It's hard to know what to make of this fifty years later. Hard to believe I never read it until now. Somehow I conflate it with Middlesex, but only in terms of external reaction to the main character. ( )

written 50 years ago, its no longer a modern era novel and shouldn't be judged by modern standards. Some aspects are very out of date, very objectionable by modern standards - but were progressive, for its time.

I have a soft spot for this book because I read it as a kid so its like comfort food, and because it changed me, in ways I'm proud of.

I love this book. I truly do.

This is my second time reading it, but my first time as the uncut version of the book. In the first two third of the book, I did not see any real differences. However, towards the end, there are more sexual events taking place and their descriptions are more apt to what was going on.

Now, I have to state that I do not feel that many people grok this book and its complexities and social commentary. I still see much of what was written in this book as a problem even in today's society. Everything from our biased prejudice for thing we do not (and refuse to) understand to the misuse of language to Government stooges continuously elected into office. There are also many observations on religion, faith, and truth and how each of those elements are confused for one another and presented as such. The book goes on and on with such musings; and especially in the voice of Jubal, the essential father figure of the book. And, with that said, if you are reading this science fiction book about a Man from Mars expecting a plot, you will be sorely disappointed. This is a philosophical book that uses the science fiction genre as a vehicle much like many of our most important social commentary books.

I need to get something well out of the way. This book is rife with what is considered blatant sexism. If such things offend you, this book will needle at that nerve. However, I think it should be dictated that Stranger in a Strange Land was published in 1961. It is also know that Heinlein spent nearly a decade writing it. That would make the book a product of the 50s, back when sexism was not only prevalent in the United States, it may as well have been a lifestyle altogether that was encouraged because it maintained the status quo. There is even a line about rape that is highly offensive and, paraphrased, it states that 9 time out of 10, it is the girl's fault.

That is not something to defend.

However, attitudes about such things were different then.

I have read many reviews that see such things in the book and dismiss it altogether for the goldmine of anarchist ideas for society and free love for a proclamation of sexism & loathing. On the surface, I can see that. But, we must remember: we, too, are a product of our time. There are things we are doing, publishing right now, that in 50 years will be seen as something completely different, and one can even assume offensive.

Another trend I've noticed is the notion that Heinlein does not write for strong female characters. I believe that in this book, he presents a cast of female characters that are nothing more than pretty faces and bodies that serve their purpose as female counterparts and who do their assigned jobs. However, they grow. They grow from being naïve girls (with sassy mouths) to women with the motivation to make their own choices, to have their own sexual partners, to be as equals among their male counterparts. Because sexual intercourse is greatly involved as the catalyst for such social stepping stones, it's a hard one to swallow for our sexually oppressed society as anything else other than sexist. Even the Muslim character throws away his previous ideals as to what makes a woman a good one and ends up marrying a "heathen" for the sake of love rather than religious purposes.

Stranger in a Strange Land besets the 50s mentality from all sides. Most are very upfront about it from the idea of polyamorous families to a Truth that is taught using discipline & mental training rather than as an absolute that is regarded to only by faith. And I believe the book challenges sexism, though much more subtle. Even though the male counterparts make passing phrases regarding female "fannies" and fun punishments such as spankings, I believe much of what goes on in the book challenges a female's place in sexuality. Here sex is treated as something that brings two people closer, something to be enjoyed by both parties without any such thing as shame. Though the word "fanny" is said often, it is really the context in which they enjoy themselves without restraint that a sexual revolution takes place.

There is much more to this book than what is presented on the surface. I think that is worth exploring, hence my second time reading it. ( )

This book was my second trip down Heinlein lane. I figured that if I didn't like Number, I'd be sure to like Stranger, his most renowned book.

It was, well, all right.

The story's about a human born on Mars, raised by Martians, and then brought to Earth, and introduced to the general society. He begins to game the system for an epic win, and learns a valuable lesson or two along the way. Also, he can do things like levitate, transport, and "push" things into nonexistence (don't tell Newton!).

It was entertaining, for the most part, except I find that I really, really dislike Heinlein's dialogue. It's too... dated. I have no problem, though with his contemporaries, like Asimov or Herbert. But for some reason, the voices of his characters just annoy the heck out of me.

Also, this book, as well as Number seemed to push some idyllic notion of free love and communism/socialism, like the song "Imagine," only with a Martian. I felt like I was reading The Jungle, with a sci-fi twist. "What's this? Meat packing. Okay! Wait a minute! Why is it all about socialism now?"

This was the deal-breaker for me and Heinlein, and I must say, I agree with Michael Moorcock on this one, that authors should leave their authoritarian ideals out of their stories, ruining perfectly good novels with a repeated reader's head-bashing of one viewpoint or another (though, with respect to Moorcock's essay entitled "Starship Stormtroopers," I must say that for as racist, anti-Semitic, and misogynistic as Lovecraft was, at least his work is somewhat interesting).

So, my verdict: Heinlein is not for me. Also, Moorcock knows what he's talking about. ( )

This book was good until Heinlein started trying to accomplish his goal in writing it. That's pretty sad.

Stick to Starship Troopers.

Though with the amount time Mike spends naked in this book, I wouldn't mind another Casper van Dien adaptation.

http://dustandspores.blogspot.com/200... ( )