Stranger in a Strange Land || The Controversy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 вер 2024
- Hi guys, in this video I’m looking at the controversy that has surrounded Robert Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land since its release in 1961.
Thanks for watching.
#sciencefiction #robertheinlein #controversy
Sources:
newrepublic.co....
en.wikipedia.o....
www.mentalflos...
www.mansonblog...
www.inverse.co....
theoutline.com...
/ did-the-sexism-bother-...
____________________________________________________________________
MY STUFF
linktr.ee/book...
____________________________________________________________________
vvv MORE vvv
MY SCI-FI NOVELS
www.amazon.co....
DELPHINE DESCENDS
After her family is killed and her homeworld occupied, young Kathreen Martin is sent to the distant world of Furoris for re-education. She will live the rest of her life as a serf - to be bought and sold as a commodity of the Imperial Network.
When her only chance of escape is ruined, a chance mistaken identity offers her a new life as the orphaned daughter of a First-Citizen Senator and heiress to a vast fortune.
She vows to claw her way into power to sit among the worlds’ elite. Then, with her own hands, she will reap bloody vengeance on them all.
But to beat them, she must play their game. And she must play it better than them all.
BLACK MILK
Prometheus has the chance to bring his wife back from the dead, but doing so will mean the destruction of Earth.
Spanning time, planets and dimensions, Black Milk draws to a climactic point in a post-apocalyptic future, where humanity, stranded with no planet to call home, fights to survive against a post-human digital entity that pursues them through the depths of space.
Five lives separated by aeons are inextricably linked by Prometheus’s actions:
Ystil.3 is an AI unit sent back in time from the distant future to investigate Prometheus’s discovery...
The mysterious Lydia has devoted her life to finding a planet that the last remaining humans can call home…
Tom Jones (he’s a HUGE fan!) is an AI trapped inside a digital subspace, lost and desperate to find his way back to his beloved in real-time…
Dr Norma Stanwyck is a neuroscientist from 24th Century Earth whose personal choices ripple throughout time...
Prometheus must learn the necessity of death or the entire universe will be swallowed by his grief.
____________________________________________________________________
GOODREADS
You can stalk me on Goodreads to see what I'm currently reading. bit.ly/3rrcByD
____________________________________________________________________
IMAGE USE
The images in my videos are mostly licensed stock photos. However, occasionally I will use images found online. I always seek to properly credit artists and offer a link back to their amazing work but sometimes it's hard to find the original source of the work. If I've used an image you own and I haven't credited you, please feel free to get in touch as I am always more than happy to do so.
Good point there. Not only Henlein was allowed to provoke readers to think, it's also commonly agreed that character's opinions don't necessarily represent the author's.
Exactly.
People have lost the ability to separate the art from the artist.
Actually it became quite apparent with Heinlein's later books that the constantly recurring character of a curmudgeonly yet smart and inventive ultra-libertarian who always has a flock of beautiful women half his age that he has sex with - along with his mother and his daughters was a projection of his own self-image.
Literary Donatism: Ascribing to fictional characters the opinions or views of the author...
@@RodneyGraves or possibly the opinions that exist among humans, may have been the intent, but why would we concern ourselves with that? ;-)
Heinlein is one of my favorite authors, I have read every book I can find that he has written including this one. Books such as this one, Time enough for love, Glory road, Starship troopers etc are full of satire and make you think about your beliefs differently and even question them. Still enjoy re-reading them to this day.
YES YES YES to everything you said. Every time I read him I fall in love again.
Don’t read Beyond the Sunset. It’ll ruin it all for you. Actually, anything post stroke stay away.
Cat that walks Through Walls, and Citizen are my 2 and 3 with Stranger being #1. Citizen is where I first heard the metaphor about a cat and a buttered piece of toast and for some reason that always stuck with me
Agreed and I, too, am a lifelong Heinlein fan. I've read and re-read everything he wrote. He loved skewering sacred cows of all sorts, LOL.
Thank you so much for this.
I read the book in primary school in the early 60's, and consider it to be a primary influence over my worldview to this day. It led me to read other Heinlein works. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Farnham's Freehold, The Puppet Masters, I Will Fear No Evil, Rocket Ship Galileo, Time Enough for Love, remain ever present in my mind as I examine the themes of the world we now live in.) The Moon is a Harsh Mistress was clearly a major influence on the creators of The Expanse, swapping out the Loonies for the Belters and keeping the premise of catapulting rocks at earth (re-imagined in terrifyingly explosive detail). I Will Fear No Evil re-asserts itself with every current discussion on gender dysphoria (not bad for a novel published in 1970).
But it is Stranger in a Strange Land that continues to reflect the world in the fashion that I see. Not sure if that's a good thing, but it does mean I grok things that others don't seem to see.
As for the unquestionable presence of blatant misogyny, the book was written by a man, in 1961. The quoted passage is very much how I remember attitudes in 1961. And although I have identified the work as a life-influence, sometimes that influence is in how one recognizes how a work of fiction got things wrong as time moves forward.
At my time of reading, it was a throw away line that I hardly noticed. In retrospect it elicits a chuckle.
"blatant misogyny"
Everyone seems to forget that in Heinlein's worlds, women were always armed, proficient, and never, EVER, incapable victims.
The line is an accurate statement of fact for women in such worlds (and for men, for that matter).
Would it have been "misandristic" if a male character had said the exact same words?
@@lafelonghmm 🤔 guess it's all according as to how one looks at it 🤔
As a long time reader of his books , his female characters were generally strong and not controlled by the male characters but just the opposite.
Interesting…
I was a huge fan of the 'holy three' (Clarke, Asimov and Heinlein) in the early '70s, with Stranger in a Strange Land featuring promently.
The thing to remember about this 'classic' science fiction is that it all "creaks" to the modern ear because these authors came up before and during WWII when social mores were rather different than they are today. The ideas presented are still no less challenging.
I take Charles Manson at his word when he says he never read 'Stranger…'. The ideas from the book became very much part of the wider youth culture (and specifically the hippies) of the time. I have no doubt that he would have at least heard of some of the ideas from the book.
I've seen water-sharing ceremonies in many contexts far separated from any interests in science fiction. Polygamy, and frankly misogyny, are very old ideas.
My wife and I were members of The Church of All Worlds in the late '80s just after they decided to align themselves with the more popular culture of wicca.
I'd be curious about you take on Farnham's Freehold. That book was creaky for me even in the mid-'70s.
I understand that there's new interest in production of a "The Moon is a Harsh Mitress" movie (my friends and I based a subsersive near-revolution in our high school based on this book)!
Likely that some of Manson's followers read the book and told stories around the fire about it.
Having recently read a history of the Summer of Loved about Haight Ashbury and the psychedelic movement, I agree. There's descriptions of grokking sessions and parlours so it wouldn't have been necessary to have read the book to be aware of the word
❤
Heinlein was probably one of the most supportive authors of women's rights of his or any time. He held women as being superior to men. One quote in a story was 'why owuld a woman want equality with men when they are so much more capable?' People that comment that anything he wrote was or is sexist haven't gotten to the thematic message he was trying to convey.
....they want equality cuz they don't have it....that just sounds like a line fro msomeone who isn't listening to the people who are suffering. It sounds like youre doing the same. "Why would you want a better life if you're thriving where you are" it's called making do with what you're given, doesn't mean thats all they should be offered.
@@itsanoformedawg No. Heinlein's view was that women were clearly *inherently* superior (by nature!), and that by trying to be "equal", they remove themselves from that superior position, and are brought down to the level of mere brutish men - to their detriment (and to the detriment of society).
Women fighting for the equal "right" to be drafted into combat positions in the military and then being sent off to be killed in wars is the obvious example.
Men and women are DIFFERENT. Those beautiful differences should never be erased... they should be celebrated.
"Whenever women have insisted on absolute equality with men, they have invariably wound up with the dirty end of the stick. What they are and what they can do makes them superior to men, and their proper tactic is to demand special privileges, all the traffic will bear. They should never settle merely for equality. For women, 'equality' is a disaster."
"I believe isn't sexist . . . My second sentence in the comment is a belief I say he held that's sexist, but he isn't sexist!"
@@itsanoformedawg How on earth did you come to that conclusion?!? It means set your sights higher. Don't settle for mere equality when you're capable of so much more. That anyone would interpret this as dismissive of women says far more about them than it does Heinlein.
@@jonsoule7421 tf you mean set your sights higher!? Where when you cant do shit! Tf you think equality means numbnuts?
Thank you, Darrell, for another engaging review.
I read Starship Troopers in 1959 & Stranger in a Strange Land in 1961. Even as a little kid their diametrically opposed viewpoints were not lost on me. How could the same author write so convincingly about both perspectives?
As you very rightly point out, Heinlein wrote to provoke deeper thinking.
This impetus for deeper thinking was not restricted to philosophical matters. He also wrote step-by-step descriptions of orbital mechanics, physics theories that might in time support FTL drives, and so much more.
Did he believe in a society that supported the needs of the individual? Did he believe in a society where the individual must be utterly self-reliant? Maybe @Debilitator47 is right & his philosophies evolved over time; or maybe he wrote to provoke.
Robert Anson Heinlein contributions were seminal to world literature.
Thx again, Darrell, for giving us this treat!
Weren't the Martians threatening to destroy Earth if MVS couldn't bring humans into the fold? The humans in Starship Troopers had the same philosophy, just on a less cosmic scale.
It's never either or, it's what it is.
There seems to be this odd assumption that everything said by characters in a work of fiction is the shared opinion of the author and correct fact as the author sees it. It was quite jarring for me to read Jill's statement. As was a great many other bits of the book. But, I never assumed any of these were the author's opinion (well, maybe his thoughts on the Rodin sculpture, but I do not disagree, so perhaps that's bias). Readers of SiaSL have good reason not make this assumption even if they lack the nessissary reasoning to conclude this before reading the book; the author, via the characters, tells the reader not to trust what the characters say. For example, when Jubal tells the story of Lot being visited by Angels. He first commands his audience (in the book, as well as the reader) to look it up in the Bible. He gives the Genesis 19 address and insists that it be looked up immediately. He then proceeds to give a very warpped interpretation of the incident (though Jubal's interpretation is not unrealistic for someone who doesn't look too closely at the text). This notifies the reader that Jubal can't be wholly trusted. As Jubal is obviously a fictionalized self-portrait of Heinlein, he's also suggesting to the reader that Heinlein shouldn't be trusted to provide correct information [in this book]. Despite my discomfort at hearing the statment, I can still recommend the book because Jill is wrong. Every character in the book says or does something wrong and says or does things that also _might_ be wrong. Heinlein intended it that way and even influded himself. I don't have to agree with an author to enjoy their work and certainly don't have to agree with fictional characters. I consider Ayn Rand's philosophy, despite introducing some very good ideas to think about, flawed at its core. But I enjoyed reading her works even knowing that author believed it and was trying to convert me. Reading disagreeable books (wrong word, but I can't think of a better one) has helped me to try to apply simular reasoning to non-ficional works. I found bits of William James' The Varieties of Religious Experiences to be nearly infuriating. The disagreeable parts would have been only mildly irritating, but the author warned me at each and every step he was about to say something to anger me. The warnings agrivated my irritation but were also the reason I kept reading. The author was humble enough and respected his audience enough not to insist he was correct and even pointed out when he was about to say something he knew to be less that correct.
It was often apparent in Heinlein's writing that he was trying to get people to THINK
I think I would need to read it again for context, but as far as I remember, I just took it as Jill complaining about how society views it (and it has to change) instead of author expressing his views how it should be. So I would very much agree it is written to make the reader think along the lines of "Really? Us as society is this bad? How can we think like this."
Yes, I grew up with Rand an Heinlein, and agree completely with what you said about Rand.
I think what I remember most about Robert Heinlein's books was his 'past through tomorrow' a series of short stories and novellas that is supposed to give a coherent future history of mankind - still own my original copy of it from 1970 or so. I am firmly convinced I have the misfortune of living during his 'crazy years'. I am skeptical that Heinlein had a misogynist bone in his whole body.
If This Goes On... still feels prescient to me. It's not weird to think of a religious dictatorship in the U.S.; it hasn't been since Falwell came out so heavily for Reagan.
I don't comment nearly enough on your videos. I enjoy every single video that you put out! I love your reviews, your author overviews, your lore videos.. all of them. I love science fiction, and you make some of the very best and diverse videos on UA-cam on the subject. Thank you!
Thank you. 🙏🙏🙏
I read this book many years ago and I remember talking about it with somebody who swore that I was lying because apparently there is another book of the same title and he just thought that I was full of BS.
Anyway, I still think of this story and now I want to read it again.
I enjoyed the story. It did, quite often, come across as quite surreal.
One aspect of the book which has been indelibly stuck in mind was the profession of "Fair Witness", albeit fictional, but totally fascinating.
The Martians themselves, were also a very interesting construct in the story.
Heinlein's critique, always quite "surprising".
I love the idea of a Fair Witness!
Thanks for another very interesting topic! I have not yet read Heinlein but it's good to learn that my copy of Stranger is expurgated - however since it's the one that so influenced America and the world, it may also be worth reading - be nice if I can find a full version that marks what passages had been cut, a way to almost read both at once.
I read this book about 20 years ago, when I was in my early 20s. It's ability to see peoples perspectives on so many levels helped shape my understanding of empathy for others as an adult. I Grok, to drink, to love and to understand, to become one with.
It's been awhile, the 70's since I last read it 🤔
Hard to imagine this was written by the same guy who wrote Starship troopers.
Heinlein's politics shifted wildly throughout his life and writing career. Late in his life he became libertarian (american style) and very conservative. If you read his very early writing, however, he's deeply left, writing approvingly of a world in which everyone's needs are met, and how they organize their society. Later he became ensnared in the red scare. The arachnids (bugs) of Troopers are modeled on his understanding of communist China's ideals. Witness ideas like the bugs are highly specialized whereas in his view, humans should be generalists capable of a list of feats.
@@Debilitator47 the red scare. Starship Trooper is advances the notion that somehow all veterans are guaranteed to be perfect citizens, seem such a far cry from Psychic hippie ritual cannibalism
I know Heinlein didn't 'believe' the ideas of Stranger. The point was only to make readers think. I'm reasonably sure Starship Troopers was done with the same intent. ST presents a military quite different from the real world. Service is _extremely_ voluntary at all times up untill the person decides to commit (new recruits can walk away without penalty). The military is brutally honest when it comes to recruiting, military academy teachers and actual recruiters display their limb stumps when on-duty rather than using the advanced cybernetics that make them indistinguishable from naturally limbed people when they are off-duty. The military doesn't lie about warfare, they show everybody what's going on with no attempt to hide anything even when they launch a show of force that they expect will kill innocent civilians. There are no cover-ups. A person does not have to be able-bodied to be in the ST military. No barrier can prevent a determined person from doing _something_ in service to their civilisation via military management. No, simply being a veteran does not automagically make one a better citizen in the real world despite generaly offering improvments. Heinlein attempted to create a fictional world where people are trained to be good citizens 1st, expecting this to make them better soldiers. A military academy teacher lets his students discover that soldiers must fight and die so long as a single civillian does not have freedom. He requires that they show mathematical proof of this. ST is not a fascist manifesto. It is simply certain situations taken to fictional extremes to make readers think about the real-world they live in. Can you get everything you want simply by voting for it? No. Can a civilisation continue to exist if no citizens (including military) defend it? No, it will change into something else by being conqured from without or within. "Under our system every voter and officeholder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage…. He may fail in wisdom, he may lapse in civic virtue. But his average performance is enormously better". ST points out that in the real-world, the right to vote is the right to rule and that voters have been given no training and have no responsibility required that qualifies them to rule. In the USA, one must merely turned 18 and fill out some paperwork. Yes, one thus registers for the military draft. But no actual performance of responsibility is required beforehand. ST does not endorse or condemn the real-world situation; it merely points it out by using an fictional system that works differently.
@@Debilitator47 Asimov blamed Virginia Heinlein for changing Heinlein's attitudes
@@dawnmoriarty9347 That is sad to hear. Previously I've only read these author's works. Learning now more about the authors themselves is eye opening, sometimes gratifying, and sometimes disappointing.
The most unreasonable point in the book was the concept of "witnesses", someone that could witness something and never be wrong about reporting what was seen.
I was fascinated by the idea of a "fair witness" but I thought I demonstrated it wrong. He asked her what color the house on the hill had been painted. She responded, "This side is white," because she could only see 'this side' pf the house.
I always thought she *should* have said, "This side looks white to me," because the angle of the sun or the pool chlorene that might still be in her eyes might be affecting her own perception of color.
I think of that 'blue and white' dress that is neither blue nor white.
@@lorensims4846 Even if your example Fair Witness response is better clarified with "to me", I am still thrilled by the "This side is" part of the response because to me that shows she made a good faith effort to get it right. So yes, still thrilled, but it could have been even better with your "to me". grin
The fair witness is aware of the possible limitations of one's(Human's) physical and emotional perspective viewpoints, and only reports on what is verifiable from that physical unbiased view.
There are no extrapolations beyond that.. at least not from a fair witness.
The fair witness makes no judgement, draws no conclusions and imparts no emotional baggage to the observation.
The fair witness is not a judge. The fair witness just provides a data point, in a unbiased manner.
It is likely that that data point is not the whole story. That data point is not intended to be the whole story.. it is a data point.
The fair witness is highly educated in the process of objective, unbiased, impartial observing and reporting.
This concept is foreign to most inately. The absence of implementing this concept ,is a major source of turmoil for all mankind.
It is found to be mostly(totally) absent, in the manner that information is presented, in today's mainstream.
Clearly processing what does truely exist, with unbiased truth, has undeniable merits.
The result may not be the result that makes one feel good or.. bad, but it will be true to the best of possible accertaining.
Or it will be left as an opened question, if there is not enough valid unbiased data to make any conclusion. Further data required.
Not comfortable with that? Life isn't always comfortable, but it becomes more so for everyone, when one sees what is truely present in an unobscured reality.
I suppose there could also be fair witnesses that may be called to peer review another fair witnesses' reporting, as best as such could be done.
Who decides what is 'fair' honest, can be a concern given man's nature of corruption.. but it really is quite easy to recognize bias, if one has eliminated one's own bias... (a prerequist for the job)
It just educating the masses to understand this for themselves, that is a challenge.. a challenge that RAH has attempted, in presenting this concept... he has succeeded in many cases, and failed to fully reach others, in other cases.
"...No man can reveal to you aught, but that which already lies half asleep in the dawning of your knowledge..."
Kahill Gibran
@@paulkaz2127Truth is uncomfortable for some 🤔
Interesting overview! Please do more about these maybe even about sci fi books that not everyone knows. It would be very appreciated!
Heinlein is one of few men I wish I had the opportunity to meet, I learned much from him from his writing. Stranger to me was an amazing look at what if, this had had happened. That is what good science fiction does. As for misogyny at 67 myself now, I understand Heinlein far better as a man who both loved women and within our limits as men understood them very well. I certainly could not follow the path Stranger would suggest assuming such a thing were possible. Yet it did modify my reaction to many things as it required me to consider them in an intellectual light rather than just the programmed emotional one. I was only five when he published Stranger and I did not discover until I was in my teens. I do not remember exactly how old I was but I do remember the delight the book brought. I was a Heinlein fan drawn in by his juvenile books like Have Space Suit will travel among others. I do not read them so much anymore but I do listen to them on audiobooks even to this day. I loved Stranger but in many ways I felt The Moon is a Harsh Mistress to be equal to it. Time Enough for Love, I would consider to be his masterpiece.
Thanx for saying Heinlein was making us think. So many people take what his characters say as his opinions.
Have you met the guy? It's easy to tell they are
@@Pugkin5405 sorry, the one liner you wrote is unintelligible.
@@5400bowen Yes, I know thinking's hard for you
@@Pugkin5405 FOAD.
I'm a huge Heinlein fan and, I suppose, an apologist. Among the foundational beliefs that Heinlein subscribed to and exemplified in his writings was a commitment to truth divorced from sentimentality. The quote from Jill -- ["Nine times out of ten, if a girl gets raped, it's partly her fault"]-- was a reflection of that belief, among others. In our culture, steeped in anti-intellectualism and sentimentality, such an observation is taboo, because we infantilize women to enhance their eligibility for victimhood, which we prize. If a man were to leave a liquor store in a bad part of town, flashing a wad of cash and stumbling off into the night, no one would be surprised or particularly sympathetic if he got mugged. But a woman must be accorded the right to dress provocatively and get drunk at a fraternity party and, if she winds up having sex that she then regrets, accuse her partner of rape. It is somehow misogynist to assume that she should have enough personal responsibility to minimize her risk of assault. This isn't to say that true rape does not occur or that it isn't monstrous when it does. Rapists should be punished to the fullest extent of our laws. In fact, the crime is so reprehensible that it should not be watered down by conflating it with drunken liaisons, poor judgement, or gullibility. Girls should be taught to be responsible and assertive. They should be charged with a certain level of responsibility for their own choices and actions. They shouldn't be told that they have the right to dress or behave in any manner that pleases them and get drunk with strangers, and that any bad consequences are purely someone else's fault. By the same token, boys should be equally charged with personal responsibility for their actions. And that was always Heinlein's message: take charge of your own life, be prepared, take responsibility. Unfortunately, our society doesn't seem to be much concerned with producing competent, self-reliant citizens anymore. Obedient perpetual victims seeking a paternalistic champion to avenge the wrongs done to them are a lot easier to govern.
This book is fullon New Age and feminist.
Ive read this book three times, with many years between readings. It was a different book each time (granted the third time it WAS a different book, it was the unabridged one 😁), 'cos I was a different stevo each time? Good stuff, this vid.
One thing you can definitely say about Heinlein's writings is "provocative." It wasn't necessarily that he was a proponent of a particular point of view, but rather that he wanted his readers to consider different points of view.
Heinlein is often called sexist, racist, homophobic, and misogynistic by his detractors. Those detractors generally do not understand the subject material, are profoundly ignorant, or both. He wasn't perfect as a person or as an author, and he was a product of his time, but he's damn good.
Yep, these people are dumb AF.
He's quite the opposite.
He sounds WAY against men, making them look like shit.
I grew up reading Heinlein and read this in my early 20s. I always thought that Heinlein’s portrayals of women were born of the author’s fantasies of his own sexual charisma. I found that mildly amusing and didn’t let it spoil my enjoyment of the books overall. He comes off a little better in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress in which the women hold the power in the group marriage.
Why is one holding power better than the other.. RAH usually stated, that the more fair sex actually held the actual power,.. , as an observation. Why care? Either way. Sex is not relevant, to competence.
Yeah, remember a strong woman character there as well, he went in many directions, explored many alternatives. Was very much pro civil rights but you wouldn't think so if you read Farnam's Freehold.
He DID base his females on Ginny (his wife)
Favorite line from the novel:
Valentine Michael Smith tastes some food and asks "Who is this?"
And yes, in the end, Jubal Harshaw eats a piece of the murdered Smith, taking the concept of the Eucharist to a literal extreme.
But honestly, I cannot stand Jubal Harshaw (who stands in for Heinlein). That man loves the sound of his own voice.
In the early 1960's three books were hugely popular, especially with college students: 'DUNE', 'Lord of the Rings', and 'Stranger in a Stange Land'. The first two were adapted to the screen. Is Heinlein's novel still too controversial today? It still rings True!
I first read this book over 50 years ago and (I suppose because there was no Social Media) it never occurred to me that it was controversial.
Amen ! I read it in 1966 and it was not controversial at least not in Southern California where I was in college. This was at a time when civil rights marches were happening and people were dropping out of school to go to Haight Ashbury District in S.F. There were a large number of controversial things going on but SiaSL was not really one of them nor was it widely read then. Some of the ideas he presented were unique and eye opening to be sure. But that is true of most good sci fi and this was one of the best sci fi books available at the time.🤓
Will return to listen to this video once I have finished the book. See ya later.
I read this book so many years ago, and I seldom remember book plots for too many years (which lets me re-read favorites every 2-3 years and still be surprised...). This must have been something I read in the early 90's maybe, or even the late 80's. I can remember being slightly irritated about some parts, but the other stuff was just great enough to drown that.
Strangely enough, the only thing I remember about the book today was how the main characters 'worried' about the nudity taboo in different versions/dimensions... And that they could move around between different universes? I think...
There can't have been a heroic/fun part about it, since I never bothered to read it again, though? I keep thinking about it as something philosophical, I'm afraid.
Heinlein wrote that to grok him there were three necessary works: The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Starship Troopers, and Stranger in a Strange Land...
I grok that.
I did not know about Manson connection...interesting
I might have read every book on that shelf behind you. I'd have also included The Dark Tower books up there. I'd wager that you've read that series too.
I love Stranger in a Strange Land. I recommend it to lots of people.
Those critics that make all kinds of super-ludicrous conjecture about fictional characters dialogue, Heinlein's misogyny, et cetera ad nauseum, have absolutely no credibility as they clearly have not done the most basic of diligence... research. The man repeatedly said his wife, Virginia, was the smart one in the family, and Spider Robinson can confirm that she contributed often to his writing, and knew every bit of his plans, outlines, and material submitted to publishers, and certainly agreed with his intentions.
I mean, neither have you. You know women can still be sexist, right? It isn't that hard
Heinlein wrote the book to make people think - he was not promulgating a religion - he was trying to promote independent thought. As for critics, they will see this book through their own lens. And they miss the most important part of the book: Thou art God
Sure LOL.
I mean, you get the last part right.
Very anti Christian.
As an author myself, I often wonder how I can portray a misogynistic character, filled with their own views and justifications, and not be accused of the same. Like the actor who plays a villain being booed in public because of the role, when an author creates a character they often fill the character with traits of people other than themselves. Parts of my first novel were written from the viewpoint of a serial killer. Yet I have never taken a life, nor do I want to. But I've been told I did a good job with it.
Heinlein was a free thinker. Born in 1912. A Naval Academy graduate. The misogyny in his writing was normal and very normal for his time. The book is sixty years old.
i haven't read Stranger since 1968. This review makes me wonder if I read the original 1961 version or the revised and re-released 1968 edition. One statement toward the end about Heinlein only asking question I believe to be not accurate. Heinlein is actually asking the reader to question what they believe.
At 14, Stranger in Strange Land was only the second real fictional book I had ever read. The first was Grapes of Wrath that I consumed in a three day weekend. To say they altered my world view would be an understatement.
Anyone who has read Heinlein more extensively that SIASL will quickly realize that the line uttered by the nurse is a reflection of the authors deep and abiding philosophy of self reliance and personal responsibility. In other words the statement was intended to illustrate the ability and responsibility that women can and should be capable of defending themselves against male attackers under most circumstances.
Unsurprisingly, people who think for themselves usually love Heinlein; people who don't, and more tellingly those that profit from and lead them, don't.
Misogyny was rampant during the time period in which this book was written, so I don't believe anyone can make an argument in good faith that the line in question (re: rape) was not misogynist. It's a pretty disturbing line to just randomly throw in and not examine more thoroughly.
That said, we can acknowledge that something is totally unacceptable by today's standards and still choose to look at it through the lens of the period of time in which it was created.
I agree the line said by the fictional character is misogynistic though that doesn't necessarily mean Heinlein was being misogynistic or that he randomly threw it in. It could exist to get readers thinking, discussing and debating.
@@north.by.northeast Oh, I absolutely agree that just because a character says something in one of his books doesn't mean that the author shares that view. I just think that in general, if you are going to have one of your characters say something fairly morally repugnant, it's probably wise to have another character oppose that view. But as I said, it was another time. Things were different then.
@@north.by.northeastTo think, you actually have to give people more ideas. That's how it works.
It's not a "different time" thing
1of the few writers who understands how to write and make art
Authors are craftsmen and words are their tools. But what you take from a story depends on you as much as the author.
An engaging, entertaining novel that previews countercultural alternative lifestyles (as well as orthogonal religious and gender ideas) that may either shock or tittilate you. It's clear why it was so influential in pop culture.
Probably the most impactful thing I took from the book also would cause me to spontaneously chuckle every time I thought of it: the elevation and glorification of a notary public to "divine witness", which still cracks me up.
WAS IT "DIVINE WITNESS" OR "FAIR WITNESS"? The concept of speaking the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth explicitly TOTALLY and completely devoid of opinion or bias remains rather intriguing. Consider a world in which that was the only way to communicate...
Heinlein definitely wrote dialogue that reflected the times. However, I got from Heinlein that women can be strong, and better than men in many situations. Look at the individual. Don't judge because of the sex or skin color of a person. A person's mind, morality, and actions are what matter.
Read this as a teenager and was moved and stumped at times bit dated now , lovely writing
I find what he calls controversial as thought provoking which was Heinlein's original intension
Oh wow, what a lovely narration voice 😍 Subscribed
I am a member of the present day Church of All Worlds and have been for over 50 years. The statement in the book, "Thou Art God," God is defined as Self Actualizing and used Abraham Maslow list of Self Actual qualities in his book "Motivation and Personality." Good review. Never Thirst,
This novel has lots of controversial elements, but they all have filtered into our mainstream culture by the 1980s and 1990s. You would think Stranger in a Strange Land would be considered as just another book among many in scifi.
Beautifully made content here and inspiring to read the book. It's still on my shelf of shame of partially read books. This one's a bit more challenging with a lot of characters and intrigue it seems, and lots of pages (I have had trouble staying committed) but I really want to give it another shot. I will start with Orphans in the sky, a much shorter Heinlein novel.
Once I start a book, I always read it through to the end no matter how uninspiring and mind-numbing it is. "Stranger in a Strange Land" was a chore.
Personally, I preferred the 1991 edition. Maybe because I read the first edition in 1980 when I was 13. I might have been a little young for that book. A few years later, I became a big Heinlein fan.
I haven't read Stranger in a Strange Land but I have read Orphans in the Sky, another later work of Heinlein. There were definitely some misogynistic elements in that story line too.
Good video. Thanks.
About the Jill Boardman line. It's her character's belief or opinion. A lot of Heinlein's characters are eccentric egos, some are just assholes. This is exemplified in Farnham's Freehold, and spectacularly in The Number of the Beast. Loved the plot, couldn't give two shits about the pissy, self-absorbed main characters.
Can't believe he's not going to mention the single most obvious parallel of "Stanger" --- Smith is J.C., you know, the obvious crucifixion and resurrection.
I have read Stranger a number of times since I discovered it in the early 70s, and I can say I got something new out of it every time.
I quote certain lines from it to this day. It is also the LAST Heinlein book I ever got - in my opinion, Stranger was weirdly wonderful, but everything that followed was just...weird.
Having said that, I credit Robt. Heinlein and H. Beam Piper with turning me into a subversive: They offered the viewpoint that American Democracy is/was NOT the only workable form of government; an eye-opener for a RahRah Boy of the 50s !
And, yes, I caught the various pokes and slams about organized religion -- To this day, IF i have the chance, I'll ask a bible-study group what they think about the Ritual Cannibalism we participate in when we take Communion. They never thought of it that way and I thank you, Michael Valentine Smith!
I never considered a controversy in regard to Stranger; thought-provoking, Oh, YES. And to that, I'll end by quoting Benjamin Franklin: "It is good to shake things up occasionally - it lets in both air and light."
Problem with just asking questions is if the questions are so out there and provocative that they can inspire sick people to answer them with blood all over dead victims walls.
I loved Starship Troopers but found this one to be too trippy, New Age and psychedelic for my tastes.
I always assumed from my first reading of it in the 1980s that it was a send up of the entire hippy movement as well as a thought experiment
@@dawnmoriarty9347 you may well be right. It’s about twenty years since I read it and remember being massively disappointed and disengaged from it.
A work that generated and continues to generate controvery must be doing something right.
One of my favorites books
One thing above all with most of Heinlein's novels is the motivating the reader to think for themselves, the line from Gill is just pointing out that a woman who is sexually abused or even raped is responsible in the same way a chubby kid is bullied in school, its more to do with the abuser than the victim. generally I always thought of the female characters in his novels being very strong willed, like Friday, Hilda, Dora, Deety and of course Maureen.
I read Stranger when I was 11... I have to admit though that my all-time favourite Heinlein is and a!says will be. Time enough for love.
It's a ground breaking novel to be sure. It never had any effect on the trajectory of my life or opinions, but I'm glad it's out there. It gave us the oh so cool idea of grocking. I perfer The Moon is a Harsh Mystress for best novel by this interesting author. Btw, I know women who believe that r*pe is in many cases the woman's fault. I'd put this down to a generational thing. Maybe he put it in there to piss off people even more.
"Stranger" is a product of ITS times, not ours. And Heinlien was a product of the thirties and forties. If people can read Chaucer, Shakespeare, Twain, and even Paglia within their time-frame references, then they can read Heinlien the same way. We are ALL products of our times .... try to imagine what people fifty, or even five hundred years from now think of our "horrid" notions.
Interestingly, Heinlein derived the title for this novel from a passage in the Bible, Exodus 2:22, where Moses named his first born son Gershom (lit., “foreigner”), for he said, “I have been a stranger in a strange land.” Heinlein wasn’t necessarily opposed to spirituality, only to the (mis)use of organized religion, especially when it was employed to enslave or manipulate humanity.
I thought this novel was so cool when I first read it back in the 1960"s but when I tried to reread it in my sixties I discovered that it had aged very badly.
Man, this was wholesome!
I have the complete leather bound Virginia Edition of Heinlein’s works thanks to my Uber strong wife who is a reflection of his portrayal of extremely competent women. Heinlein’s portrayal of his protagonist men and women were always of capable individuals who complemented each other with their strengths.
As far as Jillian’s comment on rape, Heinlein is absolutely correct in that if a woman puts herself into a vulnerable situation she had damn well be prepared to deal with with the negative results with violence up to deadly force. All of Heinlein’s female protagonists follow this line and pity on the poor fool who tries to rape one of them. They might succeed as males are physically stronger (doubtful for a Heinlein female protagonist) but in the long run the rapist will be dead, dead, dead, due to here and/or her friends running him down. I cite Friday as an example.
An other example is the Watchmen when the Nite Owl and Silk Spectre in civilian garb went into a dark alley and were jumped by a bunch of gang bangers…most of which did not survive.
In"Grumbles From the Grave"Robert Hienlien writes that he had an argument with L Ron Hubert about a sytheticreligion. L Ron,came up with "Dianetics" . Hienlien's was Stranger in a Strange Land.
Niven’s Law-There is a technical term for those who equate the opinions of characters with their author, the term is “idiot”.
This WAS important! And it WAS revolutionary. But it WAS a literary fiction for anyone with intelligence, to differentiate fantasy from reality. Heinlein BECOMES the innocent, shot down by society mores. Perhaps in a another century, it may be judged fairly as a great work of art, on its own merits. Like Thomas Jerome Newton stated, "We would have probably treated you the same if you'd come over to our place!"
Great book ... at least when I read it back in the last century!
I read it recently in the 2020's, or tried to, and it was so old and clunky.
Still, I really loved it at the time.
Read it years ago. Thought it was a masterpiece and can't believe none has even tried to make it into a movie. Come on Spielberg and Scorsese!
It was misogynistic because it was written in misogynistic times. I was about 13 when I read it and never picked up on the misogyny. I should have but I didn't. That doesn't mean it wasn't a great book with astounding (for the times) ideas. You can level the same accusations at Isaac Asimov who wrote appallingly fawning female characters, or Enid Blyton who wrote stereotypical middle class white children.
NoJills line about 9 times out of ten it’s partially the woman’s fault for being raped means in the minds of others, not in actuality. He should have been more clear, but that is what he meant.
Seems rather quaint at this point in history, considering the novel theories on sex and gender that are being pushed today.
This is the book L. Ron Hubbard grifted many of his "Scientology" religious standards from, as he and Heinlein had a running bet as to whether Hubbard could create a "New-Age" religion out of whole-cloth. Heinlein ended up providing a whole lot of material so that Hubbard could produce that religious garment.
I read Stranger at university and remember having a bit of a philosophical buzz for a few weeks. Heinlein was a lifelong libertarian, beginning as a left-leaning 'free love' sort, and gradually morphing into the right-wing variant in which pretty much any trangression can be justified. I don't recall which of his later stories I read, but found some them disturbing. In one postapocalyptic story the main character justifies letting his wife die, killing his daughter's boyfriend, then having 'consensual' sex with his daughter. It tainted what had been very enjoyable reads. Have you read Grumbles from the Grave, his (auto?)biography?
Full on communist I'd say.
Does anyone believe they are not, in significant part, a product of their times? At least, to some extent, Heinlein rose above that.
Non-violent cannibalism has been practiced by all Catholics religiously.
I like Heinlein, and I like 'Stranger' (for all it's problems) I read it way too young (maybe 13) many years ago. It is a product of it's times and so is Heinlein because a lot of his ideas have dated, though they were scarily new and innovative when they were written. I think that MANY of the things Jill said were... debatable. And they were often debates that absolutly needed to happen in the 50's.
Remember: it was not until 1970's that rape of a woman, by her husband, became illegal in the USA. Today, with ' no means no' and the law (however much it can be variable) behind us it is sometimes difficult for people to understand the debates that were historically important. An exceptional part of Jill's statement that is almost always overlooked today, is that she was owning agency. She was ascribing agency to other women and their actions and rightly or wrongly (by todays standards) that was more than a bit controversial right there.
Heinlein wrote a female equality that was absolutly beyond any social norm of his day and it was shocking. Unfortunately, it tended to edge toward women having a masculine sex drive and is not what most women in 2023 would find flattering. But. If a woman does want that sort of sex life today? It is legal and relatively unjudged. How about that woman in Sex in the City? She was absolutly a Heinlein style character, and no one judges that. Apparently his writing worked, people questioned, and society changed.
AFAIK I read this a few years after it was published, but I am not going to comment, as I remember almost nothing of it. Even so, I still cite Heinlein as a favourite, for the ones I do remember. He certainly contributed to my eventual atheism and annoyance with Christian sexually repressive ideology.
I remember Jubal had little tolerance for Mike's Pantheism and gave the standard reasoning. Seems if Jubal is Heinlein as some surmise he probably didn't like it either. You can make of it anything you want. I'd never thought about it until I read the book in the early 1970s on a mountain climbing trip into the High Sierra. I looked at pantheism's all is God and God is all and thought, what about all the assholes?
Liked the book and Heinlein too. About halfway through High School, some of the socially, huh, significant babes (I had read it a couple of years previously through having spotted a paper backed copy in a local drug store, so that I was aware of some of the catch words or phrase) had apparently read it and the word 'groke,' became popular. Liked Heinlein for the edge that he had on his works, 'Friday,' was also had an edge on it. In sum, then, in a lot of ways, Heinlein was 'cutting edge.' With his humor, he might have thought that pretty funny. For those that want a peek into his "work shop," read his Wife's book: 'Grumbles From the Grave.' Which showed me that he was even more irreverent than his books might have suggested. I think that I've read all of his stories, several times over now.
It's fair to say that Stranger In A Strange Land was considerably more entertaining to readers in the 1960s than it is to most modern readers.
Readers in the 1960's were better educated in the classical sense than modern audiences, yet both are old and un-reformed Adam at heart.
Subscribed!
Concerning the “rape” line, this view was and is prevalent in both genders in western societies. From the context, she was referring to familiar social situations, not a stalking/attack from a stranger. Claiming this proves the author “misogynistic” is a stretch. Jurists of both sexes hear similar arguments in rape cases every day, few are convicted and far more unreported. Having every character express the identical views of the author would be rather boring.
For contrast, rape is dealt with harshly in TMIAHM
Yeah. It’s not a kids book.
👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
The book makes you think and therefore it is great.
One of my favorite books of all time. It's a work of FICTION so I didn't get bent out of shape about any of the controversial bits.
That's not even a good conentcion
Heinlein took Hugh Hefner's "Playboy Philosophy" and repackaged it into the voice of a supposedly naive Martian. The character in the novel, Smith, never utters one original idea. The religious in those days rejected both Hugh Hefner and Robert Heinlein and were called moralistic oppressors and fuddy duddys because of it. Thankfully, some feminists have revived Western moral traditions by pointing out the sexual misogyny of the Playboy Philosophy, that "free love" was just a code that said women did not have the right to say "No." Men have always been blaming religion and blaming women for their inability to score. Many men want to have unemotional, unattached sex without commitment, but our inability to score is really because women are discerning free agents who have the plenary right to say, No, or Yes, or Never, or No Way.
I watched Overly Sarcastic Productions's summary of this book. Being curious how today people see it I searched up reviews and then videos.
If I were to be honest, his idea of free love is questionable at best and other casual mentions of sexism and racism I find stupid but that's what I find it so funny from how ridiculous they are.
I'll probably order it so I can read it and see if it's good or not. Great video!
Me too! Love that vid. Never heard of it before seeing it.
I was honestly surprised when I looked up a few reviews of the book (I couldn't get through it, it was a slog and while I read mostly classics, I just couldn't get passed how everyone talked down to Jill as well as how she herself was characterized, it was annoying and a bit distracting, knowing it was going to get worst made me step away from it) to find people separating Thea rt from mtuw artist saying that nothing in the book represents the artist and how it's the characters, not the author, but like, he literally has a self insert. Are they also going to say that hp lovecraft wasn't racist too? Like bro, it's not unbelievable that he was all of what was represented in the book; sexist, racist, and weird ideas about 'free love' as you say. And Jill went on far too long about gay people and how it's morally wrong....keep it short if that's not your opinion. I wouldn't be jazzed to write about how cannibalism is a okay and insinuating a guy should be fine with it cuz he's part native American. There's alot these people are being purposefully blind to. They're most likely older folks, but come one. "The art doesn't represent the artist" isn't the same as separating the art from the artist. The work is still good, the person is not. The work is still shit, the person, is good at what he does but still shit.
You state that you have not read the book... yet you go ahead and make comments as if you 'know' the book.
Please read books. Absorb and determine and enjoy, what you will. Good luck.
@@itsanoformedawg there seems there may be work to be done, that has not yet been undertaken. Good luck on your journey. Grab the reins and let them grab you. You are not in this alone. Hear what is.
I love your review but to me stranger in a strange Land is similar to the next book he wrote moon is a harsh Mistress. Both characters are named Mike and both characters seek their humanity through humor.
As for the Jill reference when I read it (age 12) I interpreted it as she can handle herself in a fight and fend off physically or verbally The unwanted advances. And any woman who doesn't learn how to defend herself either verbally or physically it is not taking their own safety seriously. Men too have to face bullying and if your LGBT male outright psychical threats.
Very good.
An interesting book. But I think it would be a mistake to take everything the author has his characters say seriously.
Obviously some of the ideas he expressed could not happen in real life.
Strange Stranger in the Strangest Strangeland 🙂
This book has serious baggage, I suppose forgotten now. Charles Manson.
Gene Roddenberry seemed to read a lot of SF. Van Vogt's "The Voyage Of The Space Beagle" influence appears evident in the first season of Star Trek, at least.
Written by Roddenberry, the Charlie X first season episode looks to be a response to "Stranger in a Strangeland". From a more practical and pragmatic viewpoint and a few years before Manson.
I loved Stranger when I first read it. I recently heard there were plans to make it into a TV series. All I could do was laugh and ask which parts are they going to cut out--probably all of it. It is just so deliciously subversive. As for the problematic quote by Jill, I'm in two minds, but mostly I think it is a side effect of Heinlein's belief in one being totally responsible for events, to an unreasonable extent. Heinlein would believe that if you didn't like your job, you should up and quit then and there. Yeah, no. Most of us can't do that, just as women have little say in whether they get raped. There might be the odd one who is an excellent fighter or is super persuasive, but I wouldn't count on it.
I love the novel myself and I was dreading the possibility of a watered down series. Thank heavens it fell apart.
"There might the odd one who's and excellent fighter or persuasive, but I doubt it" first you compare quitting your job to a woman getting raped and then you doubt that a woman wouldnt fight on average? And persuade? Wtf does that mean? What are these comments fr! I just wanted to listen to a few reviews after reading that book 1/5, best I could do, Vonnegutt gives me everything I want without rape, coercion, sexism racism, and blatant homphobia.
Slaughterhouse: March 31, 1969
Stranger:June 1, 1961
@@itsanoformedawg I will assume that I did not explain myself fully, so here is what I meant. Circumstance can put us in positions where there is little freewill. A woman can find herself in a dangerous situation where she has little defense. OTOH, a person working in a job to support a family is in the circumstance where they can't just quit. They are very different situations, but they share the fact that circumstance limits their options drastically. You can't tell how much freedom someone has and therefore how much choice they have just from a superficial account of the situation. If you have read any Heinlein, you will see the relevance.
@@UteChewb ....u take it he said it's a woman's fault for getting raped or that it's accplicable to leaving a job?then thats stupid. Yet here you are trying to justify I guess? You did say that's it's unreasonable, but nothing else you said says that you disagree with that. (Asyou should) but you also osaid you're on two sides...of a guy comparing a dead end job to woman getting raped...okay.
bro. That does not mean you should be comparing either of them at all my guy. You could've compared to that literally anything based on that premise but you decided to use a woman getting raped as your comparison to not quitting a fucking job....you explained yourself, you're just an idiot for not seeing how terrible of a comparison that is. "I was stuck on a plane for 10 hours. I couldn't do anything, I just had to wait until it was over. So let me explain how this is just like a woman getting raped" bring that up in causal conversation.