Show #2: Stranger In A Strange Land

by Summer
November 2, 2005, 11:15 pm | In Books, Shows |

As mentioned in the pre-show thread, Joe has been having problems with the science fiction classics, and the latest masterpiece he wasn’t impressed with is Robert Heinlein’s Stranger In A Strange Land. So, of course, I reread the book to refresh my memory, and remembered why I hadn’t previously reread the book in the nearly 20 years since I read it the first time. But as you’ll hear, it’s not all bad.

Joining Joe and myself for this discussion is David Moldawer, writer, videographer, and Dragon Page book reviewer.

Download KAMN Show #2

Books mentioned:

 

 KAMN Show #2: Stranger in a Strange Land [30:20m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (4696)

24 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

1. Anybody else having problems downloading this feed? I keep getting “server not found” errors.

   Comment by tim callender — November 3, 2005 #

2. Same here.

   Comment by Andrew — November 3, 2005 #

3. Me too.

   Comment by Nick — November 3, 2005 #

4. mine came in last night with no trouble. Haven’t listened yet, but I’ve got it. Joe and Summer are both out of town I believe, if need be, I can post it on my server.

   Comment by J.R. Murdock — November 3, 2005 #

5. Please post a link to the show, J.R. if you can. I’m sure all the KAMN fans would greatly appreciate it.

   I read on ChuckChat that the libsyn server is down and that he couldn’t get ahold of them…

   Comment by Shane — November 3, 2005 #

6. The DNS server for libsyn is stuffed. Keep your panties on and download KAMN #2 from here:

   http://38.100.193.69/media/kamn/KAMN_002_051103.mp3

   Comment by Chris — November 3, 2005 #

7. Bugger all. My sub downloaded the file fine when I tested it (right after posting the entry), but I guess someone’s DNS servers went belly and other anatomical parts up during the night.

   Hopefully that problem has cleared up by now?

   And yes, I’m now in my hotel in Madison. The gods are smiling on me… it’s about 65 here, and isn’t expected to drop much below 50 through the weekend. Yay me!

   Comment by Summer — November 3, 2005 #

8. Sonofabitch!

   Yes, I messed up on editing the end of the podcast, and didn’t realize it until now.

   No cookie for me. I won’t be able to post an updated version until after the weekend, so come Monday, if anyone wants, they’ll be able to download a fixed version.

   Sheesh… that’ll learn me to edit while packing for a trip and doing 5 other things at the same time.

   Comment by Summer — November 3, 2005 #

9. Great second show folks! David Moldawer was an excellent addition. Have him back frequently please!

   Oh and hey Joe, I know you don’t have your own cult yet but do you have your own blog or webpage?

   RE: Stranger In A Strange Land, generally good thinking all around.

   I agree with you Heinlein’s characters are definitely the cookie cutter 2 dimensioal caricatures.

   Another thing that plagued his books were cookie cutter villans. Heinlein villans never had a solid foundation for being villans. Despite this Heinlein was one of the best idea men in SF ever had.

   One minor editing issue is the theme song coming on a little early and drowning out the final minute of your chat.

   Comment by Jesse Willis — November 3, 2005 #

10. Hey, Jesse,

    Don’t have a blog. Right now I have a little placeholder webpage at http://www.toowize.com

    Not sure what I’m going to put there yet.

    Comment by Joe — November 3, 2005 #

11. I really prefer the Heinlein juveniles (books like Space Cadet, etc.) rather than later works starting with Starship Troopers. And then in Stranger in a Strange Land he appears to have discovered sex.

    The juveniles were mostly originally written to be serialized in Boys Life magazine.

    The later books become, in my opinion, rather self-indulgent.

    re. the classics of SF. Until the 1960s most SF was about ideas. You get a flood of more character-driven writers starting in the 1960s.

    Comment by John R Blaker — November 3, 2005 #

12. hi guys, great show. although I am a big heinlein fan I must admit that this book really did nothing for me however my new age ex loved it. go figure. i read this book in the 70’s and some of the twist were ok but i didn’t like it enough to reread ( and i reread nearly everything) personally i prefer his pulp like novels but do find Time Enough for love as my favourite. any cya

    Comment by Geoff Griffiths — November 4, 2005 #

13. As a long time Heinlein fan (who still sees the warts), I enjoyed the podcast, even though you didn’t care for the book as much.

    Just a couple of points:
    1) You guys came close to one of the core bits of the story, but didn’t quite get there. So much of the book is having the ultimate outsider take a look at humanity and say, “wow, we’re all pretty messed up.”

    2) (And this is one thing I totally missed the first few times I read it) You never touched on the whole “Mike is Jesus” metaphor going on, with the Martian Cannibalism becoming Communion and such.

    Love the show.

    Comment by Rick Jones — November 4, 2005 #

14. Rick,

    Yes, yes! I completely forgot to bring that up, and I’d wanted to talk about it. The Jesus thing is a pretty major thread in the book. If I ever get invited back for another episode–I’ve got a face for radio, after all–I’m going to stay up the night before and read the darn book one more time.

    Comment by David Moldawer — November 4, 2005 #

15. Thanks for posting the download link, Chris. Much appreciated.

    Comment by Shane — November 4, 2005 #

16. Wow, Rick… I never made the Jesus/Communion connection, and probably never would have, even with his Church being thrust to the forefront like that. I went the stereotypical cult with charismatic leader direction with that angle.

    And I still think the “outsider pointing out how messed up humanity is” was better done in Clarke’s “Childhood’s End”, the only difference being that the alien outsiders pointed it out to humans and gave them an ultimatum to “quit it”.

    The story revolves around the ultimatum and how humanity progresses afterwards.

    And yes, David will be back at his convenience

    Comment by Summer — November 4, 2005 #

17. I’m so sorry I missed the invitation to be involved with the discussion. I thouroughly enjoyed this podcast, and am looking forward to the next ones!

    While I wouldn’t say that I am a Heinlein scholar, I’ve read most everything he’s written, plus “Expanded Universe� (a collection of essays and autobiographical anecdotes) and “Grumbles From the Grave� (his letters to his editors).

    I don’t remember the specific letters in “Grumbles� regarding SIASL, but I can say this: whatever is in the book is indeed Heinlein’s personal beliefs- and this is true for all his work.

    Read again all the philosophical discourses. Harshaw/Heinlein points out that cannibalism, multi-partner sexual relationships and and the concept that Thou Art God have been present in nearly all cultures. In fact, Heinlein wasn’t saying that humanity is messed up and needs to change, he’s saying that the United States is messed up and needs to change. (Note that the book is set entirely in the US, and that the World Federation is mentioned only as background and is implied that it is an extension of American democracy).

    This is an important point. Heinlein was libertarian in his politics: all throughout his writing, his basic tenent is “your rights end where my nose begins�. Harshaw’s handling of Federation goons and dignitaries alike all stem from this.

    Additionally, his views on religion are a response to a particular brand of American Christianity, the media-savvy evangelist. (I don’t know who was preaching in 1961, but he seems to have predicted the rise of Jerry Falwell and Oral Roberts.) All of Harshaw’s jibes against religion are aimed square at American Christianity, pointing out passages in the Bible that contradict what is generally preached in Midwest pulpits.

    I disagree with the assessments of Heinlein’s homophobia. I think this comes from the sceene where Ben Caxton is recounting his first visit to Mike’s Church. Recall that Harshaw rebuked Caxton’s actions. While he, Harshaw, agrees with Caxton’s discomfort with homosexuality, he also points out that Caxton’s actions were wrong in the situation, and that in context of Mike’s Church homosexuality was acceptable. (As an aside, in “The Cat Who Walks Through Walls� the homosexual aspects were much more accepted by Colonel Campbell, that book’s nominal outsider.)

    To address the questions of misogyny: I agree that Heinlein’s approach to female characters is less than enlightened. But to say that he hated women is too strong. IMHO, his female characters strike me as the archetypal – or stereotypical- frontier woman. She is strong enough to milk the cows, cook the meals, and keep the kids in line, and when the Injuns show up she can handle a rifle. But she definitely depends on her Man to remind her of what’s Right And Wrong In A Bigger Sense, and the Man’s definitely the person who goes to parley with the Injun Chief. It would never occur to her that she could do just as well without the Man.

    And yes, his comment through Jill in “Stranger� about rape is completely indefensible.

    Other smaller points: the bits about the Martian Old Ones blowing up the fifth planet –a.k.a the asteroid belt – is favorite theme with Heinlein. It’s a major point in “Space Cadet�. Regarding the Old Ones’ decision to blow up Earth, Heinlein states that when they finally get around to considering it, they would find the human race a bit more to handle than they expect. These are nearly throwaway points, except to point out how different the timescales are between humans and Martians.

    Okay, I’ve gone on WAY too long… but this podcast was very thought provoking, which is why I’m attracted to SF in the first place.

    Comment by tim callender — November 4, 2005 #

18. Speaking as a 47-year-old male raised on the big three (asimov, clarke, heinlein) these guys wrote was was frankly, Pulp. their stories were design for fantastic ideas and adventure, characters are admittedly secondary. Most modern sci-fi frankly bores me because it’s too character orientated. Neal Stephenson is problably the only current read I enjoy. Specifically on “stranger”, at the time I read it, (70’s) it was OK, but his best novel was really “time enough for love” which kind of tied all his shorter stories together. After that, I remember him having health problems, and when he came back, the three or four novels that came out (including “friday”) were way weak. To appreciate Heinlein. I would recommend “the past through tommorow” book, which has a ton of short stories set in his most common universe and “methuselah’s children” which introduced Lazarus Long. Again, these were written as pulp adventures which were the norm at the time (and I wouldn’t mind seeing the return of).
    Mike

    Comment by Mike Evans — November 4, 2005 #

19. Mike - I’m a 42 year old male, also raised on the big Three. While I don’t share your distain for most modern SF, I can recommend a few newer books that are in the spirit of the Big Three:

    Charles Sheffield’s “The Compleat McAndrew” collects short stories featuring a scientist named McAndrew whose adventures are very reminiscent of Asimov’s scientific mysteries, or puzzles a la I, Robot. He also wrote four books in the style of Heinlein’s juveniles; the two I read were “Higher Education” and “Putting Up Roots”. Alas, Mr. Sheffield no longer resides on this plane of reality…

    Comment by tim callender — November 4, 2005 #

20. I just came across a collection called The Fantasies of Robert Heinlein, so I guess I’ll find out soon if these shorter works fare better (for me) than the classics I’ve read so far.

    Comment by Summer — November 4, 2005 #

21. I was really excited to hear your podcast about SiaSL as it is one of my favorite books. I was going to post my thoughts here, but it ended up being horrifically long. So I decided to post it on my own sorely underused blog.

    http://rattsnest.blogspot.com/2005/11/open-letter-to-kamn-about-siasl.html

    You’ll probably think I’m fanatically after reading this, but I hope you’ll take a few moments to read it.

    Thanks again for the KAMN podcast and your contributions to the Dragon Page podcasts.

    Brian

    Comment by Brian — November 11, 2005 #

22. Passionate responses from engaged participants… I love it!

    First, thank you, Brian, for your insightful commentary. I disagree that we spent too much time on the free love aspect, but it was the one thing that we had much to comment on outside of our perceptions of Heinlein’s ideas about women. Theology and religion aren’t my strongest debate topics, so I tend to avoid.

    Second, I think Joe was being a little tongue-in-cheek with the “harem” comment, which was why I responded offhandedly about it being Hefner’s inspiration… then again, funny is in the eye of the trickster.

    Third, we really are trying to keep this to a 30 minute show, and are still working out the kinks on how to stagger the commentary without being repetetive or too casual. We’ll find a good mix after a few more shows.

    And, you can’t spell “fanatic” without the word “fan”, and believe me, we’re all fans of the genre here… as long as we’re all polite and refrain from personal attacks, you can agree or disagree to your heart’s content!

    I’m glad you liked the show, and I do hope you’ll keep coming back for more.

    Comment by Summer — November 11, 2005 #

23. Thanks for your in-depth response to the podcast, Brian. It’s true that in a format like this, three SF generalists are never going to have the same insight into a book as a true fan. That has its strengths, though, because we’re probably going to have a reaction to the book that’s closer to what the average reader will get.

    In other words, if we (and most casual commentators, as you say) came away with communal sex and free love foremost in our minds, that’s probably what other readers will too, even if repeated readings will unearth other, more significant themes.

    But boy, this kind of thoughtful response is what makes discussing SF so much fun; in this case it really helped me understand the book in a new way. Thanks for posting it!

    Comment by David Moldawer — November 11, 2005 #

24. In the podcast, y’all question if maybe Heinlein was homophobic. I’ve always felt he was..but only to males being homosexual. I seem to remember reading Friday and thinking that Heinlein is dead set against male homosexuality but by golly, he sure does see nothing wrong with two women being together…..

    Maybe it’s just me…

    Comment by Michael — November 15, 2005 #

Leave a comment