# I've just re-read Stranger in a Strange Land for the umpty-fifth time **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [December 16, 2009, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ive-just-re-read-stranger-in-a-strange-land-for-the-umpty-fifth-time/521439 "2009-12-16T02:47:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ive-just-re-read-stranger-in-a-strange-land-for-the-umpty-fifth-time/521439/21 "2009-12-16T20:16:38Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ive-just-re-read-stranger-in-a-strange-land-for-the-umpty-fifth-time/521439/22 "2009-12-16T20:17:25Z")
> [@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,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimee_Semple_McPherson) [Father Divine,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Divine) [Billy Sunday,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Sunday) [-- and/or fictional models like [url=[Elmer Gantry - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmer_Gantry)]Elmer Gantry.](]Gerald L.K. Smith[/url) ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ive-just-re-read-stranger-in-a-strange-land-for-the-umpty-fifth-time/521439/23 "2009-12-16T20:20:35Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ive-just-re-read-stranger-in-a-strange-land-for-the-umpty-fifth-time/521439/24 "2009-12-16T21:37:27Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Saltire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saltire/32/553_2.png) [@Saltire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saltire)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ive-just-re-read-stranger-in-a-strange-land-for-the-umpty-fifth-time/521439/25 "2009-12-16T21:45:33Z")
> [@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_. ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ive-just-re-read-stranger-in-a-strange-land-for-the-umpty-fifth-time/521439/26 "2009-12-16T23:11:40Z")
> [@Saltire](#): > > I think you mean _The Door into Summer_. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![MacSpon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/34f0e0/32.png) [@MacSpon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MacSpon)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ive-just-re-read-stranger-in-a-strange-land-for-the-umpty-fifth-time/521439/27 "2009-12-17T00:16:25Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ive-just-re-read-stranger-in-a-strange-land-for-the-umpty-fifth-time/521439/28 "2009-12-17T00:30:54Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ive-just-re-read-stranger-in-a-strange-land-for-the-umpty-fifth-time/521439/29 "2009-12-17T01:34:27Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ive-just-re-read-stranger-in-a-strange-land-for-the-umpty-fifth-time/521439/30 "2009-12-17T01:41:14Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ive-just-re-read-stranger-in-a-strange-land-for-the-umpty-fifth-time/521439/31 "2009-12-17T04:55:32Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ive-just-re-read-stranger-in-a-strange-land-for-the-umpty-fifth-time/521439/32 "2009-12-17T05:24:47Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ive-just-re-read-stranger-in-a-strange-land-for-the-umpty-fifth-time/521439/33 "2009-12-17T05:28:11Z")
> [@Saltire](#): > > I think you mean _The Door into Summer_. Right; probably conflating that with _The Past Through Tomorrow_. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ive-just-re-read-stranger-in-a-strange-land-for-the-umpty-fifth-time/521439/34 "2009-12-17T05:37:51Z")
> [@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). ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ive-just-re-read-stranger-in-a-strange-land-for-the-umpty-fifth-time/521439/35 "2009-12-17T12:52:31Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ive-just-re-read-stranger-in-a-strange-land-for-the-umpty-fifth-time/521439/36 "2009-12-17T14:07:21Z")
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.” ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ive-just-re-read-stranger-in-a-strange-land-for-the-umpty-fifth-time/521439/37 "2009-12-17T15:11:17Z")
“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”. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ive-just-re-read-stranger-in-a-strange-land-for-the-umpty-fifth-time/521439/38 "2009-12-17T15:17:29Z")
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! ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ive-just-re-read-stranger-in-a-strange-land-for-the-umpty-fifth-time/521439/39 "2009-12-17T17:31:09Z")
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! ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ive-just-re-read-stranger-in-a-strange-land-for-the-umpty-fifth-time/521439/40 "2009-12-17T23:31:24Z")
> [@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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ive-just-re-read-stranger-in-a-strange-land-for-the-umpty-fifth-time/521439.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ive-just-re-read-stranger-in-a-strange-land-for-the-umpty-fifth-time/521439.md?page=3)