My take on what I have called The Great Reddit Reading List can be neatly divided in two: Those books that I read prior to discovering the list, and those that I’m reading as a result of the list. (If you want to be picky, you could further divide into those I’ve read already as a result of the list, and those still to come—sadly, that third category would probably be the largest, but I’m working on that!) Today’s entry, Robert Heinlein’s famous and popular Stranger in a Strange Land, is one of the second category—those I’ve read as a result of the list—but it’s an early entry into that category. That means it’s been a few years now, and as such my memory of it has started to settle, and I’ve had to review a bit in order to discuss it.
First Edition Cover. Borrowed from Wikipedia.
I frequent several relevant subreddits–/r/books, /r/sciencefiction, and /r/printSF come to mind—and the consensus seems to be that people have a contentious relationship with Heinlein. While he’s certainly regarded as one of the godfathers of science fiction, he also has a reputation for being a difficult or sometimes frustrating read. That has not been my own experience so far; but, I’m a relative newbie when it comes to Heinlein (I’ve never even read Starship Troopers, y’all! Or watched the movie!). I was briefly convinced that I had read some of his work—short stories at least—in my younger days, but after some research, I don’t believe that’s the case. As far as I can tell, Stranger is the first of his works that I’ve read, followed later by The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (which is also on the list, and which we’ll cover…eventually). Still, perhaps that will allow me to look at it with fresh eyes.
Stranger in a Strange Land is the story of a young man, Valentine Michael Smith, who was born to a pair of human space travelers on Mars, and left there upon their deaths. Being raised by the indigenous Martians, his outlook on life is very different from that of humans on Earth; and when he is found on a subsequent expedition and brought to Earth, the changes are profound, for Smith and for everyone who encounters him. His dubious legal status—and fabulous wealth, inherited from his parents—bring great political and physical danger. He is rescued and taken in by an author, doctor, and lawyer named Jubal Harshaw, who attempts to understand him. He eventually founds a religion of sorts based on his Martian ideas and religion, with the end goal of changing human society from the inside out, and advancing the course of history. He is eventually killed—though persisting in a form of afterlife—leaving Jubal and other followers to carry on his work.
While Stranger’s concepts have not passed wholesale into culture (the way that those of our last entry did), they have had some widespread influence. Most notably the verb “grok” has passed into the English language, especially among fans and those with interests that connect back to the novel. Its literal meaning is “to drink”, but by extension, it means “to know or comprehend; to love; to be one with” (thanks again, Wikipedia!). as well, the ideas embodied in Smith’s Church of All Worlds carried over to a real-world incarnation of the church, founded in 1968, which still exists today. In the book and in the organization, polyamory was promoted, along with nontraditional family arrangements, and other social libertarian ideas.
I’m not sure that I would call the book controversial these days, though I daresay it was controversial at the time. Had its ideas been promoted in a more mainstream venue, surely it would have been more hotly debated. It perhaps benefited from the fact that science-fiction was still a niche market (an abundant one, perhaps, but still niche), one that didn’t have the credibility it has gained since. Remember that Heinlein is one of the giants on whose shoulders modern SF authors stand; but giants don’t get much admiration in their own time.
I can say with certainty that some of the book’s concepts—the polyamory, the classic phrase “Thou art God”, the ecumenism—would have been frowned upon in religious circles, of the type in which I grew up and still live. I’m not complaining; I also believe that monogamy is the intended design for humans, that there is only one correct path of salvation, etc.—I’ve never hidden the fact that I am still a Christian. As I pointed out in my last post, I hold that in many ways, fiction gets a pass on those matters, just for the sake of being fiction.
With that said, however, there’s another side to the issue, one which Stranger highlights nicely. While all fiction can be read as fiction (and thus get a pass on the things it proposes), not all fiction is written from that viewpoint. Heinlein is quite critical of the American governmental and financial systems, and of organized religion in America (and possibly in general). As far as I can tell, the views reflected in his work are his actual views, not simply created from whole cloth. Sometimes he may take them to extremes for descriptive purposes; I suspect, for example, that although he is in favor of a communal spirit, he isn’t seriously advocating eating the bodies of our dead in order to be one with them! But the broad strokes are true-to-life. What do we do with that?
I’ve struggled with this issue from the other side of the desk: as a writer. Many older authors, like Heinlein, filled their works with their own beliefs. There are certain things they take for granted, and so their characters live in those worlds and take them for granted. One example here is Heinlein’s view that the future would bring about non-traditional family structures, a topic which will show up again in the polyandrous, matrilinear families in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Not a controversial topic if it’s simply fictional; but Heinlein seems to have believed this would be a better future, and so he portrayed it often. I have struggled to do the same in my work…there are many things I believe strongly in my own life, but my characters and stories seem to be detached from that. In essence, I’m telling stories with no agenda other than to tell good stories, while Heinlein and other classic authors very clearly have an agenda. It’s not the same agenda across the board, but they all want to promote something. I just want to promote the pleasure of reading a good story.
I’ll admit to some guilt over that. I’ve often asked myself if this is the best use of my talents (not that I’m using my fiction talents much these days anyway, but that’s another story). Should I be promoting something? Should I be pushing a message? But when I consider how to do so, I often come up blank. My first love is the story, and adding layers to that purpose seems to be a burden.
Nevertheless, the point remains: Many authors do exactly that, and Heinlein is one of them. Although I believe we can read his stories for the fun of it—I certainly did—they leave us with questions that we must answer for ourselves. I’m not suggesting that we all come to the same answers—we won’t—but we all have to take these various messages and decide, at the bottom, if we agree or not. Will that in turn affect our enjoyment of the story? Yes, I think—and perhaps unfortunately so; but there we are.
However, I’ll leave you with one observation: There is power in passion. Heinlein is clearly passionate about the things he believes (or was; he passed away in 1988). His stories resonate even today, because of that passion. Whether you walk away agreeing with him or not, you walk away knowing an impact has been made. That’s a quality to which any author can aspire.
Happy reading!
It’s a new year, and a new reading challenge! What are you reading this year? Having unfortunately not met my goal last year, I’ve scaled back a bit, to thirty books in 2019; so far I’ve completed two. You can join me on Goodreads, and post your own challenge!
Timewalkerauthor 