STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND:

[j d worthington]

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.

Hazel Stone, anyone...?

 

[Window Bar]

Stranger in a Strange Land was a pioneering novel. So much of what we take for granted in sexuality and politics was quite revolutionary 40+ years ago when the novel was written.

Sex can pleasurable? Even for women? Nahhh.
You can do sleep-overs without a wedding? Nahhh.
You don't owe knee-jerk political loyalty just 'cause you're told to? Nahhh.
All mind-altering experiences aren't bad? Nahhh.

Whether or not the novel is one of the best is almost irrelevant when it's one of the most powerful. For influencing the 20th Century, it's right up there with 1984, Lady Chatterly's Lover, The Grapes of Wrath.... (okay, the list is long enough).

-- WB

 

[Jon Sprunk]

SIASL has long been a favorite of mine. While appearing dated on the surface, it is more timeless than most of the classics you'll encounter.

As someone remarked, it is a "modern" re-telling of a very old story. There's nothing new under the sun. It's all in how you present it.

 

[Hober Mallow]

I'm reading this now for the first time. Its the unedited version and I'm 200 pages into it. So far, it's quite excellent and I can't put it down. This is my first Robert Heinlein book. I'll probably end up reading Time Enough For Love next. Eventually, I want to read Starship Troopers and The Puppet Masters.

 

[J-Sun]

If you don't already know this, you may appreciate knowing that there's a common consensus that Heinlein's books fall into at least early and late periods - there's not much consensus on what it means, but I and many others don't like late Heinlein like we do early Heinlein. And TEFL is late-style. And long. And kind of expects you to have read Methusaleh's Children - which is early and short - and others.

Silly PS, but I just had to say that I love your cylon av - I image-searched for the full-size and saved it - and that's a great nick, too.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Silly PS, but I just had to say that I love your cylon av - I image-searched for the full-size and saved it - and that's a great nick, too.

Thanks. Also, my first choice was Hari Seldon but the name was already taken.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Finished. I have to wonder what was cut out from the unedited version. Great book.

** SPOILER ALERT **

The ending was a bit predictable (he becomes a martyr). However, I'm left wondering if the Martian "Old Ones" will destroy earth...its left open-ended. Also, I'm not sure how the heaven/after-life Foster, "Junior" and Mike all tie into the story.

 

[j d worthington]

Finished. I have to wonder what was cut out from the unedited version. Great book.

** SPOILER ALERT **

The ending was a bit predictable (he becomes a martyr). However, I'm left wondering if the Martian "Old Ones" will destroy earth...its left open-ended. Also, I'm not sure how the heaven/after-life Foster, "Junior" and Mike all tie into the story.

You might want to go right from this into an earlier Heinlein story, Beyond This Horizon, for a clue on that one... in conjunction with his juvenile novel, Red Planet. I won't say more, as the discovery of this little idea circulating through several of Heinlein's works is something which, with rare exceptions, should be one of those unexpected joys of one's own....

As for the predictability... I don't think it was ever intended to be anything of a surprise, really. I don't see how it could have taken any other course; such would have negated the entire thrust of the novel...

 

[Moonbat]

I have just finished reading Stranger In A Strange Land and I really enjoyed it. I particularly liked the first two thirds of the novel, I was very impressed by it and at times was over awed by its brilliance. It was truly a master work of sci-fi.
But...
The last third dropped off in quality, it did descend into long winded monologues from the characters and I agree that I found Mike less interesting once he had learned how to laugh.
The skill that the novel starts with is impressive, the witness thing and some of the notions about the future don't seem out of place even now. the only point I found that was out of place was that Mike kept going to libraries to get his knowledge, but you can't blame Heinlein for not predicting the internet.
I thought there was some sexism, but not loads, although I was shocked to read one of the women actually say that 9 out of 10 women contributed to their own rape, I thought that was atrocious.
I wasn't so keen on the sexual side of the religion/cult/church that Mike set up, as I think it was a little crazy to assume that all people should kiss (I think these were french kisses) when meeting, nor should a man and wife feel better about their marriage when they allow each other to sleep around.
there were some wholly Christian influences on Mike's story and I was actually surprised to see him martyred, I thought he would live on and change the world.
My version of the book states, on the front cover, that 'they' tried to ban it. I can see why when you compare the story of Mike to Jesus and the openly sexual nature of his enlightenment.
Some parts do hold a spiritual truth, thou art God.

All in all a very good book, and great read and worth the painful final third just to have complete it. Truly a master work of Sci-fi.

 

[Vertigo]

If you don't already know this, you may appreciate knowing that there's a common consensus that Heinlein's books fall into at least early and late periods - there's not much consensus on what it means, but I and many others don't like late Heinlein like we do early Heinlein. And TEFL is late-style. And long. And kind of expects you to have read Methusaleh's Children - which is early and short - and others.

Interesting comment on the two periods. Funnily enough I read most of his early stuff when I was in my teens and loved them and most of his later stuff in my late twenties and also loved them. I would say he tended to get much more philosophical in his later books. Some of the ones that stand out for me were Stanger in a Strange Land, Time Enough For Love (loved that one myself though definitely best to read Methusaleh's children first), I will Fear No Evil (stange idea that one especially for its time) and Podakayn of Mars. Haven't read any of his stuff for a long time now but might just get back into re-reading it sometime.

 

[iansales]

Legend has it that by his later period RAH had sufficient clout because if his sales that editors were much more reticent about editing him. The early juveniles were heavily edited, and the better for it.

 

[j d worthington]

I wasn't so keen on the sexual side of the religion/cult/church that Mike set up, as I think it was a little crazy to assume that all people should kiss (I think these were french kisses) when meeting,

This was another Christian reference, to what is called the "holy kiss":

Holy kiss - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

nor should a man and wife feel better about their marriage when they allow each other to sleep around.

Again, some sects of early Christianity practiced forms of polygamy, and other cultures have held that it is wrong to consider one's mate one's exclusive property. Heinlein himself apparently tended toward the "free love" idea (though this has been debated), and I'd say here he was promoting a serious questioning of one of the things which is so taken for granted in our culture... but not in many another.....

there were some wholly Christian influences on Mike's story and I was actually surprised to see him martyred, I thought he would live on and change the world.

The implication is that he did. That final chapter is not an oversight or a goof; it is central to one of the themes Heinlein explores in his books over and over (cf., as mentioned before, Beyond This Horizon, as an example).

Ian: I'd say that's just it: legend. From what I understand from those who have seen his original papers, the facts don't support that interpretation (I emphasize that qualifier because I have not done any serious research into the question in years, and new evidence may have come to light)....

 

[AE35Unit]

I must re-read this soon!

 

[iansales]

JD, those I've heard from who've read both versions of Podkayne of Mars that the edited (originally published) version is better. And in Grumbles from the Grave, RAH freely admits he reworked stuff to editorial dictat - he was proud of his willingness to do so.

 

[j d worthington]

JD, those I've heard from who've read both versions of Podkayne of Mars that the edited (originally published) version is better. And in Grumbles from the Grave, RAH freely admits he reworked stuff to editorial dictat - he was proud of his willingness to do so.

I would agree that the first published of Podkayne is better... but not by a great deal. Nor was that a case of "wordiness" or didacticism, but more the ending, which was quite grim in the original, hence the editorial request for a change. As for his willingness to make such cuts; yes, as someone who considered himself a professional writer, this was very much the case. But, again, according to the various things I've read over the years by people who have seen his original papers, very few of his early works tended toward those long didactic passages so often commented on in his later books; this was a development of something which was always inherent in Heinlein's writing, but writing for the sff magazines and the like, he tended to not give free rein to it as he did when his novels were later on published as novels, rather than serialized in magazines and the like. Such passages are quite common in most world literature, and certainly in novels outside the genre which tended toward a philosophical or social-commentary cast. Nineteenth-century novels, especially, are chock-a-block with the things, and what Heinlein was doing with his later novels was, in many ways, a modern version of that school of writing.

Incidentally, his original version of The Puppet Masters is, in several ways, much more powerful than that first published, where such passages were cut out. He got into some things which truly challenged the boundaries of the time, and even the atmosphere of the whole was a great deal more tense and gritty. It also was much smoother, whereas the originally published version was rather choppy in places.

At any rate, the point is that, while Heinlein did made alterations at editorial request, the evidence I've seen indicates that it was seldom (though not never) in the realm of those long dialogues (or at times diatribes) such as one sees in his later work, but rather other things, such as toning own some of the explicitness or the sheer grim quality of some of the incidents in his work. That part, it would seem, is largely myth due to the change in tone and structure between his earlier and later work; but when one looks at it, that later work is actually more of a development of the approach he used in those earlier pieces as well, but given more room to breathe and address the ideas he felt he wished to discuss. And the fact that nearly all of those later books not only had relatively high sales (often very high sales), but often stayed in print for prolonged periods, tends to argue against the idea that this was a mistake on his part.

 

[Connavar]

The originally published version Podkayne of Mars has its ending edited from being grim ?

I wouldnt want to go near books where they changed the ending....

 

[j d worthington]

The originally published version Podkayne of Mars has its ending edited from being grim ?

I wouldnt want to go near books where they changed the ending....

Sorry, I wasn't clear there. The original (published) ending left it ambiguous whether or not Poddy would survive; in Heinlein's original, she will recover. The revision cut out Uncle Tom's speech to her father, which repeats something Heinlein had said many times elsewhere; and it also shortened the bit about Clark's interaction with the "fairy" cub.

However, the grimness comes in where Clark is concerned. Uncle Tom's warning to their parents, and the fact that Clark simply doesn't get what he is talking about, is one of the darkest possible endings I can think of. There is a faint ray of hope that Poddy's self-sacrifice may, just possibly, turn the tide... but it is very, very doubtful. And so what you may be dealing with is a very smart, very savvy, sociopath. Heinlein leaves that one open to question, but with the very strong impression that, if Clark is to be "saved", it will be touch-and-go.

I think the problem with this (for most people) is that the original ending has a bit less impact on the heartstrings, especially when it comes to Podkayne herself. As it was originally published, what has happened to her has a very painful emotional impact and leaves a lump in the throat. In Heinlein's original, the focus shifts to Clark, who is the narrator of the postlude (in both versions); you are relieved to find Poddy will be all right (eventually), but then the alteration to Clark turns things into a much darker vein than they have (obviously) been up to that point. You can feel sorry for Podkayne in the first published version, but even if she dies, she goes out with nobility and kindness. She may be a bit of a Pollyanna, but she also represents the best tendencies of human beings to give of themselves. In the original Heinlein version, Clark represents just the opposite, and all the little things (which have, up to this point, seemed somewhat satirically or even cynically humorous) suddenly come home as a ghastly reversal of this idea.

I can see where, it being published with the thought of it as a juvenile, such an ending would be deemed out of place; but I think each ending has its strengths. As far as sheer artistry, though, I think Heinlein had it right, and the publishers had it right as far as popularity was concerned. Both have a fair amount of impact, but the first published version was more immediately emotionally impactful; while the ending as originally written has a subtler, delayed -- and quite possibly horrific -- impact instead.

By the way, you can find the novel as originally published, along with Heinlein's original ending, in a Baen edition first published in August 1993 (pb edition in June 1995).

 

[surr]

is this new-utopia.com relay a palce for heinline folks or are it just a fraud ? do dont look like survalist/frointer towen place as some said heinlien was politicly as sombody said he was that type of libertarin

maybe sombody allredy did sue them ?

sorry enghlis are nto my first langues

 

[j d worthington]

is this new-utopia.com relay a palce for heinline folks or are it just a fraud ? do dont look like survalist/frointer towen place as some said heinlien was politicly as sombody said he was that type of libertarin

maybe sombody allredy did sue them ?

sorry enghlis are nto my first langues

I wouldn't say that Heinlein was either a survivalist or, strictly speaking, a libertarian (though that last may be closest to what I have gathered his real feelings were). He does indeed pose such societies and situations in his writing, but his own actual politics is something he played rather close to the chest. What one can say is that he had a strongly individualist slant on things, highly influenced by some of the more radical writings of the fathers of the American Revolution (e.g., Thomas Paine)....