Stranger in a Strange Land

I read Stranger in a Strange Land when it first came out in 1961. It was the most important and influential book I ever read. It changed my life, and the lives of millions of others. Inspired by SISL, I went on to create the real-life Church of All Worlds, which is still going strong over half a century later. The 1961 edition is the essential version, edited by Heinlein himself. The later unedited version issued by his widow is a travesty, as it is sloppy, and omits the single most important line in the entire original edition--Heinlein's definition of "Love" as "That condition in which another person's happiness is essential to your own." I corresponded with Mr. Heinlein extensively in the 1970s, and here are his own words regarding these two versions of SISL:

"SISL was never censored by anyone in any fashion. The first draft was nearly twice as long as the published version. I cut it myself to bring it down to a commercial length. But I did not leave out anything of any importance; I simply trimmed all possible excess verbiage. Perhaps you have noticed that it reads “fast” despite its length; that is why. I WILL FEAR NO EVIL does not read as “fast” because it never received its final trimming; I became extremely ill and could not do it, and would not allow an editor to do it because my stories are fitted together like jigsaw puzzles and it is awfully easy, in trimming, to leave out an essential piece. So I WILL FEAR NO EVIL is not as good a story as SISL, in my opinion--too slow--even though, again in my opinion, what I have said in it is just as important. But I’m pleased enough that I was able to finish it at all; it just missed being posthumous. (Mrs. Heinlein signed the contract; I was too far gone even to write my signature.) "The original, longest version of SISL is in a fireproof vault of the library of UCSC and can be seen there by any scholar who convinces the special collection librarian that he has a legitimate interest. But it is really not worth your trouble, as it is the same story throughout--simply not as well told. With it is the brushpenned version which shows exactly what was cut out--nothing worth reading, that is. I learned to write for pulp magazines, in which one was paid by the yard rather than by the package; it was not until I started writing for the Saturday Evening Post that I learned the virtue of brevity. (And I am still too wordy in a private communication such as this, or in conversation.)" (--Robert A. Heinlein to Oberon (Tim) Zell, 2/28/1972, personal correspondence)

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 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)

Heinlein's satire is wicked and well-placed, reminiscent of Voltaire and Swift. IF you love British comedy, you'll love this book. Both come from the same sarcastic taproot. I'm still debating whether or not the main charter is Smith or Jubal. Maybe it is us, since we need to recognize that we are Juba, and must nurture, and eventually become like Smith.

Smith's reflective, contemplative message, reminds of Thomas A Kempis (

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.

I’ve always wanted to read this book. Heard a lot about it and it’s importance in the science fiction genre. But I didn’t care for Heinlein’s style of writing. There was a lot of subtle humor in it that was enjoyable, and I suspect he meant for it to be a caricature of humanity. I enjoyed the analysis of human nature throughout the story. But I was disappointed in the direction the story took toward the end. It seemed like a cheap way to develop the possibilities that had been laid out in the rest of the book. I want to believe human beings would value the opportunity and show up in a better way if such a thing really happened. I felt like the main character was so rich and unique in the beginning, but in the end, he felt flat and inscrutable. Having said all of that, maybe if I hadn’t been swayed by my own expectations, I would have enjoyed the story more. I’ll have to try some of his other books and see what I think!

I understand why this book is often cited as one of the most important sci-fi books of all time. While reading it, you might begin to question why it’s lumped into the sci-fi category because the themes are very human. It is science fiction, that cannot be argued, but it’s also a coming of age story, a religious story and at its very core, a story about love.

Valentine Michael Smith was born and raised on Mars, but he is a human. He is brought back to Earth to learn what it means to be a human. This causes the reader to be forced to think outside of the box because Michael is not just coming from a different human culture, he has never learned what it means to be a human so any chapter told from his perspective is like an outsider, looking in on human culture. It’s wildly fascinating to think about ourselves in this manner.

As Michael progresses in his grokking of humans, he gets out to explore the world and to challenge it. Our concepts of God/religion and sex/love are strange to him. We tend to not really think about it from an outside perspective because this is just the way life is, but being forced to think about it, makes for a very fascinating read. I’d never really considered myself to be a “prude” but there were times that this book made me feel that way. At times, the reader must take a step back and remember that Heinlein did intend for many of the themes to be viewed as satire of what is commonly accepted.

There were a few negatives when reading this book, however. It was written in the sixties, which was a very different time from today in terms of the way women are spoken to/about and how they are treated. Heinlein wasn’t too bad in this regard, but there were a few sentences that made me stop for a second. Heinlein also has some of his characters go on these long drawn-out speech tangents that go on for pages and pages. I felt it was a little unnecessary to go on for that long, especially considered the length of the uncut version. It took me a little while to get through this book and normally I’m a pretty quick reader.

Negatives aside, I do feel like this book is important. The story itself is not challenging, but as I stated before, it challenges the reader to think about humans from an outside perspective and that is fascinating. He really doesn’t seem to rely too much on Sci-fi elements, preferring to focus on the human elements of the story (love, religion etc.). If you’re looking for something long and fulfilling, this may just be the sci-fi book for you!