STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND:

[shadow9d9]

I read the whole book and the second half of the book drops the story almost completely. It becomes monologue after monologue of preaching on and on about the religious and philosophical ideas of the author.. it ceases to be fiction.. it is just Heinlein's thinly hidden commentary. 10s of pages go by without anything happening.. just two characters set up to appear to converse the author's various views.

Checking amazon.com's hundreds of reviews, even the 5 star ratings seem to agree with this... one of them suggested that this book be required reading for seminary students! Lol. Many reviews agreed with me that the ball was completely dropped halfway through and turned into lectures on Heinlein's ideology. No longer science fiction, just pure preaching. Ironic, with all he has to say about religions being preachy.

Here are some quotes from other reviewers:
"nfortunately, Heinlein runs out of plot a third of the way into the book. After a gripping yarn of international espionage and a struggle for influence over the trusting Martian-Man's destiny, the book fizzles. What follows is a series of long-winded essays on the superiority of Michael Valentine's 'untainted' thinking, thinly veiled as dialogue...It soon becomes clear that Heinlein's desire isn't to write an involving yarn -- he's trying to tie together his essays on some fuzzy concept of new morality."

"Most of the novel is simply bad preaching disguised as a sci-fi novel. "

"The story begins innocently enough, about a mission to mars and a human child raised by Martians...but about page 250--by the time you've invested too much time to easily toss this book down in disgust--suddenly we feature Angels talking to one another, snake-oil preachers, and a generally mystifying focus on religion. If you want Sci-Fi, go elsewhere. If you want to be spoon-fed Heinlein's ideas through badly-disguised characters, by all means waste your time on this."

"What i found was another long winded yarn disguised this time as a sociology comment ( which I presume was shocking and sensational when it first came out but comes across now as pretty ordinary )."

"If you like Heinlein, fine. You'll probably like this. But if you dislike his overbearing preaching and inability to get over himself, steer clear of this one."

"Some where in the second or third section the book turns to complete crap. It becomes Heinlein's reactions to religion and philosophy."

"Overall, some of his other sci-fi is better than this. This book was nothing more than a soapbox for Heinlein to preach his personal life philosophy. I might be able to overlook this, if there was an actual plot as well. Unfortunately, no such luck. Ech."

"But by the time I was 2/3rds of the way through I was getting very tired with the author on his soapbox beating up organized religion. Heinlein's preachiness (sp?) is the same reason why I didn't like Starship Troopers. The author doesn't know when to stop and realize his point is taken."

"It became too preachy, which RH doesn't carry out very well."

"This book starts off reasonably interesting, and I had hoped to read a book rife with futuristic politics and personal hubris. But it soon degenerates into a rather mundane diatribe for or against religion--it's hard to tell--and, while I usually enjoy such books that discuss these issues, Heinlein doesn't pull it off effectively. Heinlein seems to spend the first third of the book being interesting, then switching to soapbox mode. Such methods do not a good book make."

"But you better stop at page 208, when they have made the president of the world the one to manage Valentines hugh inheritence. After that point nothing much happens, and that it takes Heinlein about 200 pages to write that as well..."

"loved the first half of this book, in which plot and character rose to the fore. Great action sequences, terrific dialogue, and tons of suspense tricked me into thinking that this was a five star novel. Jubal Harshaw in particular was--and remains--one of the most richly realized characters in contemporary fiction. Alas, the novel quickly sags beneath the weight of its own socio-political and pseudoreligious philosophies. The plot thins, the action comes to a screeching halt, the characters flatten into cardboard, and the rest of the novel becomes so self-consciously preachy and churchy and utterly unsexy (despite the frequent nudity and bedhopping) that it lost all appeal to me. Less politics, more plot. I could grok that, anyday."

I'm not exactly the only person who felt extremely let down by the book. If I wanted to be preached to, I'd go to church... maybe it is nostalgia for you?

[littlemissattitude]

Maybe it's just me, but I think all those different, sometimes almost violently different, opinions about "Stranger" prove that Heinlein knew exactly what he was doing, and that the folks who skimmed all the religous/philosophical/political passages really shortchanged themselves. I have no idea how much of the book was Heinlein's wishing it were so, how much he believed himself, and how much was just put in for effect. But it is obvious that those who really read "Stranger", whether the ideas in the book attract them or put them off, are actually stimulated to think about what they've read. And speaking as a writer myself, I think that most writers probably have making their readers think about what they've written as an important goal.

I've read the book multiple times, and while I find some of the ideas archaic (to say the least), there is an important critique of religious thought in America at the time Heinlein was writing and, sad to say, much of that critique is still valid these several decades later.

[shadow9d9]

Originally Posted by littlemissattitude

Maybe it's just me, but I think all those different, sometimes almost violently different, opinions about "Stranger" prove that Heinlein knew exactly what he was doing, and that the folks who skimmed all the religous/philosophical/political passages really shortchanged themselves. I have no idea how much of the book was Heinlein's wishing it were so, how much he believed himself, and how much was just put in for effect. But it is obvious that those who really read "Stranger", whether the ideas in the book attract them or put them off, are actually stimulated to think about what they've read. And speaking as a writer myself, I think that most writers probably have making their readers think about what they've written as an important goal.

I've read the book multiple times, and while I find some of the ideas archaic (to say the least), there is an important critique of religious thought in America at the time Heinlein was writing and, sad to say, much of that critique is still valid these several decades later.

You are missing a huge point. Many people do not read science fiction to be lectured to. I do not CARE what his beliefs are. I read sci fi/fantasy for story and characters... To me it is laughable that you think that people who skimmed the preaching missed out... If I want to read philosphy, I'd get philosophy books. I think it is the epitome of egotism that lead Heinlein to think his views are so important that he must lecture and repeat himself to his readers instead of creating an actually good story and characters. My problem isn't with his actual views.. I don't care about them to be honest. What I care about is the fact that he felt it necessary to sneak his views and lecture to his audience hidden under the veil as a "science fiction" book.

[littlemissattitude]

Well, I didn't actually take those passages as "lecturing" or "preaching", shadow. And I feel that I must point out that, having had some rather interesting and disappointing adventures in religion myself, I'm awfully sensitive to being preached at.

And, hey, to each his/her own. If you want to give that part a miss, fine with me. But I feel a bit insulted that you find it "laughable" that my opinion is that those who skip or skim those parts might not get the full effect of the novel that Heinlein actually wrote, as opposed to the novel you and the others who don't read those parts wish he had written. I mean, I don't agree with your opinion about "Stranger", but I would never presume to call it laughable, considering that one of the wonderful things about this world is that there is plenty of room in it for more than one opinion on an issue.

[Jaxom_Ruatha]

Yes shadow, we get the point you don't think too highly about this novel but that is no reason for you not to respect others opinions. littlemissattitude isn't the only one sensitive to preaching.

[steve12553]

Wish I'd have found this site last year. First, I read both versions of the book, the original publisher's cut and the postumus release of his own edit. If I remember right there are differences. Second, it is science fiction not space opera. Science fiction is about concept, character and certainly action are secondary. The book was great because he had new ideas not good explosions and spaceships. If you want sapce opera go read Staw Wars novelizations not Heilein. Even his better action books like Starship Trooper was conceptual based and action was secondary. I will now have to push Stanger in a Strange Land up my priority list of rereads since it's been a while.

[PoeticExplosion]

The first two sections made an amazing novel. Then he started a new, rather boring, anti-religious novel in the last two sections.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the philisophical bent of the book, but he switched gears to religion-bashing so fast that it was rather disconcerting. I might have enjoyed the second half more if it was a seperate book.

EDIT: Woah, mind the bump.

[Brown Rat]

It's strange what sticks in my mind about Stranger, which I read a million years ago. Sure, I remember the sex and the grokking and the eating of the dead, and I remember liking Mike a lot better at the beginning of the book than at the end.

But there's one thing--one part of a scene, actually--that I remember so distinctly that it's popped into my mind repeatedly and at random moments over the decades: when Jubal and Anne are out by the pool, and Jubal asks her if she can tell what color a house in the distance is painted, and she replies that it's white on the side she can see, and Jubal makes a point about how Anne wouldn't assume that the house is white on the other sides or that the side she's looking at would still be white if she left and couldn't see it anymore. I always thought that was a cool concept, expressed in one tight little exchange: be cautious about making inferences, be wary of assuming that facts remain the same, and don't commit yourself to statements you aren't sure of.

(OK, before I post this, I'd better check the book to see if I remembered right. Wouldn't want to make assumptions . . . Yep! There it is, on page 98 of my Berkley Medallion August 1972 edition.)

[j. d. worthington]

Stranger in a Strange Land has what so many people object to in Heinlein in what was probably its most concentrated form up to that point: his didactic side. It runs throughout all of his work, but at this point it began to become a major part of any book he wrote. Personally, I don't mind this, as it's expressed in terms fitting to each character and is often done in exaggerated form, to gig the reader into thinking through things. No, not all of what's expressed in Stranger represents Heinlein's own views -- far from it. But he wanted to get people talking and thinking about things that had simply become so much accepted that anyone disagreeing tended to be rather squelched; Heinlein, being very pro-free speech, was adamantly against that sort of stultification.

As for Starship Troopers: Action? What action? Except for the very opening and the last chapter, action is at a bare minimum here; it's concept, and a mental bildungsroman, he's concerned with, not with "physical" adventure, as it were, more mental adventure, the adventure of growth as seen through use of a character's changing ideas. Yes, these are "preachy" books, and I'm fully aware of their flaws -- which, by the way, are not those of being preachy, as this is a recognized branch of literature, the didactic novel, with its own traditions and requirements -- but because there's some slipshod writing here and there in the novels themselves. Nonetheless, the books challenged me at different points in my life, and because of that, I learned to think things out more clearly; and for that I owe Heinlein a debt. The use of a character rather than just straightforward arguments make it somewhat more accessible to the majority of readers; and the fact that these books have never been out of print since they were published, indicates that this technique works for a great many people. There's nothing wrong with disliking the books, but these are by no means bad books; flawed (at times rather seriously so), but what they were intended to do, they do quite well.

One final note. On the subject of women having trouble with these books. The majority of women I know who have read Stranger have all been big fans of the book, while having serious problems with, for instance, Starship Troopers, despite the fact that you have some very strong women in the latter, and he makes it plain that there are certain abilities and strengths in which men simply can't compete with women. Perhaps this is a regional thing; I don't know. But it certainly doesn't put off all women; the ones I've met who didn't like it were the traditional "housewife" sort, who were against Women's Lib, etc., not the ones who supported equality. It would be interesting to know if this is a regional response, or whether it crosses such boundaries, but that's for the patient scholars of the sf foundation to look into. I'd just say that I don't find it to have repulsed very many.

[I, Brian]

I've not yet - but almost - finished the book, and once Jubal concludes the legal standing of Mike the story seemed to stop and drop.

I'm reading the uncut version, by the way, and I especially find the sudden inclusion of the dead Fosterites after then, as halo'ed angels discussing Mike, distinctly out of place. It's like it's suddenly turned from being a novel into a 1950's sitcom.

I really don't mind conceptual discussions in a book, but there seems to be a lack of focus. For example, Ben runs to Jubal - he has news! But first - we have to read a few pages of Jubal's commentaries on what constitutes art. Seems out of place.

I've found it interesting so far, but it seems like it's going to finish on an anticlimax.

[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

[I, Brian]

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