Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I do not grok this book. Can someone explain to me why it's considered a classic and the greatest sci-fi book of all time? I have read lots of Heinlein's books, none of them have made less sense than this one.

...what book? I don't see nufink...

EF, see thread title...

oh.

hmmm, never heard of it. Good title though.

EF, yes, very cool title. I believe Iron Maiden named one of their albums "Stranger in a Strange Land." I am sure there are some IM fans on the board that can confirm or deny.

I dont necessarily recommend the book because of its philosophical verbage that is difficult to digest. It isnt an easy read, but it is worth reading...if that makes any sense at all...grok?

I can't really comment, having never read it..

Wow. There are so many levels to this book. Humanity, religion, belief, community. It's one of the few books that I've read twice because it is so good.

I got about 1/3rd of the way through and grew bored. I probably should read it again, but that's because I was expecting Starship Troopers 2 or something.

Never read the book but the iron maiden song (not album) isn't related to it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stranger_in_a_Strange_Land_(song)

Prolly my favorite song on the album though

barlio wrote:I got about 1/3rd of the way through and grew bored. I probably should read it again, but that's because I was expecting Starship Troopers 2 or something.

Yeah, most assuredly not anything like Starship Troopers other than the insightful commentary on society.

The book is considered brilliant precisely because of its "philosophical verbiage."

In Stranger in a Strange Land Heinlein does what only the other masters of science fiction have done, like Frank Herbert in the first Dune book - he has created a commentary on humanity that rings absolutely true.

Science fiction does one thing better than any other genre of literature IMHO - social commentary. Because it is freed from the reigns of "realism" sci-fi can concoct worlds that highlight, spoof, or comment upon whatever aspects of human society they want to in as pointed a fashion as they like. In Dune, Herbert hits politics, religion, and philosophy very hard. Stranger in a Strange Land focuses more on social mores as tied to religious practice, and does it brilliantly.

No offense, but I am very curious as to the age of the OP. I find that younger readers of Stranger often just don't get it because they lack the requisite life experience and/or critical perspective to see the tremendous amounts of truth and wisdom that the book represents. If you're under 18, I suggest re-reading the book in your mid-20's, and then read it again in your early 30's, and see if your opinion changes.

If, regardless of your age, you're not into philosophical inquiry for its own sake then Stranger may never hold much appeal for you. It's really a book meant to inspire introspection and contemplation about why humans believe what they believe.

Cairnius wrote:It's really a book meant to inspire introspection and contemplation about why humans believe what they believe.

I thought that was Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments.

I was forced to read it in college. I guess for that reason alone I'm not much of a fan regarding this particular Heinlein work.

I did enjoy Job: A Comedy of Justice, however.

Ahtman wrote:

Cairnius wrote:It's really a book meant to inspire introspection and contemplation about why humans believe what they believe.

I thought that was Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments.

Nice!

It has been a while since I read Stranger... but I remember it being somewhat bloated and pompous. Of course it is entirely likely I associate that more with my Professor.

Hmm, with that in mind I probably should read it again before I make anymore comments on SiaSL.

Stranger was a significant literary achievement. It did for metaphysics what One-Dimensional Man did for political theory. Some of its observations have not aged well; primarily due to advancements in genetics, physiology, and cognitive theory.

Now, because Stranger is something of a primer for postmodernity, I feel obliged to say that I loathe it.

I read Stranger in a Strange Land this past year. I absolutely loved it. It is the second Heinlein book I've read; the first was Starship Troopers, which I also loved. I'm 23 now, I think I was still 22 when I finished Stranger.

I agree with Cairnius about the strengths of Sci-Fi in the hands of authors like Heinlein.

I do think that if I had read Stranger when I was younger, I may not have got as much out of it as I did this past year. I think I probably still would have liked it (as I've always enjoyed my share of intensely thought-provoking books), but I'm not sure if it would have had the same impact - for that matter, I don't know if I would have gotten as much out of Starship Troopers if I had read it when I was a teenager. I think that I really needed Stranger at the time that I read it, just as I felt I needed Starship Troopers when I read it. Things were going on in my life at the time I read both that made the books quite personal, and pertinent to what was happening. I think Stranger in a Strange Land and Starship Troopers are both great, for very different reasons.


I must ask dogma, which observations do you feel haven't aged well in Stranger? Genetics, physiology, and cognitive theory aren't really my favored subjects, so I might have overlooked some things that I shouldn't have.

Hordini wrote:
I must ask dogma, which observations do you feel haven't aged well in Stranger? Genetics, physiology, and cognitive theory aren't really my favored subjects, so I might have overlooked some things that I shouldn't have.

Stranger is known for the fluidity with which it regards sexuality, and gender relationships. And while it is true that those concepts are not so rigid as they were assumed to be at the time of publication, progress in genetics and physiology have shown that there is at least some physical basis for the establishment of reproductive social norms. That isn't to say that anything out the norm should be ostracized, but it does prevent the kind of outright rejection of the existence of norms as postulated by Michael. In essence, we are not free to see the world in any manner that we desire. Instead we are forever bound by the limitations imparted by our existence as physical beings; an assertion reinforced by various advancements in cognitive theory (particularly the physiological considerations surrounding truth formation).

I should also note that there is a sense in which Heinlein could be said to have anticipated these complications in that he was forced to introduce a super-human, messianic figure in order to avoid them.