Posted on 02/01/2010 12:31:22 PM PST by JoeProBono
Is Stranger in a Stranger Land by Robert Heinlein the Catcher in the Rye for the science-fiction set? Yes, I think you could say that about the 1962 Hugo winner in one important sense.
When author J.D. Salinger died this past Wednesday, I must confess it was convenient for me (if not for him), because it got people talking about his most famous novel. The Catcher in the Rye occupies an interesting position in the literary landscape: It's inarguably a classic, and inarguably a popular classic at that — a book that a lot of people have not only heard of but read, and that has touched them on a real emotional level. But for all that, it's also a book many of those same people are sort of embarrassed of.
Catcher in the Rye is famous as a book that means so much when you read it as a young person — your mileage may vary, of course, but that's what it's famous as, nonetheless. It's full of confusion and anger and easily bruised cynicism, and other adolescent emotions, and climaxes in a kind of sublime but immature optimism. It's a story that carries you away — or has carried many of us away, anyway — when you're somewhere between, say, 15 and 20, but leaves you feeling a little foolish the older you get, especially because of the tendency among allegedly cooler, smarter people to dismiss it or scorn it.
Stranger in a Strange Land does not trade in the same kind of emotional content — it's a much more detached book, except right at the end — but I think it suffers from the same kind of treatment as Catcher. At least, when it came up last weekend while I was out with some of the io9 powers that be, they were mild groans all around, and admissions that while, yes, it was certainly an important part of the canon, well, still. And that was certainly not the first time I've encountered such a reaction to it.
For the record, I don't want to give the impression that anyone from io9 said anything derogatory about the book, because they didn't — there was just some eye-rolling. Which I get. For one thing, it's Heinlein, and even his most die-hard fans ought to agree that he's earned his share of eye rolls. And for another thing, Stranger really is a hokey book.
In case anyone reading this hasn't read it, the story goes as follows: The first manned mission to Mars, consisting of four heterosexual couples, radios back that it has arrived on the planet and then is never heard from again. Years later, the second manned mission to Mars discovers that the fourth planet is inhabited by a native species, that two members of the first mission had a child before dying, and that the odd, inscrutable Martians have raised the kid as one of their own. The astronauts bring the young man, Valentine Michael Smith, back to Earth, where his presence shakes things up, to say the least. The first problem is that the world government wants to control him because he's the heir to an unearthly fortune. The bigger issue is that Michael's Martian heritage has given him a very different outlook on life from most of humanity's, as well as some godlike abilities.
Martians think differently than we do, in large part because they live much longer and because they don't really die — they just lose their bodies and evolve into what they call Old Ones. The upshot of this is that they're not in a hurry, and so instead of deciding anything quickly, they think about it long and carefully and from every possible angle — they grok it, to use their word.
To get an idea of the impact Stranger in a Strange Land and Heinlein had, consider that "grok" is listed in most modern dictionaries, from the OED to Webster's. (By comparison, "orc" still isn't in my Webster's 11th Collegiate, despite having been coined and popularized a quarter century earlier.) But it was not so much the idea of grokking that resonated with readers as what it leads to in the story. As Michael teaches his Earthling friends to grok and to think like Martians, their human patterns of thought fall away, freeing them from shame and guilt and jealousy and repression. Naturally, this leads to nudism and group sex.
And because it's Heinlein, the group sex is warm and touchy-feely, but ultimately just as heterosexist and chauvinistic as a Penthouse Forum letter. Beyond that concern, there's the fact that successfully applying Michael's philosophies seems absolutely unrealistic outside of the world of fiction. It's easy to gloss over these problems with the book, though, especially if you're young and reading it for the first time, because so much of the setup and philosophy is not just appealing but logical, if highly idealized, in the abstract. It's only upon a more critical reexamination that one sees that gosh, maybe the stuff that sounded so wise and deep isn't so pat; maybe it's so overly simplified as to be a little ridiculous.
And I think that it's the feeling of having been taken in so hard, and then finding out that what you thought was brilliant might be kinda silly, that leaves people rolling their eyes at and dismissive of Stranger in a Strange Land. Or just the fact of all the SF that came along later that grapples with sexuality and morality in a much more complex way.
Likewise, there are plenty of works out there that deal with much more sophisticated issues than The Catcher in the Rye does. And we have this tendency to rank works that are more complex or more sophisticated as better than those that are simpler. I get why — if it works, a more complex piece of art by definition took more skill to pull off than a simpler piece.
But if we stop and grok it, that's not a judgment about the merits of the pieces of art — it's a judgment about the ability of the artist. A more complicated piece of art isn't better than a simpler piece; rather, it was created by a better* artist — maybe even the same artist who created the simpler piece, at an earlier time......
First time in over 30 years I've heard anyone use the word in a non-ironic sense.
From Salinger to Heinlien? Can anyone tell what is the connection? Read the article and for the life of me cannot tell what connection the two authors or works have in common. Is it me, or does the author just want to talk about “Stranger in a Strange Land”? Weird.
Thats a Heinlein book I don’t want to read.
Morality is important.
Otherwise you get liberals.
Many of Heinlein's books explore alternative ways of evaluating "morality," leaving it to the reader to respond, "No way that'll work, but thanks for playing," if he chooses.
I did not like Stranger in a Strange Land, but it contained one, imo, brilliant idea: the "fair witness," a person trained and licensed to report accurately what he observed. For example, the character was asked, "What color is that building?" and replied, "The side I can see is white." Imagine how much confusion and argument would be avoided if people stated only what they actually observed, rather than what they assumed.
I grok this...
I didn’t get too far in Stranger before I got too bored to continue. Moon is a Harsh Mistress is better, IMHO.
I will defend Heinlein’s every written word until my last breath. Heinlein is the reason I am a conservative. He taught me that conservatism is the true proponent of free thought, and that its principles of Liberty and Freedom are truly universal and eternal. Check out my screen name. Greatest book ever. :0)
I suppose.... I would also suggest that Stranger in a Strange Land marks the beginning of Heinlein's descent from a solid SF writer, to the man whose later books obsessed on the subjects of incest and breakfast.
The concept of a "Fair Witness" struck me too. It owuld be nice to have such people around. I also loved the concept of some hick hillbilly kid being on a space ship and in the midst of turmoil the kid figures out how to navigate in space by doing the math in his head while astounding all those around him.
Robert A. Heinlein was the best science fiction writer of all time.
I thought that was an excellent book, too. And I’m sure Mr. Heinlein would be pleased with your comment.
Greatest book ever. imho...Free Luna! :0)
The author is apparently not well read in Heinlein. In his later years he got a whole lot less heterosexist.
My personal reaction to SIASL was similar to the author’s, though. I read it when I was about 10 and it had a big impact. It wasn’t tille a good many years later I fully realized the “morality” in the book just wasn’t practical, much less moral.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.