SFF180 Classics 🚀 ‘Stranger in a Strange Land’ by Robert A. Heinlein (1961) ★½

[@dlc1119]

I tried re-reading this a year ago, and while I still enjoyed the first half or so, I set it down at the middle and left it.

[@JustinWahlne]

Mark Twain's definition of a classic was “something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read.” If that's true, then Stranger in a Strange Land is MOST DEFINITELY a classic.

[@johnhughes9253]

I loved it. I didn’t think it was meant to be taken seriously. I read it as pure satire and social lampooning. Worked for me.

[@emosongsandreadalongs]

I probably would have liked this book if I read it as a horny, angsty teenager. I recently finished it and I'm so glad to find someone else online that thought it sucked. I just can't wrap my head around why people love it so much

[@RichardParker2008]

I read it as a horny, angsty 13 year old in 1961. I loved at the time, and read it 2-3 times. About 10 years ago I picked it up again, and couldn't finish it. Fear not!! You are not alone.

[@josephfernandez8015]

The book can’t be bad! Billy Joel mentioned it in “We Didn’t Start the Fire” after all! 😉

[@SFF180]

It was always burnin’! 😂

[@tarkajedi3331]

On the surface reading will get you a scfi novel with some wit and drama. When you push past the high brow humour and subtle wit and basic story you discover a deep philosophical masterpiece. Stranger shaped American culture !!! Stranger is unique in style and message!!! It jumps from perspectives, even heavenly points of view! It breaks the rules and the books works!!! Do you Grok? Do you know what to Grok means? Stranger flows nicely because the story is not cluttered so it can jump around to points of view!!! Stranger asks so many questions! The appreciation of Water is so fascinating!!! Stranger tests in a giant thought experiment.... Break past the plot to the philosphical/cultural/spiritual/art discussion! What is truth?

[@Violaphobia]

I almost feel like everything this book tries to do is just better done in Dune, like the value of water for example. Why is water scarce on Mars when the inhabitants have the power of gods? Don't think about it. Why is Michael worried about Jill being harmed when he doesn't even believe in death? Don't think about it. Why is the government a fascist power with strict rule of law? Don't think about it. Why is this book's appeal mostly based on "questioning society, man" but none of the main 3 characters seem to fundamentally change their views on anything but having more (NOT GAY) sex? The author didn't think about it.

[@someroob7915]

Totally agree... and as for “dune” referenced in another reply; WTF? Dune is just a long winded waste of time. Go ahead hate me coz I don’t dig it, I don’t care. EVERYTHING Heinlein did is better than Dune, in my most humble opinion, that is.

[@monstermoo4191]

This was entrapment. I came for that thumbnail 😅😭

[@sukidovi]

My god! I'm seething, lol. My tastes HAVE matured as I have aged, I've read LeGuin for a start, that said, Stranger remains a classic, filled with vibrant characters, wit, and insight.

[@amynrob621]

This video is the salve I needed. I read the book in the 1970s and loved it, completely oblivious to the rampant sexism and homophobia (and utter stupidity of the last half of it). On a lark, I picked it up again, and I can't get over how different it is. So, I read a little about its legacy on Wikipedia. A Hugo? A bestseller? Included in the LoC's Books That Shaped America exhibit? 4.3 stars on Amazon? I did find some negative reviews on Amazon/GoodReads, but most didn't know about or acknowledge the controversy - the fact that it was (for a brief period and with notable exceptions), considered a "classic." I felt like I was in an alternate universe suddenly. Your review helps me make SOME sense of what happened with this book and gives me some peace. I think I can stop my re-read at this point. It's just torture. The experience does teach me about memory and how we have the illusion we are the same person throughout our lives, when in fact we constantly change, and over 50 years we can change a LOT.

[@machinaheart]

"I could go on. ... In fact, I will go on." I held my breath for a sec and was so happy you did go on ;D

[@4CardsMan]

Too bad we had to have the Heinlein sermon, delivered by Jubal. I was in high school when it came out and I was a Heinlein fan. I didn't get over him until late middle age.

[@bitsoflit]

I loved this book as a teenager. I don't think I could stand it anymore. It did make me appreciate science fiction, though, so I can't hate it too hard.

[@lancethrustworthy]

I recall you from the great Austin podcasts. Forward, ever!

[@Nidhogg]

I’ve never read Heinlein and this review actually made me more interested in him

[@parlabaneisback]

Yes, 'Stranger in a Strange Land' was never going to get the SFF180 seal of approval, it's pretty clearly not a Thomas book; but I haven't read Heinlein in years and perhaps a revisit is in order.

[@drewg4261]

My high school honors English teacher raved about this book, so, in my stupidity, I decided to do a book review. What a load! All I remember is "grok in fullness" and uninspired sex scenes (thank God my uncle subscribed to Penthouse). I reviewed the book honestly and learned a lesson that carries me to this day: Unless you're the boss, keep your honest opinions to yourself. Ended up getting a C..."well written" was the comment, "but i feel that you didn't Grok the work on its full merit". I'm still not sure what that means, but I remember the criticism and the lesson, to this day.

[@Clayton-Bigsby966]

You just don’t grok.

[@amynrob621]

Drew, I realize I'm replying to a very old comment. Two things I'm curious about: when was this recommendation (what year) and was your teacher male or female? I remember loving this book, but I was an adolescent when I read it in the early 1970s. Upon re-reading it (on a lark), I realize the book is SO OUTRAGEOUSLY sexist and homophobic I can't believe I ever found it even good, much less great. Please tell me this was LONG ago, and the teacher was a man.

[@drewg4261]

@@amynrob621My teacher was a female, and ironically, one of the best teachers I had in high school. It was 1981, so a different era.

[@awickedtribe]

Being OCD when it comes to books, I had to read the titles of all the books on the back shelves... When I saw the one with the title "The War Against The" something, it drove me crazy trying to figure who what war was against... When I first saw it I thought, and hoped, that it was "The War Against The Rull" by Alfred Vogt (A.E. van Vogt), who not only inspired Philip K. Dick, but also 'Alien' with his 'Black Destroyer' and 'Discord in Scarlet' which became his 'fix-up' for 'The Voyage of the Space Beagle'....

[@someokiedude9549]

I actually really like the book. Though I like The Moon is a Harsh Mistress a little bit more.

[@HellcrushPlays]

The opening of this video pointed out that Heinlein started writing pulp for young men. Stranger in a Strange Land is also pulp for young men. That was its target audience. That target made the book influential. As a mature reader, the book does fall short, but it was not written for a mature reader. Imagine you are the average teen in 1961. The ideas in the book would actually be very novel. The ideas of the book were not widely talked about, written about, or understood by young men of that time. Even now the book is an eye opener for some young men. It isn't literary. It's not PC. It is sexist and basic in its views of women. It matched its time, place, and target. For those reasons alone it succeeded commercially. Great review. Thanks for the work you do.

[@SFF180]

Cheers! In fact this book was not written to be one of Heinlein’s long-running “juveniles”. The main reason Heinlein moved to Putnam at the beginning of the 1960s was that they were going to allow him to write adult SF, as his earlier publisher had rejected Starship Troopers. With all its sexual content and lack of action scenes, this book wasn’t aimed at young teen boys. College readers at least.

[@HellcrushPlays]

@@SFF180 I concede this point after reading further about the intended target. Though I would still contend that its primary readership was still younger men, perhaps seeking something new within a stereotypical less serious genre, and that the book's fame is a result of this readership. I suppose I just can't imagine how it was heralded as a masterpiece in any other way.

[@YarrHarr11]

Great review, Happy Turkey Day!

[@lalaLAX219]

Actually Charles Manson was so obsessed with this book he named his first child “Michael Valentine”...

[@SFF180]

If Manson denied reading the book that doesn’t mean he didn’t actually read it.

[@maxwellhouse750]

Early Heinlein is best. Red Planet, Rocket Ship Galileo and Have Spacesuit, will Travel are masterpieces in my opinion.

[@SFF180]

The early books are definitely superior.

[@GenaKukartsev]

Hi! I found you via a colab where you presented Gibson's book. I don't remember your name yet - sorry - but I like your style, going to listen more now. Thank you.

[@SFF180]

Much appreciated!

[@lathormayfair4072]

Happy Thanksgiving! Great review.

[@Clayton-Bigsby966]

It’s not Heinlein’s fault that you didn’t grok in fullness.

[@SFF180]

I confess my low tolerance for poor storytelling impedes my grokking skills. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@annabell3385]

One of Manson's kids was named after the guy in this book.

[@SFF180]

Sure, after all, just because Manson said he never read it doesn’t mean he was telling the truth.

[@JackMyersPhotography]

Did you read the original version or the "uncut" one? I've read there are differences. But both are RH regardless.

[@SFF180]

I read both. There aren’t any substantive differences, but the uncut version has better flow to the prose where the original version is choppy.

[@JackMyersPhotography]

@@SFF180 Thank you!

[@bettytolbert3541]

Thank You!!! I thought it was just me who didn't like this book , now I don't feel so bad.

[@Neverrgreen]

Wait...a tupperware party actually sounds quite intriguing now that you mention it.....

[@JayShayy]

Oh lord, I cringe, but mostly at my teenage self that loved this book. I re-read _Glory Road_ a little while ago and that was terrible. For my sins I may have to re-read _Stranger_ but thank you for the review!

[@vanillahearts62]

My ex boyfriend raved about this book... I didn't like it at all. Both the book and him are long gone

[@ellenmarch3095]

And yet you're commenting on the review?

[@jameselms4899]

This review is not worth the oxygen it took to spit it out.

[@Freaky144]

Do you think the moon is a harsh mistress is the exception of Robert Heimlein's work post rot in your opinion? also great work on the thumbnail

[@davied5496]

I totally agree with you. I thought that the novel was terrible.

[@AccipiterF1]

Did you know there was a semi-popular religious movement based on this book that absolutely was huckserism?

[@Ggdivhjkjl]

Are you thinking of The Children of God?

[@pabloruz9797]

I read Moon is a Harsh Mistress and liked just fine, Stranger...seems too "free love" weird for me, but still I think I'll get to it eventually and make my own opinion. Thanks anyway for the "this book sucks" warning.

[@Karlengler1]

I just wanted to reply that I throughly enjoyed your thoughtful review of this book. I had initially read it back in 72, 73 and I held it in high esteem. However, that was until now when I listed to the audiobook version this last month for a sci-fi book club I have joined. I remembered the term Grok and the fact it dealt with an earth-man raised by Martians and brought back to earth. Listening to it now made me realize how much I had forgotten. Listening to it now made me exclaim in my mind WTF, this is a bunch of pontificating masquerading as a book. Your book review helped give my reactions some form. I liked how you laid things out and got to the point. I have gladly subscribed and look forward to reading some of your other reviews. I will also look you up on Discord.

[@angela-thebooknerdess2110]

Having read other works by Heinlein I have to say, you're dead in the money there. His attitudes were ... interesting ... to say the very least.

[@LetsReadSFF]

And yet, I'll have to read this to complete my Hugo read goal. Ughhhh...I can't wait.

[@SFF180]

We share our burdens, Brock!

[@StephanieMoats]

Thank you. THANK YOU. I thought it was trash at 12, but always wondered if I was too young to appreciate it. Turns out there's not much to appreciate.

[@vanillahearts62]

Strange, indeed!

[@jamesholder13]

Awesome review! Happy Thanksgiving!

[@tracyjohnson9895]

I don't agree with all your opinions, but they are very well expressed. I really liked this novel but was always a bit put off by much of it. It did made me think of things in a different way but ... I would say the novel is a product of its times -- hippies and 'free love' and all that. Thanks for the review.

[@ThatsSoPoe]

I'm so glad you did this review! I keep thinking I might want to try some SF classics, but often they seem way too problematic. Definitely not going to pick this one up. Also, "erotic equivalent of a tubberware party" was my favorite line - so funny!

[@SFF180]

Some of the older stuff is problematic, some is simply dated, some is perfectly fine. It all depends on the work, really. Older SF isn’t a monolith any more than newer SF, although because the field was so male dominated, you don’t often see the more modern and enlightened perspectives a contemporary reader has come to expect.

[@LovingBeingNatural1]

Thank you Thomas! I tried to read this years ago and could never get very far. I put it on my bookshelf meaning to return to it later, but never did. Now I know my initial impression was correct not to continue. I’m purging this from my library. The world is full of too many books I will enjoy to waste it on ones I won’t.

[@TheWordN3rd]

This might be one of my favorite reviews ever.

[@kellswitch]

I am so grateful to find I'm not the only one who has issues with this book. I have gotten into multiple arguments with freinds and fellow SFF fans about the quality of this, and a few other of his books. And it always turns out that most of the most ardent and vocal defenders of this book haven't read it since high school, in the 80's. And oh my god don't you DARE contradict the dogma of his being such a strong feminist writer!

[@SFF180]

I am trying to imagine the cognitive dissonance involved in reading a book like Friday and thinking it’s feminist.

[@meridian1003]

I think you missed the fundamental thesis of the book: through the correct language anything is possible. He has these powers because he groks in a different language and he can help others change their social and literal physiology through language. This is such a shallow reading of the book, it makes me sad. There are obvious flaws and the story lacks a lot in personality but I think some of the ideas are innovative

[@joewhite4564]

"200,000 words of hokum" is exactly right. I have found that most of the people who have raved (positively) about this book to me are not sf readers.

[@heather-linbrannon8352]

Ooooh the intro is swanky ⭐ ...I'm cracking up over the review!! I read this book as a teenager, too young to have any critical perspective. I remember sharing water/grok, and the main character was from Mars, completely naive. Any satire for right over my head. I'd always planned on rereading, but I think I'll skip it. I suspect it would drive me nuts. I don't actually remember the harem of sexy secretaries or any sex scenes... Maaaybe because it was the "erotic equivalent of a Tupperware party." LOL

[@Carrandas]

One of those few books that I had to slog through and absolutely hated. A shame as I loved his The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Spaceship Troopers.

[@StephanieNics]

I've enjoyed a couple of Heinlein's other works, but I could never get into Stranger in a Strange Land, so I never read more than the first few pages/chapters. Opinions on Heinlein and this book in particular really are polarizing. I have two groups of friends: 1) Ask me: "Eew, why do you read Heinlein?" and 2) Ask me: "But why haven't you read Heinlein's greatest work, Stranger in a Strange Land?" I trust your opinion, Thomas, and I'm going to continue to skip over this one.

[@SannasBookshelf]

Great review! I tried reading this book once, but didn't even make it halfway through. why read a book you keep wanting to throw across the room, after all?

[@Amanda-dn4ld]

Ha! I’ve never heard of this book. I came to SFF through my dad and he only pushed Dune.

[@kyrilson71]

😂😂😂. Wow, what a fantastic review. I’m glad I never tried to read this, it sounds like it would definitely be a DNF for me.

[@breenyoung4986]

Not to jump on the band wagon but I agree with you 100%. When I read this book years ago I couldn't figure out what the big deal was when I finished it. Did not help the book I read before it was Dune.

[@waynerooney8278]

4:18 “The story’s core message, that humanity’s problems can be solved by practicing cultish groupthink and promiscuous sex…” I disagree with your interpretation. I think Heinlein was mocking “social norms,” namely (in this case) monogamy. We are raised to believe that monogamy is the only correct way in which to pursue relationships because humans suffer from consequential emotions such as jealousy. Mike, and other Martians alike, are incapable of understanding jealousy and, as such, see sex for what is “should be”: a way of growing closer to another person. There is nothing inherently immoral about polygamy, but humans’ have structured beliefs in such a way to reject that idea as taboo.

[@zachhodgson4113]

Buddy, You kinda got the point of the book. It is a mimic of Christianity. Made to be satirical and just as outlandish., In the hopes to show the absurdity of Christianity. I would definitely recommend this book for anyone who has ever been deep in the Religious rabbit hole. It definitely will hit every chord with that group of people. Precisely ones that left, or are looking to leave those various groups. Also for people who have never been in those highly religious circles, this book kinda gives a glimpse into how those groups really are. Minus the actual magic of course, but the individuals that are in it believe in that magic. Believe that if they can just say magical words then they should be able to do magical things. I want to say all of those groups also have sex scandals within them. When the sex is about as good as the book's🤣. But that too ends up becoming objectified, or not emotionally bonded. That same exact sexual depravity, is how Christianity started as well, they were the hippies against the conservative Stoics. And that same thing is in Mormonism, Seventh-day Adventist communes had it back when they started,...

[@francissreckofabian01]

Its better than you say (not a lot better). I suggest you don't read Time Enough for Love. Horrible book. If only I knew I was allowed to stop reading a book when I was young. Anything over 300 pages by Heinlein is not recommended. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress; The Puppet Masters; his short stories; Starship Troopers are all recommended (by me. I liked them. I am no one. Reader Beware!)

[@SFF180]

I’ve read most everything by Heinlein. Time Enough for Love is indeed dreadful.

[@bigtom1948]

I tried to read it but I dumped it well before I reached the half way point. It was a waste of time and not very well done.

[@chrisw6164]

I attempted this book twice. Both times I gave up around 2/3 of the way through. I’ve dipped into Heinlein a few times since then, and I still don’t get it. I haven’t given up but Heinlein is low on my TBR list.

[@Violaphobia]

Great speculative fiction should ask us questions that make us think I, Robot might ask us how we feel about ceding our freedom to beings we created, even if they are greater than us in every way Dune might ask us if, no matter how great the human mind or humanity as a whole becomes, are we still in a zero sum arms race of greed and violence? What lengths are acceptable to achieve vengeance and how might we justify those lengths even with the foresight to see their ends? As near as I can tell, all this book asked was "what if Jesus was horny BUT NOT GAY AT ALL... and from spaaaaaaaace?".

[@angiebervinkle9542]

i liked this book the message of it but the writing isn't very good

[@rickriffel6246]

Robert Heinlein's fictional rhetoric turning into Charles Manson bullshit? I never understood the how or why of this. Also, how could Heinlein's writing be harmful just because some fringe lunatic misrepresented it?

[@tarkajedi3331]

I think that you missed the point - It is a completely brilliant mockery of our culture! You missed the point of Jubal in the story.... The characters each plays a role ... The questions raised by language and understanding reality ultimate truths... You really missed it...

[@SFF180]

Nope, I got it. I just thought it was bad.

[@tarkajedi3331]

@@SFF180 Of course each to their own but there is a reason it is considered a classic))) Astrology to playboys with hot secetaries it is all used to get in our faces our own culture and sterotypes. From girls on the runway to questioning the pagentry and pomp of politics it forces us to question everything. Even not wsting food so to speak! It is not about the sex - That is just another example of making us confront our views on sex. At a time when it was all taboo! Stranger is a genius work mocking everything from lawyers to journalists to religions to writers. He was poking fun at writers!!! Jubal is brilliant of keeps his own council !!! Compare Stranger to foundation which was about increasing very much the puddle of rationalism in this insane world or compare to any modern scfi and you find tropes - especially in modern works. Stranger stands unique and hilarious! If you take it on the surface level the world he creates is impossible and the characters are just props. If you go deeper into it it has 3 very important Acts - Skipping over so many events and time periods. Stranger forces us to rethink about our entire culture!!! If you come away from Stranger thinking it is about the story itself you miss the deeper message to rethink what you personally believe. You compared the sex arts to a tupperware? It was never about sex. Stranger makes us think about ourselves and why we do what we do. If you did not rethink about your own beliefs, practices and culture you really missed the point. Maybe you are taking things way to literally!!! Do you have perfect recall??? Cheers from Australia!

[@billhouston1431]

The commentator uses Wikipedia saying in 5:03 Manson never read it. True Manson was illiterate. Someone might of read it to him. But, according to his Parobation Officer Roger Smith in Tom Oneill's book Chaos based on interviews by the author w/ Roger Smith, Manson carried it in his back pocket during his time in Haight-Asbury. Smith says Manson nicknamed him Jubal Harshaw, Valentine Michael Smith's hero in Stranger. Smith said Manson named his only child Michael Valentine. Ironically through Michael Valentine's grandson's YT interview, Michael Valentine eventually commited suicide. Thanks for the succinct review.

[@FIT2BREAD]

great review, and that thumbnail is priceless. The misogyny in the book is made worse by the fact that Heinlein uses the female characters to nod along with all the ridiculous things Harshaw says...oh well if Jill is cool with it....

[@VLM4EVER]

This critic deserves the same terrible treatment Heinlein recommended for all critics. FWIW Those who can’t create...critique. Last, Calling it dated - ignores the context and times it was written in.

[@SFF180]

The reason you don't hear too many people - knowledgable people anyway - attempting the argument "those who can't create, critique" is that it requires you to write off the entire novel-writing careers of Theodore Sturgeon, Norman Spinrad, James Blish, Damon Knight, Algis Budrys, Rich Horton, Spider Robinson, John Clute, Charles de Lint, Michelle West, Thomas A. Easton, Harlan Ellison and so many others who have written both creative works *and* criticism over the decades. Creativity requires a critical eye, if you hope to be remotely competent at either.

[@dlc1119]

The book has great stuff and very-much-dated stuff. A *lot* of older s/f is similar in quality. The science is usually the most dated part but in some cases it's the social aspects that seem ludicrous. Books from the era when Playboy magazine was 'hip' especially so.

[@JamesDAmadan]

I disagree, but, to be fair, I haven't reread the book in decades. I expect that, if I were to reread it, I would probably find much of it cringe-worthy these days. On the subject of The Number of the Beast, I find myself curious about the original manuscript that is being woven together. Will I agree with Ginny that Robert needed to trunk it and hide it away forever?

[@SFF180]

I was under the impression that got released? I must be mistaken. Evidently the ending is entirely changed.

[@JamesDAmadan]

It's been held up for reasons. From comments, it sounds like the zeroth draft was more Barsoom and Lensman fanfic, which might explain why Ginny said, "Yeah, no."

[@leticiatoraci9855]

I DNFed this. So much misogyny...

[@RedEzelt]

A product of its time. Sexism, homophobia... Yuckie

[@enriquelopez7050]

Looks like this commentators is bias as evangelical Christian

[@SFF180]

Atheist, in fact.

[@zachhodgson4113]

Loved the book. It predicted what has happened to organized religion, or at least Christianity. I would be shocked if he didn't know Alan Watts work. I think you missed much of the points of the book, Christianity, the New Testament itself, has the same exact unlikely happening. That is what the writing was supposed to mimic. With the same extravagance away from the real world. Which he did really well. Then also it goes into basically how Christianity started. Well every Religion really, but specifically that just like in the book thing specifically lift from that. It's point is to show the absurdity of Christianity specifically but also all religions. And how none of them have a basis for happening in reality. Which he did a pretty spot on job of doing.

[@SFF180]

That is emphatically not the book’s point, and such an interpretation ignores that in the book itself, Valentine Michael Smith does indeed perform inexplicable “miraculous” acts. (In other words, VMS is a messiah who is based in the story’s reality.) If anything, Heinlein is mostly satirizing the idea that the human race will only come together in love and solidarity if the message is delivered by some highly charismatic cultish leader who knows how to exploit the media. Heinlein does not object to the messages of mainstream (or alternative) religions, for the most part. He’s slightly bemused by how those messages are packaged for the public.

[@zachhodgson4113]

@@SFF180 There's a 1970s interview with the elder author's daughter basically saying this that it was like a modern take and rehashing of Christianity. It was done in a round table setting. I can't find it on KZbin anymore. But it's an attempt to make Christianity seem less believable, is what she and her Dad talked about. To make Cults seem even more crude, and absurd.

[@hxhdfjifzirstc894]

I'm somehow proud to say I've never read this, never will, and won't watch the video either.

[@at0mic11]

Ok boomer

[@rmorris5604]

Well, this guy hasn’t a clue. Guess again. The book explores the biblical story of genesis, especially the innocence of Eden, and the fall from grace, the consequence of which included the realization that our “nakedness” “needed” covering. “Innocence” is a kind of pole in the exploration of our minds, and what it means to be human. The review is superficial and not even clever- in spite of its tortured attempts to appear so. “Blah, blah, blah, blah” The quick witted cadence is marked by the combination of absence of understanding, and the mockery trying to hide the insecurity of it. He should have kept his review to a single phrase “I just don’t get it.” Yea. You just don’t get it!

[@SFF180]

Always fascinated by the folks who show up insisting I “just didn’t get it,” who then offer their own interpretations of the book, which frequently differ wildly and even contradict each other. One guy will say the book is an elaborate Biblical exegesis, the other will say it’s completely lampooning “the absurdity of Christianity.” You can’t all be right, although we could all be wrong.

[@barbaramoignard6082]

I detest this book.