Stranger In A Strange Land Review

I want to focus on the oddities of Stranger In A Strange Land. I don't mean the oddities that Robert Heinlein took as outlandish ideas for a future utopia, but rather the things that Heinlein took for granted that are particularly off to a modern audience. Heinlein sets out to expand the mind, to bring to the front our idiosyncrasies as humans. He takes down religion's hypocrisies while embracing spirituality, explains free love beyond what any hippy commune ever accomplished, and lets the world know the crooks are in government, not behind bars.

For wrong technology, Heinlein's got "stereovision" on the brain instead of television. Why should it have changed its name? It's quite baffling. He predicts video calls, yes, but affixes them solely to land lines and there is a nary a cell phone in sight. Flying cars exist, and even the electronic news tickers stop when the reader looks away. Computers, though, are nonexistent and there is no Internet. I'm not going to fault a writer in 1961 for not predicting the Internet, but Heinlein's future gets us to Mars and back, with colonies on the moon, and yet so much we DO have now isn't even in production.

That's not what has me in a tizzy, though. We're in an age where marijuana legalization is a large issue, and gay marriage is even larger. The debate about equality for sexualities and not just sexes is at the forefront of our national consciousness. And yet, even with Mike's Nest's partner sharing and the mental connections of everyone during coitus, no man-man or woman-woman sex is explicit. The whole point is that sex is not obscene, and is in fact lovely, unless it's made to be obscene, which is "wrongness." Still, only women are ever mentioned kissing men in the novel, even in passing. If it's all about growing together, Heinlein, just have some dudes kiss at some point. Homosexual sex is unnecessary with all the implied orgies. Instead, we get a mention or two of kisses between others being felt metaphysically. In my opinion, it's a lot stranger to have another man inside your mind than simply your mouth.

Jubal Harshaw, the old codger, even gets a taste of the times out of his own mouth. He states that he'd rather have Mike smoking marijuana than becoming a preacher of ill repute. Nowhere else does cannabis get a mention. It just comes out as a horrible outcome, that would still be a better alternative than preaching, which Jubal disagrees with. For a novel touting honest reevaluation of cultural norms and taboos, why doesn't Heinlein take a look at this one? Jubal Harshaw is my favorite character, and in a sense the one I identify with most. He espouses truth and love in a much different way, a way built by experience and a healthy amount of doubt. He judges. It's wonderful, since he knows he's right so he just doesn't give a damn. And here he is, written with a jab at THC that doesn't fit his character. It's like Mike's usage of "ain't." Heinlein always wrote that wrong. Jubal is a realist who would never agree that he's an idealist, and he takes a look at society's arbitrary rules and only agrees to play society's games outside his personal property. He earned his enclave. If he were written today, there is no doubt in my mind he'd support legalization, taxation, and personal choice.

All in all, I did like the book and it should be read by those who are too indoctrinated to read it, or listen to some of the points. Should we use it in accordance with its reputation as the Hippy Bible? God no. It's no manifesto or way to live a life. It is an educational read in the way that certain anthropological texts make the student question the stupidities of modern life. Don't be a jerk, don't complicate things, know your rights, and it's totally A-OK to be naked in your own damn house.