Stranger in a Strange Land

There is no question that Robert Anson Heinlein is one of the Fathers of Science Fiction. There is also no question that STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND is his most famous work, having been called "the most famous science fiction novel ever written." Is it his best? Perhaps not. But it is a ground breaking classic, one that I enjoy reading again and again. STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND is the story of Valentine Michael Smith (Mike), a male born of human parents on the first Earth colony ship to Mars. Literally born as the ship landed on Mars, Mike's parents and the rest of the crew died, and Mike was raised by Martians. 25 years later, a second Earth colony ship lands on Mars, and discovers Mike, the native inhabitants of Mars, and a host of unanswered questions. Mike returns to Earth, and STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND is the detailed chronicle of his introduction to, interaction with, and transformation of human culture. STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND was Heinlein's first truly adult science fiction novel, and he took on some pretty heady topics. Politics, religion, sex, equality, and the concept of a truly un-human culture (which happened to be superior), to name a few. Heinlein wove these themes into STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND, each of which contributed to his idealistic vision of a perfect world.He intermixed shock value, logic, and plain good storytelling to get his points across, and I think he did so quite wonderfully. 1. Religion. Heinlein was not an atheist, as some have claimed. He did believe in a higher power; what he did not have any use for was organized religion. He believed in faith. If you had faith, true faith, then the trappings of religion were unnecessary and superfluous. They just did not matter. The Church of All Worlds in STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND was set up to show that no matter what the religious trapping were, it was faith that really mattered. He also created a religion where happiness and self-belief were the main drivers, rather than fire, brimstone, and fear. Makes great sense to me. 2. Sex. Contrary to popular belief, STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND did not promote promiscuity or free love. What Heinlein did was to create a world where people were open about sex, where it was enjoyable and exciting, but with it came great responsibility. In this world, sex wasn't hidden, secret, or naughty; rather it was honest and pure and fun. People who could develop this utopian attitude became happier, healthier, less jealous, more caring, and, yes, more sexual. Responsibility to partners, offspring, and an entire extended family became the norm. In his own way, by exploring sexuality, Heinlein was exploring and redefining the meaning of family. He was also trying to define sex as a miraculous union, and to show that humans should treat it as the miracle of bonding and "growing closer" that it is. 3. Equality. Before the sexual revolution and equality for women, Heinlein clearly believed in equality of the sexes, equality of the races, equality of faiths...basically the equality of all humans. Yes, he felt women should be treated with respect and reverence and be protected and nurtured because they gave birth and perpetuated the species, but he clearly believed that they were intelligent and capable. He also believed that women had sexual needs equal to those of men and had the right to pursue those needs. 4. Politics. In STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND, Heinlein clearly had little use for government, politics, or politicians. He believed that government in general was a necessary evil, but preferred that it be kept small and out of his business. He didn't care what it was based on or what guided it - astrology was the ridiculous example used in STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND - as long as it left him alone. Works for me. He also had little use for entitlements, and expected human beings to work for what they received. Again, works for me. 5. Un-Human, Superior Culture. Heinlein did a remarkable and revolutionary thing when he created the Martian culture of STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND. The Martians of this novel are clearly not humanoids from another planet. They do not think like humans, act like humans, look like humans, reproduce like human, live like humans, or do anything like we do here on the planet Earth. There is nothing remotely recognizable about these Martians; they are completely alien. We can't them, and they can't understand us. They are older, more advanced, and can perceive the universe around them in ways that humans do not. But humans can, if properly taught, learn some of the things that Martians do. What a marvelous concept. In 1962 the original version of STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND won the Hugo Award for the Best Science Fiction Novel of the Year. After Heinlein's death in 1988, his wife Virginia discovered the original uncut manuscript and arranged to have it published in 1991. It is interesting to read the two books side by side, to see the differences, and to compare them. I enjoy both versions very much, and am still not sure which is my favorite. Whatever version you choose, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND. Whether you have read it before or not, whether you love it or not, you will find it to be an interesting and thought-provoking read.

I have started to read this book directly after I had read “The Moon is a harsh Mistress” and after the first chapter, I almost stopped reading again. The first chapter starts promisingly enough, after a Mars expedition with only four couples, finding the fitting couples that contained all the required capabilities in themselves had been difficult enough, had failed, years later, another expedition is started, and this time, the flight takes much shorter. They find a young man there and bring him back, but how they treat him here, locked and no women allowed, for the first time really showed me how old Robert Heinlein’s books really are and here, for the first time, it was an annoyance. What would happen if a woman would visit him? We find out in the second chapter, and the answer is, basically, nothing. Then, for about 10% of the book, we get Jill, working in the hospital where the Man from Mars is kept, discussing with Ben, a journalist, about the implication of the Man from Mars. Once he owns the whole Mars, once he owns a majority of Lunar Enterprises. In any case, the government under the Secretary General cannot keep him alive. Then, finally, some action occurs: Ben tries to get the Man released, but fails miserably; Jill subsequently tries to prisonbreak with the Man. They escape to Ben’s place but the henchmen are not far away. They ring at the door, there is a confrontation and... it’s over. They go to another benefactor, Jubal, who keeps Jill and the Man hidden for rest of almost half of the book. There, Jubal thinks about how to help the Man, together with getting Ben back, while he tries to learn as much as possible about the Martian and Mars. Then, the henchmen appear again, ready to arrest everybody, and after the Martian makes the policemen disappear once more, Jubal eventually manages to bluff the Secretary General into calling back the second arresting team and agreeing to meet with the Man from Mars with him, Jubal, as the official delegate for the Martian. At the meeting, Jubal does what he can to make the Man’s live safe: He gives the Secretary General the mandate the manage the money of the Martian with the payment as much money as he sees fit. Having thus secured the Martian’s safety, the Martians keeps living at Jubal’s place and learning. They visit a service of the Fosterite church, where people gamble, visit the bar and have stories with women but when the archbishop wants to have one-to-one talk with the Martian, latter recognizes former’s evilness and discorporates him. Eventually, the Man from Mars has learned all he can at Jubal’s and he and Jill set out for the world. They join a circus troupe where the Martian performs a levitating trick with Jill, only it is not a trick, he really does so. But they are unsuccessful, the marks see right through it. They leave again, but not before they have listened to a snake charmer sermon about the Fosterites and before they make her a water brother. They next move to Las Vegas where Jill works in a show and the Martian as croupier and they elucidate naughty pictures. Thereafter, they go to San Francisco, where the Martian reads all the books about the various religions without grokking anything. They then visit a zoo where the Martian breaks out laughing as he, observing monkeys, finally groks people. They founded their own church, but it’s not a religion. The Martian had hereto shown some extraordinary capabilities, such as being able to enter a trance state where he could stay under water for hours, telekinesis and the ability to discorporate things or beings at will. Had the reader so far been wondering how he could do that, if the Old Ones on Mars has changed him somehow on Mars, now it become clear that this was not the case. Everybody can do it but, in order to facilitate such deeds, which were connected to Martian creed, one had to understand the Martian concepts, which one could only by firstly learning the Martian language. The Martian church was thus foremost a Martian language school. That was however not all it was. The Martian idea was that there was no God than God in everyone of us. All other religions were considered as truths, only that they were kind of hiding that God was each of us, and thus the creed was “Thou are God.” In the Martian church, also free love was practiced. We get hence a chapter where Ben was shocked by this and fled the church most hurriedly to report to Jubal, only to join it again the next chapter. And of course, we get Fosterites who try to start a persecution against their competitors. The end then also makes sense, but I don’t understand why. It was on one hand logical but on the other hand why was it necessary? This is thus not really a work of science fiction and but rather a theological treatise. I think it could have shortened somehow, then realized, that what the original editors thought as well. It was my third book I read from Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers was a good concept which Joe Haldeman made into a good book, the Moon is a harsh Mistress was a quick read that kept me hooked, but considering, it is basically a story of the American struggle for independence, just on the Moon, and it will also be my last. There are other science fictions authors out there.

This very fine science fiction book by one of the masters of that class of fiction was a major prize winner when it was published in the 1960s.. This well written story about a human male born on Mars and raised by Martians, was a best seller and remains a classic. Of course, it is much more than the one sentence I have written can describe. I picked it up again after reading it 60 or more years ago, because some of what I remember seemed directly relevant to the work and language of Elon Musk and the entry into the public securities markets of his Space X enterprise. Whether you are an investor and pick up the volume because it is very likely that Mr. Musk was influenced by it, or because you enjoy reading great fiction, you will not be disappointed.

It's easy to see why this book is on so many 'must read' lists for sci-fi: there are several subversive ideas (at least, they were at the time of publication), some social commentary and more than a few statements or observations about the human condition/experience. That having been said, several of those articles either fall well short of the mark or, in the case of predictions, have developed so tangentially as to render their inclusion nearly as irrelevant as if they were never mentioned. There is a lot of good in this book. Unfortunately, you'll have to sift through a lot of dubious (or straight-up bad) in order to find it. "Stranger In A Strange Land" was no doubt a controversial book when it was published: casting (a form of) communism in a positive light; presenting sex as a healthy, positive, open enterprise as opposed to something secret or shameful; realizing and promoting personal, communal and romantic relationships that are strong and meaningful but eschew traditional institutions for development, recognition, validation or support. It also seems one of the central themes of the work is the underlying value of 'peace, love and understanding,' combined with patience, consideration and acceptance, might possibly be the means AND the end. That's an important and profound statement. It's unfortunate the characters don't grok that message in full, even though the reader is left with the impression that Mike, Jubal, Jill, Anne, Ben, Duke and the rest have done exactly that. It's possible this was the actual message all along, but I don't see the notion of 'fear partial success, as it paves the way to complacency' as being the real takeaway. TLDR: decent read, dated book. Another great example of the evolution of the genre through the mid-20th century. Also a good barometer of where progressive/prediction fiction was during the same period. Recommended for: people who want to disagree with core characters (Jubal has a lot of opinions about a lot of things, and those views don't always align with each other); fans of trippy sci-fi; those exploring or researching influential books in sci-fi; followers of Heinlein's catalog. "Everyone knows that jails and hospitals have one thing in common: they can be very hard to get out of." "There comes a time in the life of every human when he or she must decide to risk "his life, his fortune, and his sacred honor" on an outcome dubious. Jill Boardman encountered her challenge and accepted it at 3:47 that afternoon." "He did not expect reasonable conduct from human beings; most people were candidates for protective restraint." "Man is the animal who laughs," Jubal said." "But it's well to look at the new rascals before you turn your present rascals out." "He's an honest politician- he stays bought."

In the wide-ranging genre of science fiction, there are plenty of classics, but only a few true CLASSICS. In this elite group are such works as the Foundation Trilogy by Isaac Asimov, Childhood's End by Arthur C. Clarke and Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. It may be one of the revered science fiction books ever, but does it really deserve that reputation? Maybe, maybe not: personally, I like the book, but I don't think of it as one of the best sci-fi novels ever. The Stranger in a Strange Land of the title is Valentine Michael Smith, the son of two of the initial colonists of Mars. The original colonists all died soon after landing, but the infant Michael survived and was raised by the native Martians. Around twenty-five years later, more colonists come to Mars and bring Michael "home" to Earth. Michael is completely naïve to the ways of humans, which makes him the target of all sorts of people. Legally, he has incredible wealth including "ownership" of Mars itself. The government wants to keep him locked away, but the nurse Jill Boardman breaks him free and brings him to attorney/doctor Jubal Harshaw. Harshaw extricates Michael from the worst of his legal problems, but new issues develop. Michael has all sorts of mental powers developed through his Martian schooling, including the ability to vaporize any enemies with a thought. His unique powers and his introduction of Martian culture to Earth - including the ideas of water brotherhood and grokking - help transform Michael into either a prophet or a messiah; he gains a following of other water brothers who have the potential to usher in a new age of mankind. All this is just the briefest of synopses of this satisfyingly complex book. While many might think that Michael is the central character in the novel, I feel it's really Jubal Harshaw. While it's always dangerous to closely link the author with a particular character, I tend to think that Harshaw is the mouthpiece for Heinlein. And if there's a weakness in this book, it's Harshaw's pontificating. He may have good points, but at times, it seems that Heinlein (through Harshaw, and to a lesser extent Michael and other characters) is preaching more than storytelling. This is also the difference between Heinlein and the other two members of the so-called "Big Three" of science fiction, Clarke and Asimov. The other two focus more on science, while Heinlein seems more interested in social issues. (That's not to say that Clarke and Asimov ignore these issues - or Heinlein ignores science - but just where the focus is.) Revisiting my original question, while this may not be the best book ever, it is still really good and deserves its CLASSIC status for its historic impact as much as its quality. Well-written and thought-provoking, this is Heinlein's masterpiece.

I read this book as a teenager, in the 1960s, and just, now, finished rereading it, at age 65. I see that I missed many of the author's ideas (due to my youthful lusts, antics, and ignorance of life and of the Bible). "Stranger in a Strange Land" struggles with boundaries of self, morality, and what may constitute/govern a normal healthy society. The author pokes at our spiritual needs, ideas, or rituals upon which we all depend to order our lives, whether we be atheistic, pantheistic, or monotheistic. By minimizing God and godhood to the level of individual understanding and growth, the Heinlein's story posits that all philosophical views need not be antagonistic toward one another; that, by default, truth is and should be relative, given our potentially reformed natural self-interests. Whether a `religious' or irreligious person or organization is primitive, civilized, or `who-cares', Heinlein poses that, despite our ideologies that distinguish us from others, or unite us, only a growing constructive self-awareness is really important, not whether God really exists or whether we will face a final judgment. The author's trick to redemption is how we decide to get along with ourselves and our neighbors, within a `fly right, or mess up and go back to the beginning' scenario, in contrast to the biblical one-life-one-chance view. By design or default, in this story, Heinlein relegates God below human self-actualization, and allows no room for absolute truth. Heinlein's self-fulfilling self-actualization is entirely at odds with biblical Christianity and biblical Judaism, yet quite at home with most religions and faiths that rely on salvation by personal works, and reincarnation-based religions. Maybe that was part of the author's point in telling the story. When it comes to putting a halt to abusive powers, I have to chuckle at how Heinlein has Smith frustrate the overbearing powers-that-be. A thought struck me about twenty years ago that those who have power or understanding have a God-given responsibility to exercise discipline and restraint with those who lack power or understanding. Having more power or understanding than someone or something else does not obviate one's responsibility to exercise that power or understanding to better the world in which we live, nor does it entitle one to do ought but to treat others with love, respect, and decency, which, for the betterment of society and our world, may require that one's power or understanding be exercised to identify or destroy evil. Though this philosophy is exercised by the lead character within the story, the clarity of this comes late to Valentine Michael Smith, yet, sadly, such clarity does not move him to embrace an absolute God, absolute truth, nor his own existence as a created being that is not God, leaving Heinlein's view of life and after-life harshly in contrast to the biblical viewpoint, hence at odds with God. Martian or human, in the end, Heinlein simply does a shell game with his characters, when the issue of death arises, leaving readers to guess in what level the author will eventually hide them, to avoid a final judgment, leaving each soul's story to continue ad infinitum, ad nauseam, without any ultimate accountability. This is an entertaining science fiction story, yet, Heinlein's ideas, in this sexual-religious-social romp, border on theological sophistry. His ideas will probably offend most established points of view. Despite his general bravado, and so bold a topic, Heinlein omits balanced discussion among the characters, fails to deal with any absolute truth or true final judgment of evil, and perfunctorily dismisses biblical views that might be germane to cogent biblical discussion. There are two upwelling truths that the author has twisted and cheapened them considerably, by his denial of absolute truth and avoiding our accountability to God's perfect righteousness. Those are self-sacrificing love and the inevitability that every soul is responsible for her/his own thoughts and actions. Though he allows watered down versions of those traditional moral elements to remain, Heinlein (who must have seen too many money-hungry medicine shows, tent meetings, and carnival acts) relies solely on human constructive self-awareness, self-discipline, and self-empowerment to pose a stab at a positive future for humanity and the afterlife. The story's quasi-moral might read, "Find any way to beat the present system and exploit it at almost any cost, so long as no one really gets hurt." Smith's earthly end-game of self-sacrifice is a corrupted shadow of Christ's. Smith's is a twisted image of self-sacrifice, a huckster's trick to work the crowd, avoiding entirely the biblical God and plan of Christ. Heinlein's bootstrap theology, in the end, can neither respect nor agree upon one God, nor save itself from its own moral meanderings and wishful unthinking of human sin. As an author, myself, I would add that every one of our actions, gestures, and our written or spoken utterances, has its consequences, and that we are ultimately responsible, to God, for everything that we generate and utter. I believe that Heinlein's story agrees partly with my belief, except that Heinlein leaves the one true God completely out of his story. Despite Heinlein's philosophical thrust that everyone can claim "Thou art God", for self or others, I personally subscribe to the biblical view that all things and people are created by God, and that He holds us together by His Laws and will, and that there is, yet, a separation that He reserves between us and Him, that can only be bridged or reconciled through His Christ, and, furthermore, that we are the only part of His Creation that has been offered that exclusive plan of redemption. By contrast, Heinlein's story offers the carrot of constructive self-awareness as the means of possible redemption for humanity, insecurely hoping to save us from ourselves. Craig M. Szwed (Author, photographer, combat veteran, father, composer)

Heidlein's vigorous imagination is on full display in STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND. At first a 'fish out of water' tale that transforms into a rather ironic messiah account, it is arguably his best work. It sometimes reads like a blue print for founding one's own religion, but as a not so subtle critique of nuclear families, traditional western organized religion (Christianity), capitalist society, as well as psychology, it works quite well and is still provocative many years later. It deserved the HUGO award that it won as much now as in 1962. While many of its key principles and postulates fail in practicality, the core questions asked are worth asking. While this reviewer personally disagrees very much with Heinlein on a broad spectrum of things, asking tough questions and presenting alternatives to the norms accepted in society has always been at the core of the best science fiction. Worthy as these questions are, many of Heinlein's proposed solutions are problematic. If anything was learned in the 60-70s, it is that group 'families' founded on free love (a contradiction of terms) fail because we (the entire human race) are incapable of escaping our own corruption. Call it fallen, or simply call it selfishness, but regardless, we are not meant to live in relationships as Heinlein has described, nor will we ever. Additionally, it is a common theme in science fiction to expect the human condition to drastically change through our acquisition of psychic powers. The same 'hard core' sci-fi writers and readers who will profusely argue against the existence of God (because, they say, there is no proof of His existence) will allege that humans at some point will develop these god like powers, despite there being nothing remotely close to evidence to support that contention. In fiction writing, this is simply Dues Ex Machina, and a way for Heinlein in this case, to give the protagonist a chance at establishing a subversive 'anti' church. A book that is filled with many ideas, only some of them good, and an incredibly ironic look at Heinlein's ultimate agenda, STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND is a science fiction classic that is a must read for any sci-fi fan.

I read this in the late 60's or early 70's. I believe it helped me open my mind and see the world differently. Take your time and grok. If you don't like it wait, come back, and you might be fulfilled. Thanks Mr. Heinlien and those who resurrected the original manuscript.

The books came with a excellent shape ,quality of the book is awesome ...Classical reading of one of the gradmasters of sci fiction ,this book must belong to every fan of sci fi genre .

This is interestingly the "extended" version that Heinlein wrote before having to reduce it for publishers. Was great to revsit a book that helped shape my life so many years ago.

There are three ways this book can be taken. 1) You are emotionally developed enough to comprehend it. You may or may not like the writing style, but you'll appreciate the content. You grokked it before you read it. You might grok it in more fullness on a second read. 2) You are not emotionally developed enough to comprehend it when you start reading it, but you are by the time you're done. By the end, you love it and recommend it to everyone. You grok it, but maybe not in fullness. 3) You are not emotionally developed enough to comprehend it, and may never be. You hate the content, and will use that hate to criticize the form. You don't grok it and may never. Every negative review I've read seems to fit into that last slot. It's possible to criticize the science (flying cars for heaven's sake), the dated lingo of the dialogue, the characters (they're not so 3d), but in the end, they do exactly what they're intended to. And they do what science fiction is best used for: exploring the the human condition as it is, and how it might be. To that end, the book is actually quite an accomplishment. Heinlein shows us our fatal flaws. And they are timeless ones. We are all jealous and fearful and flawed and pained. And in ways that we don't need to be if we just grokked each other a little bit more. If you read this book, you will understand humanity a little bit more. Unless you just don't get it. In which case...well, you oughta keep trying. I'd recommend the full version, which is the one published after 1991, with a forward by Virginia Heinlein and 60,000 more words. The ISBN for it is 9780340938348.

Engaging characters and an in depth look at humanity, what makes people tick. Heinlein as always writes on two levels; one to make an interesting story to read and another to make you think about society.

life changer!