I finished reading the book at work today and I have the following questions:
Was Heinlen delibertaely writing an interpretation/satire of Jesus life story? Or was it supposed to be a semi-slam at organized religion? To me it came off having a bot much of the late 60’s attitude about it ie; it hasn’t held up all that well through the years.
Am I wrong?
Was this ever adapted for either Tv or the movies?
Heinlein made no bones about his feelings towards religion, esp in his later stuff. “The Trials Of Job” (if that’s the right title) was an outright slam of major organised religions.
His book “Expanded Universe” had something about religion in it, but for the life of me, I can’t find my copy.
IMHO, “Stranger” was very much a Jesus story. And a rather well done one, too. Not like that “E.T.” thing of Spielberg’s.
And I think it has held up well. Sure got the cult thing wrapped up right. And a good story is a good story. This one didn’t have alot of technology to get in the way.
It was ‘Job: A Comedy of Justice’, FTR.
I might also point out that, even if you felt it had too much of the ‘late 60s’ thing going on it was published in 1961 and according to my ‘Robert A. Heinlein: A Reader’s Companion’ was based on notes begun in the late 1940s.
While there’s never been any direct comment from Heinlein on the Jesus connection there’s a strong vein of Western-style savior’s death and rebirth running through the plot.
Heinlein started out simply asking "suppose one had to teach human society to an adult and the rest seemed to follow.
Well, yes and no. Didn’t he take a fairly lengthy break (a year or so?) between the first half (or so) of the book and the second half?
Actually, according to RAH, the book was written in three distinct phases. Many folks have written in telling where the 3 divisions are, and to date none have gotten it right, and in fact most of them disagree with each other.
The Jesus aspect has been well discussed, at this point.
And while there is a constant simmering rumor of a “Stranger” movie, AFAIK there is no actual script… thank god. After what happened to “Starship Troopers” and “Puppet Masters” I hope they don’t touch another one for years…
Tristan- 2nd biggest Heinlein geek on the boards.
Who’s #1? My competitive urge is kicking in.
Heinlein did say he took a significant break in the production of SiaSL.
Here’s the timeline I have:
1948: Seeking a story to fit the title, ‘Gulf’ RAH receives a suggestion from his wife, Virginia about a human infant raised by aliens. Two pages of notes are written and later shelved.
1952-1953: Major plot elements are worked out. Late 1953 the title ‘Martian Named Smith’ is mentioned in the article, ‘Ray Guns and Rocket Ships’ by RAH. Notes and outline now comprise 17 pages.
1955: Work begins. 50,000 words written then discarded. Restart leads to 40,000 words that become the beginning of the book.
1958: Writing resumes on SiaSL but is interrupted by RAH’s small war with SANE. With SANE battle over RAH breaks from SiaSL to write ‘Starship Troopers’.
1960: RAH finishes SiaSL at 220,000 words. RAH begins editing to bring SiaSL downt o 160,000 words.
1961: SiaSL published.
I would be willing to bet Fenris, if only because he actually has copies of “The Stinkers”.
If you don’t know of them, you’re out of the running.
And a follow on to Jonathan Chance’s timeline:
1991: Virginia Heinlein publishes the complete text of SiaSL a few years after RAH’s death.
IMHO, Poly is also in the running for Major Heinlein Geek.
Yes, I know of the ‘stinkeroos’. I’ve read them but don’t have them.
I’ve read the ‘full’ version of SiaSL and there’s really no reason NOT to cut it down. It’s a much tighter story in the shorter version.
I’ve always grokked SiASL as the ultimate “Man from Mars” story–as in, “What would a man from Mars think about [insert your own aspect of human socitey here]?” It seemed like an attempt to take a fresh look at the way humans treat each other free of all societal biases. I don’t know if it worked, but it was a hell of a try.
A) Thanks for the kudos, Tristan 
B) WSLer: I’m semi-joking (but only semi) when I say "There was a sort-of adaption of Stranger to the big screen…by way of a musical. Consider Tommy by The Who. I’m not a follower of The Who, but I’ve always wondered if they were inspired by Heinlein (the timing’s right) or if they just drew from the same sources and archetypes…'cause there’s a lot of similarities, IMO.
(I hope this isn’t coming across as a loonie “Dark Side of the Moon” = “secret hidden Wizard of Oz message” post)
Fenris
That’s interesting. I just read SiaSl (the full version) back in September and I cannot imagine what could have been cut without damaging the story. It all seemed relevant. Of course, that was the first Heinlein I had ever read.
Lots of stuff with Ben, IIRC. I prefered the uncut version myself, frankly.
I love Stranger in a Strange Land – but then, I love Heinlein. He’s one of only three authors I know of who get files under “Science Fiction” and yet actually produces thoughtful and provocative literature. As far as deliberate religious analogies, they’re pretty common in the Heinlein canon – hell, look at how many of his novels’ titles are lifted directly from biblical passages.
Yes and no. Well, no, but almost. Nicholas Roag cast David Bowie as Michael Valentine Smith and started production, only to run up against difficulties with the film rights. He salvaged what material he could use without running into legal problems, and instead made an adaptation of Walter Tevis’ The Man Who Fell To Earth.
If there’s a Christian heaven, then Heinlein and Philip K. Dick are there right now, griping good-naturedly about how nobody seems to be able to make a decent film-adaptation of their novels. Don’t get me started.
(I wanna see a campy film-version of The Number of the Beast – but you know the Church of Scientology would scream blue murder if they kept the classic endind. Heh heh.)
Heinlein was my first science fiction writer (fifth grade), and he’s been #1 for me ever since. I read Stranger in a Strange Land around '67-'68, and it seemed a HUGE departure from, say, Citizen of the Galaxy and Tunnel in the Sky, to name a few. But I liked it.
Now I’m a near-middle-aged adult with three children, and my youngest has autism. I don’t know if RAH knew anything about autism, but Stranger in a Strange Land could’ve been written about a person with high-functioning autism learning to make his way “alive in the world.”
In retrospect, it seems that SiaSL was the beginning of RAH’s new perspective, which included examinations of sex and religion.