, in plain language: libertarianism, universal brotherhood and free sex. The structure of the novel, however, is very similar to that of Starship Troopers: most of it is long-winded, mushy conversations, maundering about religion, sexuality, money, art and whatever else, from one chapter to the next, with a few exciting or funny wisecracks here and there. The character of Valentine Michael Smith (aka the Man from Mars) is bland and, for all his superior powers, sounds like a half-wit. His disciples, most of them sweet bimbo-dumbo tarts (Jill, Dorcas and al.), don’t add up much colour either. Jubal Harshaw, the old loudmouthed alpha macho (possibly the author’s alter ego, just like Colonel Dubois in Starship Troopers) is a bit irritating at length, but the only one who kind of plays his cards right throughout.

In the end, and while I grok this is a much-revered landmark of classic SF, it all feels like a tedious, over-extended and over-discursive piece of narrative. Due to its subversive, satirical undertones, the book might have had some appeal to the hipster counterculture of the 1960s but has practically lost its sharpness and edge over the years. The Penguin Galaxy hardcover edition I have been reading is the revised version published originally; from what I’ve seen, the uncut version published after Heinlein’s death is longer but slightly better.

After my latest reread of Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, it took some time for me to decide how I felt about it. On the one hand, the story is innovative and thought provoking. On the other hand, the story gets clunky and is extremely sexist (something readers of Heinlein often see in his works, but usually not quite to this degree). I might revisit Stranger again someday. I like how the Martian language is presented and the idea of grokking is really fun. 3.5 stars rounded down this time.