A review by manuphoto
Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein

adventurous challenging reflective slow-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Character
  • Strong character development? Yes
  • Loveable characters? It's complicated
  • Diverse cast of characters? Yes
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

3.25

This was my fourth Robert Heinlein novel. Although he’s far from my favourite author, I understand perfectly why he’s considered one of the classic writers in American science-fiction.

Let’s first address the elephant in the room. Several characters in this book are sexist, racist and homophobic. Taken at face value, it can be horrifying and distracting, making it impossible for one to enjoy the story. It’s always hard to know if a book reflects an author’s point of view or if he’s making fun of certain types of characters or behaviours. I’m an optimist, therefore, I chose to read this novel as a satire (bear with me).

The blatant belittling of women, the horrendous behaviour, the repetitive mansplaining... If we look at these elements at face value, it makes the book unreadable and portraits its author as a horrible person. That remark by Jill that women are responsible for getting raped was… most unsettling for example (to put it kindly). I cannot fathom that Heinlein was actually holding this as true; to me it has to be satiric and a denouncing of such mentality. Again, it’s the optimist in me talking, I haven’t read Heinlein’s biography. 

I’m not saying he was an angel, but I think he’s actually showing what reprehensible behaviour is by just, well, showing it. Heinlein doesn’t add a sentence like “and doing this is mean and stupid” because if the reader doesn’t catch that… well then he’s the one who’s to blame in my opinion. 

I think it’s a satire, like Starship Troopers is in many ways. I don’t think it reflects the author’s values, or at least not completely. Don’t get me wrong, as a white male writing in the 40s, 50s and 60s, I’m sure he had many racial, social and sexual prejudices, but we have to acknowledge that these were, sadly, commonplace at the time (and sometimes still are).

It really boils down to the character of Jubal Harshaw. Is he a stand-in for Robert Heinlein? Or a way to criticize this kind of behaviour? Even though Jubal shares some attributes with Heinlein (I understand he was a libertarian to some degree), I don’t think he’s a stand in. He’s an old man, and part of his attitude towards women (calling them “kid”, or saying “that’s a good girl” when a woman performs her job) sounds indeed dated within the book itself, like it’s out of place in the universe it is presenting us.

He’s putting our noses in our own crap, I think it’s a very efficient way to tell people how not to behave, rather than preaching about proper behaviour. But you have to read it as such, as second degree writing, not at face value. Maybe I’m completely wrong and Heinlein truly was a horrible person, but that’s the feeling I got out of it, maybe because I’ve read many French satires in my youth. He probably also was conflicted about all of this, as some of his ideas obviously went against the contemporary practices.

I will say that his take on homosexuality seems closer to what the author holds as true. When he says that Mike should feel the “wrongness“ of it, I do not think he’s being sarcastic there, I think he’s being truthful. It is appalling of course, but also sadly reflective of how many people thought at the time this novel was written. More globally, I think the narrator’s POV and Mike’s reflections are closer to Heinlein’s perspective than Jubal’s or Jill’s. I think these two are here to expose and challenge, not to relay his beliefs.

Now for the story itself, it reminds me a lot of “L’ingénu” by Voltaire; somebody so disconnected from the society he’s now facing that his judgment is much less partial than ours. It’s just that Heinlein chose a guy from Mars instead of a Huron from Canada. It’s a philosophical tale, just like Voltaire’s, albeit much more bloated than Voltaire’s. 

It’s something of a trend with Heinlein: great concept, grabbing start and first few chapters, then it becomes a slog until it picks up again (sometimes). His middle sections can be quite weak and this is no exception. He obviously didn’t believe in the saying “less is more”. It is not boring per se, but it is a bit overdrawn. The last third in particular is a bit sluggish and telegraphed. Which is a shame, given how well the pacing was handled in the first part of the book. I didn’t mind all the sex and the concepts, I just found the execution to be a bit sloppy and overdrawn. A case of “get to the point, please”. He eventually does, in the last 50 pages or so.

All in all, a controversial author, a controversial book and probably a controversial review. I certainly don’t want to condone homophobia, sexism or other horrible attitudes and actions, but I also think many reviewers failed to understand Heinlein’s subtlety. Again, don’t read this book at face value, you will be horrified. If you read it as a satire, it can actually be interesting and deep (at times). It is worth reading with such a mindset, to challenge oneself and not be influenced by others who think ill of the work before even reading it. 
Always read books with an open mind and draw your own conclusions.