STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND:

[j d worthington]

Brian -- no, the dead Fosterites, etc., aren't really a digression. In some ways, they -- and the connection to what happens later in the book, are actually the linchpin of the whole thing, and the connection I mentioned in an earlier post to several of his other works, including Beyond This Horizon. Unfortunately, it's not something one is likely to get the first time around -- I certainly didn't -- but one way to look at it is the Earth equivalent of the Martians' Old Ones, the adult Martians, as it were. Heinlein is doing something that threads through the book, but on a very quiet level.....

 

[steve12553]

You guys are gonna make me reread a five hundred plus page novel because it's been 15 years since I last read it and don't remember enough to know what everybody is talking about. I remember alot of it and remember that I enjoyed it but couldn't begin to add to this discussion.

 

[j d worthington]

That sort of thing seems to happen a lot around here....

 

[sanityassassin]

I am midway through this novel and like previous comments the first half of the book is great a really enjoyable read but the second half does seem laden with theology and I have started to slow down my reading of it. I can see he is trying to put across how strange religion is to someone who has absoulutly no understanding of a concept totally alien to him. I can see what see it, but I don't think he has done it in the best way.

on a side note I am reading the uncut version but what parts are edited out in the original published version

 

[Brian G Turner]

Yep - still not finished. It's hard to keep reading when it's lost all real momentum.

 

[sanityassassin]

I have finished it and the end is a little predictable and without giving away the end it reminds me of a more modern version of a very old story

 

[Brian G Turner]

Finally finished it - good to see Heinlein remembered the story at the end, even though the ending was inevitable.

Despite my concerns, though, I was left with the feeling that I'd read a great book. Maybe not a great novel, but the way he filled it with ideas and commentary attempting to relate to humanity, religion, and spirituality I found stimulating, even if I didn't always agree with it.

The only aspect I didn't see a need for in the uncut version was the angels scenes - bit too sitcom'ish, and didn't seem necessary to me.

Overall, I wouldn't have any qualms reading it again, but I might skip a few scenes.

 

[ElJayDee]

I read SIASL over 30 years ago and have kept its, to me, two major concepts with me ever since; groking and Perfect Witness.
The perfect witness concept is valuable in all aspects of life, business, tourism, buying a house ... Never assume that everything is as the bit you can see, or more importantly, are shown.
Groking is a great concept and something people should strive to do, obviously it is not currently achievable in the exact form of the book, but understanding the nature of what we come into contact with is very useful.
But, just to show you don't need to be preached at to learn, the most important life lesson I have ever been given comes from Douglas Adams' Restaurant at the End of the Universe; The SEP Field. If it is Somebody Else's Problem, I don't worry about it anymore.
Back to SIASL. Yes it is sexist and dated, but it is an important book and I would encourage anyone to read it.

 

[Gwillion]

I'm probably resurrecting a topic that everyone is sick of talking about but hey, I'm new!

I loved this book! It's one of a few that I re-read every couple of years or so. I don't profess to be an expert though as I don't tend to analyse much when I'm reading for pleasure. It's not perfect, but what is?

I have to say I didn't find it at all sexist (I'm female, honest). The only slight prejudice I picked up on was the somewhat homophobic Duke character, and that the sexual relationships are pointed out as being hetrosexual only. Again, given the era this was written in, this isn't surprising.

I also found the "witness" concept fascinating, and that it points out humour as being at the expense of someone's misfortune, even if it's only your own (not that I could do with out it).

I've only read the uncut version - it would be interesting to compare it to the original someday.

 

[The Ace]

What can I say, it's brilliant ! This is one of many reasons why I put Heinlein in my top 5 authors. Suspect politics, brilliant storytelling.

 

[engelbach]

I've been a Heinlein fan since the 1950s, when i first read The Puppet Masters and the stories in the Future History series.

Sci-fi then was not something many people were interested in. It was certainly not a lucrative field for its authors. So I was glad to see Heinlein suddenly achieve mainstream popularity when Stranger came out.

I couldn't have been more disappointed. Could this preachy, mawkish, quasi-philosophical mush really be Heinlein?

My conclusion was that he had obviously been taken over by one of the pods from The Puppet Masters, bent on revenge.

 

[Urlik]

personally I would say that SIASL is one of the best books ever not just for plot, which is great, but for the ideas and questions which it raises.

nearly all the SF worth reading is based on the question "what if.............?" and Heilein is a master at finding ways to fill that space between "if" and the question mark.
he is also great at setting the social/political/economic scene that the story is set within, quite often with just a few simple statements (excellently demonstrated in the FH series).

 

[Imitar]

I had recently ordered this book from Amazon. Someone close to me critiqued my book and told me that it sounds alot like SIASL. I'm dying to read it!

 

[manephelien]

Time for a reread I think. I read it in my late teens, almost 20 years ago.

I can't remember being put off by any overt sexism then, but I did react to a similar kind of patronizing attitude to women apparent in all Heinlein's works when I re-read Time Enough For Love last year.

 

[Urlik]

I'm not so sure that RAH is patronising towards women
to me, he seems to value women as the most important group in society and that society is there purely to for the benefit of women and children, ensuring their safety as paramount.
in many of his books, the women are much stronger characters and in most cases are far less squeamish than the men and able to think quicker on their feet.
women hold positions of power in their own right.
in Stranger, we have the case of Jubal and his harem, yet the women rule the house. sure Jubal can shout "front" and one of them will be there ready to take down dictation, Jubal is the titular boss and has three secreteries but they decide who is on duty at any time and run things far better without his interference.

yes RAH does like to have female characters that are attractive, but they aren't there just to look pretty or hang on the arm of the hero.
anyone who patronised one RAH's female characters would end up dead, if they were lucky

 

[Zanussi]

I liked it, a nice twist on the "man meets aliens" plot, and as a long standing Agnostic I had some good laughs at the squabbles going on in heaven. RH seems to delight in trying to shock his readers though and the cannibilism was a bit silly I thought, I don't know about the man's own religious beliefs but it seemed to me to be a heeavy handed parody of the Christian Host, "This is my body, eat..." etc.

I have always held that if Jesus was reborn into modern western society he would be either locked up as a lunatic or locked up for formenting religious hatred, I think the story nicely touches on the amiguity of the Messiah, we supposedly wait for him, but only if he behaves himself.

 

[manephelien]

My problem with Heinlein's women is that he was constitutionally incapable of writing about a competent, physically average or downright unattractive woman. All of his female characters, whatever their other attributes, were always attractive. That bugged me, because the implication is that a woman is only as valuable as her looks. Even Asimov managed to write about a powerful, unattractive female (Susan Calvin), although she fell into that other stereotype of a woman sacrificing a chance to have a family for her career.

 

[Urlik]

I think the short passage where Jubal weeps when he is given the statue of the Fallen Caryatid gives a much clearer insight into RAH's true feelings about the beauty of women in general.
there is also the episode in TEFL when Lazarus talks about how he was "healed" and that it was the company of a woman who was old, looked old and had a beautiful personality. it was her relaxing and comfortable company that healed him, and if anything, youthful beauty would have been a hinderance.

 

[j d worthington]

I think the short passage where Jubal weeps when he is given the statue of the Fallen Caryatid gives a much clearer insight into RAH's true feelings about the beauty of women in general.
there is also the episode in TEFL when Lazarus talks about how he was "healed" and that it was the company of a woman who was old, looked old and had a beautiful personality. it was her relaxing and comfortable company that healed him, and if anything, youthful beauty would have been a hinderance.

Or, for that matter, his numerous references to sagging breasts and stretch marks (and often wrinkles) as badges of honor, in no way detracting from the beauty of the woman -- if anything, adding to....

 

[Urlik]

in my opinion, RAH takes a lot of flak for his female characters when at the time of his writing, most female characters in books, films or on the TV were purely ornamental.
they were there to scream, faint and be rescued by the hero
to me, the women in RAH's books are attractive because they are self confidant and secure in themselves. most of the time there seems to be a secret joke between the female characters and the reader where we all know the women are in charge and the only people oblivious to this fact are the male characters.