This book was listed in a book I have for 1000 books one must read. it didn't do it for me. Laying aside the misogyny I think the main weakness of this book is that it isn't Science Fiction. Rather the interesting set up of Tarzan from Mars was a ruse to enable Heinlein to regale us at length with his opinions on life, religion, politics, art etc. There was some similarity in the plot idea to Wyndham's The Midwich Cuckoos. But the huge difference is that Wyndham cranked up the tension cleverly to an exciting and memorable conclusion. This was soulless and boring in comparison. ( )

Is a captivating sci-fi novel that explores the concept of a human raised on Mars returning to Earth. It delves into themes of culture clash, spirituality, and the search for identity. A must-read for science fiction enthusiasts!

Why did I ever like this? ( )

I was interested to read the "uncut" version of Stranger in a Strange Land. I first read the shorter version in the 1960s or early 70s and it was quite a lengthy book for the time, probably twice if not three times the length of the average science fiction novel. I did not expect it to be so boring and so talky. In my opinion, the editors had good reason to ask for the cuts. The drastic cuts made for what I remember as a much more readable book. The sexism is hard to swallow in the 21st century. Was it a book of its time? Yes, I suppose so. It probably reflects the idea (false then as now) that women don't read SF. I think it says a lot for how blatant the sexism in SiaSL is, that one of my strongest impressions of the book after fifty years is mild distaste at Jubal Henshaw's stable of nubile secretaries, one in each hair colour, all stacked and all ready to climb out of the pool undressed to take his dictation in turn. Somebody's wet dream. Even at a time when I was quite prepared to ignore sexism in SF and in real life, there was too much in SiaSL to ignore. Details such as the carny sideshows, 50s style media and advertising (coming to you live, but first a word from our sponsor), view-phone calls that were in black and white, didn't really raise attention in 1970 because they were in the recent past even for a teenager. (Not the video calls, but the black and white screen!) They certainly make the book seem odd today though.

I found it really difficult to get through this book and I don't fancy rereading the 1961 edition to see if it is a less boring read. I'm going to say that Virginia Heinlein did a masterful job of marketing the cuts as having taken out the juicy bits that the 1960s weren't ready to accept, but I think it was a valid editorial decision on the grounds of readability! ( )

This is a book that it seems like I should like. It deals with issues of religion, including a strong critique of religion as we know it, presents socially progressive ideas about sex and relationships, and relies upon a fundamentally humanist, individualist philosophy. ( )