I've just re-read Stranger in a Strange Land for the umpty-fifth time

[Magiver]

@Sam_Stone

Heinlein knew L. Ron Hubbard quite well, and Hubbard formed Scientology in 1954. Heinlein was probably keenly aware of what Hubbard was doing. There was famously a conversation between Hubbard and Heinlein in the 1940’s, in which Hubbard said something like, “Do you know how to make a fortune? Start your own religion.”

So I wouldn’t be surprised if Hubbard’s shenanigans were a major influence in the book. This was also the period of the McCarthy hearings, and the Hollywood black lists. Heinlein also disparaged the “Mrs. Grundy’s” of the world, who had a lot of power then to compel moral behavior.

So there were a lot of societal influences he could draw on and extrapolate from to create his future history.

Pretty much how I see it.

[BrainGlutton]

@BrotherCadfael

It’s the last part that caused me to bring this up to the Dope. What exactly was Heinlein up to in creating the oddball Fosterite church? Today, it reads like a diabolical sendup of Robert Schuller’s Crystal Cathedral, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, and the rest of the fundamentalist TV preachers, with an in-your-face style and amassing political influence if not power.

But none of this existed in the 1950s when the novel was being composed, nor in 1962 when it was published. Where did he get it from?

Some of it undoubtedly was from the Mormons, then seen as a weird bunch with charismatic prophets, odd personal lives, and imposing architecture. Some of it was probably from the revival meetings common in his native Midwestern United States.

However, the Fosterites, with their party-hearty services, gambling, loose sexual strictures, etc., are so over-the-top that I wonder where it all came from. Was it just extrapolating how the more flamboyant churches of the day might interact with mass communications? Or did he have something more in mind?

I grew up in a not particularly religious family in the late '60s and early '70s. Perhaps I have difficulty understanding the inspiration for the Fosterites because I really knew little of American churches in the period.

Does anyone have more insight into this question?

Perhaps a composite of Aimee Semple McPherson, Father Divine, Billy Sunday, [-- and/or fictional models like [url=Elmer Gantry - Wikipedia]Elmer Gantry.](]Gerald L.K. Smith[/url)

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Exapno_Mapcase

Even so, Heinlein did not make money from adult novels in the 1950s. He made money from his YA titles, a far more lucrative field at the time. By the end of the 50s, though, he was tiring of the restrictions (and of the editing), and his continuing battles with Scribners finally blew up when they rejected Starship Troopers. After that, Heinlein went back to *Stranger *and finished it, although, ironically, he couldn’t publish it until a hunk as big as a YA novel got edited out.

And thankfully, it got edited back in 1991, thanks to Ginny’s efforts.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@Cat_Whisperer

I also agree with this. I still use Anne, the Fair Witness from “Stranger In A Strange Land” as an example of precise thinking (and precise language). I first encountered her and the idea of trying to think clearly as a teenager, and 30 years later it still stays with me.

I once thought about a story in which a Fair Witness was an umpire at a baseball game, with the result, of course, that no decision ever got made. It’s a textbook example of a good idea on paper taken to a nutty extreme that couldn’t work in reality.

Scarily, I have no idea whether Heinlein meant that to be true or not.

[Saltire]

@BrotherCadfael

I’d have to advise you not to start with Stranger. There are better and more accessible Heinleins. Try his mid-50s grown-up novels: Double Star, The Puppet Masters, and Door Into Tomorrow. Or his so-called “juveniles”, which are classics and perfectly appropriate for adults.

I think you mean The Door into Summer.

[BrotherCadfael]

@Saltire

I think you mean The Door into Summer.

:smack:

[MacSpon]

@Snowboarder_Bo

And thankfully, it got edited back in 1991, thanks to Ginny’s efforts.

This is of course over-simplistic. It’s grossly unfair to talk about “a hunk as big as a YA novel” being edited out, when in fact Heinlein shortened the book by simply tightening the prose rather than removing any action.

In short, the “expanded edition” doesn’t add much except wordier prose. Oh, there are a few scenes where there are noticeable differences, but they really are few and not particularly significant.

I’ve read both and I strongly prefer the originally-published version. It’s tighter, less self-indulgent, and it reads better.

[Martini_Enfield]

I just finished reading Stranger for the first time yesterday and while I enjoyed it, I cannot help but think that it’s a product of its time and is subsequently “famous for being famous”.

That’s not to say that it’s a bad or unworthy novel (quite the opposite), but I just didn’t really see why it was so popular, outside of the '60s counter-culture context.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@MacSpon

This is of course over-simplistic. It’s grossly unfair to talk about “a hunk as big as a YA novel” being edited out, when in fact Heinlein shortened the book by simply tightening the prose rather than removing any action.

In short, the “expanded edition” doesn’t add much except wordier prose. Oh, there are a few scenes where there are noticeable differences, but they really are few and not particularly significant.

I’ve read both and I strongly prefer the originally-published version. It’s tighter, less self-indulgent, and it reads better.

The original is 60,000 words longer. That’s as long as a YA novel. It was done by what most people call editing. I can’t imagine anyone thought he just tore out a thick handful of pages from 642 through 867. Especially anyone who tried to read his later novels when he grew powerful enough to prevent his being edited by professionals.

[Martini_Enfield]

@Exapno_Mapcase

The original is 60,000 words longer. That’s as long as a YA novel. It was done by what most people call editing. I can’t imagine anyone thought he just tore out a thick handful of pages from 642 through 867. Especially anyone who tried to read his later novels when he grew powerful enough to prevent his being edited by professionals.

Which was clearly the case with The Number Of The Beast, which actually seemed (IMHO) to be mainly padding with a really good idea for a story in there somewhere.

[Lynn_Bodoni]

@Martini_Enfield

I just finished reading Stranger for the first time yesterday and while I enjoyed it, I cannot help but think that it’s a product of its time and is subsequently “famous for being famous”.

That’s not to say that it’s a bad or unworthy novel (quite the opposite), but I just didn’t really see why it was so popular, outside of the '60s counter-culture context.

Heinlein broke all kinds of taboos in that book, and those times were very much in love with the idea of breaking taboos. I read it for the first time when I was in seventh or eighth grade, and I got a lot of weird looks from the other kids, and a lot of strongly disapproving looks from most adults. First, most of the adults disapproved of the book itself, unless they were either in the counter culture or wanted to be. Second, because the book had characters…UNMARRIED characters…having sex, and enjoying it. Most adults felt that I was far too young to be reading adult novels at all, and this book was just utterly unsuitable for teens, let alone a preteen.

I’ve read the uncut version, and I think that some of the cuts were good, and some were not good. Certainly some of the scenes made more sense in the uncut version.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Martini_Enfield

Which was clearly the case with The Number Of The Beast, which actually seemed (IMHO) to be mainly padding with a really good idea for a story in there somewhere.

Totally agree. This remains one of only 2 novels I have started and never finished. And I’ve owned it since it was first published. Complete dreck, IMO.

SIASL was good, but not great. I agree with you here:

@Martini Enfield

I just finished reading Stranger for the first time yesterday and while I enjoyed it, I cannot help but think that it’s a product of its time and is subsequently “famous for being famous”.

That’s not to say that it’s a bad or unworthy novel (quite the opposite), but I just didn’t really see why it was so popular, outside of the '60s counter-culture context.

And I agree with Lynn that some of the things made the book better, and some just padded it out a bit.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@Saltire

I think you mean The Door into Summer.

Right; probably conflating that with The Past Through Tomorrow.

[Cat_Whisperer]

@Martini_Enfield

Which was clearly the case with The Number Of The Beast, which actually seemed (IMHO) to be mainly padding with a really good idea for a story in there somewhere.

I agree with this, but I read the whole book anyway, and cogitated on it later (it certainly had potential to be a fantastic book - maybe someone will have another go at it someday).

[Martini_Enfield]

I should mention that I read the “originally published/edited” version of Stranger, not the 1991 “Director’s Cut” version. In fact, would Stranger In A Strange Land even get published today? And more importantly, would it be regarded as A Very Important Work Of Literature if it was?

[Wendell_Wagner]

If Stranger in a Strange Land were submitted to a publishing house today, an editor would say to the author, “Um, have you been in a coma for the past forty-eight years? This sounds like a novel that was written in 1961, at the latest.”

[Sam_Stone]

“Time Enough for Love” is worth it just for “The Tale of the Adopted Daughter”. If that had been written as a short story or novella, it could have won a Hugo. But it buried inside a fairly ponderous book.

The only Heinlein book I have not finished is “I Will Fear No Evil”.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

I just re-read Time for the Stars for maybe the fourth time since high school, and enjoyed it all over again. Telepathy, starships, sibling rivalry, tragedy, true love… good stuff!

[DSYoungEsq]

I haven’t bothered to go back and read Stranger in a long time. I eventually grew up and found other ways to get my jollies with regard to the idea of sex.

Podkayne is one of my favorite novels of Heinlein, even though it’s a juve. But Puppet Masters scares the willies out of me every time I read it!

[iamthewalrus_3]

@Elendil_s_Heir

I just re-read Time for the Stars for maybe the fourth time since high school, and enjoyed it all over again. Telepathy, starships, sibling rivalry, tragedy, true love… good stuff!

That was the first Heinlein book I ever read, when I was about 11 years old. It’s still one of my favorites.