Customer Reviews

Stranger in a Strange Land

5 star:		(272)
4 star:		(55)
3 star:		(48)
2 star:		(41)
1 star:		(37)

 

 

A novel that begins with the promise of cultural exploration instead quickly devolves into heavy-handed philosophical prolesthetizing masquerading as social commentary. In typical Heinlein fashion, the author thinly veils the outright declaration of his hedonistic and anti-theistic views in stilted dialogue. Furthermore, he characterizes any and all viewpoints that contradict his own as "narrow-minded" and "opressive" while pretending to be an open-minded champion of free inquiry. One might argue that this book is worth reading because of the impact it made upon the hippie culture of its day; I would remind such a person that Chairman Mao also made a significant impact on hippie culture.
Though this book serves as a good example of the bloated, sophomoric philisophical tracts that posed as science fiction throughout much of the sixties, I would not reccomend it to anyone looking for good reading. It is pompous, long-winded, morally backward, intellectually deficient, and eminently dull. A monumental waste of time.

I can't believe I managed to finish reading this tripe. Basically as others have said, the first half was an intriguing idea. The second half however shows what a simplistic world view Heinlein had.

The Plot: Basically martian man begins a Scientology/Branch Davidians cuasi-socialist-cult where everybody melts into one entity and becomes happy by freeing their mind and having sex, lots of sex. Who gives a (blip) anyway. All this is explained in long-winded conversations where one idiot makes a comment only to be refuted by an all wise sage, and the sage is never wrong.

Boring, boring, boring as hell. If Heinlein had any sense of irony he would have seen that martian man's cult was utter stupidity and would have made fun of it in the last half.

Don't buy this book, get something that matters.

and waiting for fullness won't make it any better. The problem is not merely the pedantic, libertarian, psuedo-intellectual, and mysogynistic man qua Heinlein character of Jubal Harshaw. Nor is is it merely Stranger's naive serial/lady-killer protagonist, Michael Valentine Smith. In fact, it's difficult to pinpoint precisely where Stranger goes wrong because there is nary a single aspect of the book that is not either, at worst, offensive and obscene or, at best, fundamentally misguided.

Beneath Smith's Sebastian Flyte pretty-boy exterior beats the heart of a fascist. And somehow Smith's fascism (fully endorsed by the crotchety Harshaw/Heinlein) fits perfectly with Harshaw's/Heinlein's professed libertarianism. How can this be, you ask? Because Harshaw/Heinlein believes that libertarianism is only a good thing when he is not the gov't. But with the reigns of power in his own hands he will gladly rule over every aspect of his citizens' lives with militaristic gusto.

This fundamental inconsistency apparent everywhere in Stranger seems to result from the author's belief that the value of a human person is determined solely by what benefits he can provide for the collective (where "collective" means Smith/Harshaw/Heinlein). Stranger rejects the notion that each human person has an intrinsic dignity. People are worth what they produce, period. Smart people are worth more than dumb people, pretty people worth more than ugly, the talented worth more than the untalented, and the people who agree with Smith/Harshaw/Heinlein worth more than the rest of humanity combined.

Consequently, it is ok for Smith to kill a dissenter, because in that dissenter there is a "wrongness." And it's ok for Smith to hop from bed to bed and objectify every woman he meets, because pleasing Smith is a "goodness."

It frightens me that so many people find this book profound. I can only pray that they really don't understand the novel and just think that it would be groovy to live in a world where shy nerds can become all-powerful magnets of pneumatic women.

Stranger in a Strange Land was a book that tried to do many, many things and almost, but not quite, entirely failed on every level. Admittedly, it introduces some intriguing ideas about society and religion. But does that make it a good book? IMHO, the most important factor in a good book is the plot. If you're looking for excitement, this is the wrong book. Almost half the book is interesting dialogue, mostly with cynic Jubal Harshaw. The other half is bad dialogue, what Harshaw would compare to cotton candy--there is no substance, just pseudo-religious mumbo-jumbo. How many pages are wasted with nonsense about grokking and "Thou are God"? The most exciting thing that happens are people disappearing, and even then no one seems to care much. As for characters, there is no one to really care about. Is the main character supposed to be Smith, even though we never really learn anything about him? Or is it Jill? Or Harshaw? None of the characters are explored deeply enough for anyone to care what happens to them. It seems like Heinlein also tried to throw in political commentary, though it's completely unclear what he was trying to say. Is this Douglas crooked or not? For a classic novel, SIASL seems to be thrown together haphazardly with no concern for plot, character development, setting, or anything essential to a good book, so long as it questions religion and society. Meanwhile, it tells us nothing about our own society or Mars'.

WHAT A WASTE! Heinlein writes 226 wonderful, imaginative pages about a human born and raised on Mars and his return to earth. There is now a New World order called the Federation that behaves like a repressive banana republic. They plan to eliminate the Man from Mars because he threatens their plans to own and colonize the red planet. There are flying taxis landing on rooftops, and video telephones, and waterbeds. Michael Smith is the Man from Mars and he has to learn about earth. Because of his genetically superior parents, and his superior upbringing in a nest on Mars, Michael has the powers of a super hero. He can make guns and men disappear when he senses the “wrongness” in them. Of course, he senses the rightness in the main characters. He has no inhibitions when it comes to .... He is fascinated with religion and philosophy. He has complete control over his body, and can discorporate (die) at will. So what does he do. He tries his hand at being a magician, and ends up as an evanglist.

Unfortunately this book is 438 pages long. Unfortunately, Heinlein’s imagination failed him when it comes to women, ..., science, and religion. Unfortunately, Heinlein didn’t write well when he wrote this book.

Others reviewers have picked up on the sexism of the statement, “Nine out of ten times, if a girls gets ..., it’s partly her fault.” But, there are so many more examples.

Other reviewers have picked up on Heinlein’s “cookie cutter” characters. I agree.

Other reviewers have called this book an “adolescent ... fantasy.” I agree. Heinlein groks free love, nudity and water brothers. All that is missing from the 1960’s is the word groovy. Perhaps it is replaced by grok.

Others have called it a diatribe against religion. I agree. His main character, Michael mimics the Christ, but resembles Charles Manson.

To read this book and enjoy it, you have to forget the SCIENCE in science fiction. I just couldn’t do it.

There are so many books, and so little time. I suggest that you do not waste yours reading this one

Without a doubt, Heinlein was the greatest science-fiction writer of all time. Starship Troopers, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, The Green Hills of Earth -- all brilliant classics.

Stranger in a Strange Land is the most boring SF novel I've ever read, though. In this book, NOTHING HAPPENED (sex excepted). Starship Troopers begins with the line, "I always get the skakes before a drop," and doesn't stop moving until the last page. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is an enthralling, exciting war story, too.

In Stranger, people sat around and talked. Sometimes they had sex. A few people got killed by magic.

NOTHING HAPPENS IN THIS BOOK. Read the above mentioned Heinleins; not this one.

The first couple of sections are very good. Of course, you have to suspend disbelief, but this is easy as long as you just redefine mars as a planet in another galaxy or something. Science proved wrong alot of what was written in this book. Stereotubes? The were TV's then. Like a good reader though, I can suspend disbelief and believe that people call the TV a stereo tube.

Some where in the second or third section the book turns to complete crap. It becomes Heinlein's reactions to religion and philosophy. Most religions are blasphemed and free love orgies run rampant. The way Mike makes things just disappear has me worrying about the environment and I really don't see what humans are doing know as that damaging. Did I mention this book is sexist. Women are nurses, strippers, secretaries, rites of passage in new religions. The purpose of women in this story is to serve men, even sexually. (...) But every man realizes that this is just a male fantasy.
Read something else.

The men are powerful and rich, the women are willing subordinates who happen to adore nudity. Orgies ensue. This story didn't even really need a man from Mars.

I haven't read this in about 10 years, since my father gave me an unabridged edition, and loved the nuances I didn't really pick up on as a teenager. It's a good tale, with Jubal probably the most well-rounded character of the huge cast. I love his ramblings on religion, especially when he declares that he figures he'll get to the end and figure out that Mumbo Jumbo of the Congo was the correct deity after all. Mild male chauvanism just fits the nature of the tale (and the time period it was written).

I picked this up last year as part of my attempts to educate myself on the classic sci-fi novels. Before I started in on Ray Bradbury I tackled this. It even made that Billy Joel song that was so popular in middle school. How could it go wrong?

50 pages in I was hoping the bad writing got better. It did not. Most of the novel is simply bad preaching disguised as a sci-fi novel. I wasn't bothered by the ideas in the book as some defenders might want to suggest. I've participated on discussion lists about polyamory and religion. So I found nothing new here. Maybe if Heinlein could construct more than a straw man argument for the other side his preaching would be easier to swallow.

As bad as the so-called story is, the so-called characterizations are even worse. I had hopes for Jubal at first, but he proved to be less of a character and more of a caricature. (...) .

I still recommend this, despite the fact I hated it. You cannot have love without hate. And maybe if you are still 13 years old this will seem like a revelation. Time and experience have revealed this true nature of this novel to me.