I haven't read very far yet, but one of the things that really struck me so far was how dated it comes across as. Published in the early 60s, it's not surprising, I was just curious about how today's readers (us) reacted. (I haven't quite thought this through so please bear with me if I seem to ramble.)

The most obvious, aside from the clunky technology, is the treatment of women. Although the Secretary-General's wife is seen as very powerful, she's also a "ball-crusher" and her husband comes across as the sympathetic character. Gillian (Jill) says "Huh?" a lot, and Jubal's three secretaries - all beautiful, all intelligent, but ultimately coming across as playthings - are very entrenched in 60s social conditioning.

What I'm trying to get at is, how curious these "futuristic" novels are, like an oddity or a quaint artefact of their time, and whether that negates their other messages. Seems ironic, really.

What struck me right off the bat was how implicitly the author, and ,presumably, his readers, believe in the idea of life on Mars.

I had all the same reactions you did to the women, Shannon.

Shannon, I read this in 69 or 70, and I had all the same reactions towards the women as you did! It ticked me off, and I ultimately didn't even read it all the way thru. A lot happened between 60 and 70.

You are correct it is outdated in the attitude towards women. They seem to have a hard time keeping their socks up as well;) It is still a very interesting read and does have some relevance to today's society if you can overlook the outdated attitudes.

You do have to realize, that not only was the book written in the early 60's, it's author had been writing similar work since the mid 40's. His attitude towards women was very twisted, in part due to his wife. Throughout all his work women tend to have a problem keeping off their backs, so to speak. While it is very prevailant in this book, it is in no way the worst in his career. Personally I think "To Sail Beyond The Sunset" was at least twice as bad. Not to mention "Friday." However, try to focus on other areas of the book. Specifically on the way relifion is used to show his opinions of people in general, and their potential in the future.

I have no problem in looking at the other aspects Micheal, I don't want you to think I'm going to zero in on the obvious and wring it to death. It was just an example, but what I was trying to get at is how non-futuristic so many science fiction books are because they're so entrenched in the period in which they were written. The same is true for scifi books written today. It's ironic that we can learn more about past or current attitudes from a book written about the "future" :)

It's the mental set that I'm interested in, and the use of women as prop characters, especially Jill, whose main function in conversations is to not get anything or contribute anything so that the men can impart their wisdom and insight and educate her. It is annoying to read, but it's not putting me off the book as a whole. But I would like to discuss this in more general terms, for the genre as a whole. I knew I wasn't very clear the first time!

I read Stranger a few years back, and I agree it is totally dated, but for me anyway that's not necessarily a bad thing. If you view it from a historical perspective, the story reflects the times in which the author was writing - I can't go into more detail without spoiling things for people.

Another great example of stories that are INCREDIBLY dated but still worth reading are the E. Doc Smith Grey Lensman series - those were written in the 30s and 40s are will make you either laugh or cry out loud with their attitude towards health, drugs, tobacco, women, and society in general.

Oop I should note that my previous comment is more about his attitudes towards societal taboos than his treatment of women in particular - Michael correctly points out that he had some very odd ideas about gender roles.

I'll step away for now and let people get further through the book, because some of my favorite things about it are probably impossible to discuss without a bit of spoiler warning :)

I do agree that books tend to unconsciously display the attitudes of the period in which they were written. Also that its particularly ironic when that happens to a science fiction book. As you say, scifi books written today do the same things, but it isn't as jarring or obvious to us because we are living in the same time so we tend to take things for granted that will probably look just as much like the unconscious predjudices of a particular time and place to a later reader. Something that always cracks me up in another medium is the way that in film period dramas the clothes will be right, but they just have to change the hairstyles to be closer to what looks good to the audience of the time, particularly on the star. So you have those hysteria making period dramas of the 50's where Cleopatra apparently wore her hair in a flip.

I suppose this book might be studied in future classes as an example on science fiction relating to a specific time of its creation. When most women characters were clearly secondary to the main storyline.

Makes me think of what people will say in 40 years about the books we are reading today. Obviously some works will continue to stand as great examples of timeless classics and others will become curious anthropological/social icons of the era.

Perhaps in the future people will wonder why there arent more male/male and female/female relationships in our writings. Or perhaps the family dynamics will change so much as to make us seem quaint?

I felt like the whole feeling of the book was rather "retro". It didn't put my off the book, but it's interesting to read stories that are taking place in our time (but the author's future) to see what lines up and what doesn't.

Another set of stories that are incredibly dated but I still love em are the John Carter of Mars books of Edgar Rice Burroughs.

Agree about ERB Barsoom series. I just finished recently A Princess of Mars and it was still a great story.

So far, I haven't been put off by anything seemingly out-dated. The technology isn't distracting and the attitude towards the women or how they are reacting (except perhaps Jill) are not bothering me.

I've found a new prop character (and this isn't really to do with out-datedness): Duke. I just read the scene where he supplies Jubal with many "Huh?"s and other ignorant statements, allowing Jubal to explain and theorise to his heart's content. It reminds me strongly of The Da Vinci Code which may not have been quite so blatant but also created scenarios so that knowledgeable characters could serve as a mouthpiece for the author's very smug lectures. The content is all very interesting, but the device grates on me. I'm sure this won't be the last "Huh?" I'll come across but it speaks of poor writing ability.

That said, I have to say this is one of the most readable scifi books I've read to date, I think - apart from fun ones like Hitchhikers and Red Dwarf :)

Shannon, the huh?s will come fast an furiously later in the book.

That's a clasic Heinleinism. The older sage explaining Heinlien's philosophy to the reader in the form of the younger, impressionable character whose job it is to gawk and say "HuH"? a lot.

Happens in almost all of his books.

Shannon I agree, Heinlein's prose style is extremely readable, its one of the things I like and admire about him.

Bunny, I think it's his main saving grace. He has great ideas, and you can definitely read his work, as long as you can accept the "huh" factor.

You know some of us had a conversation over in another group about how sometimes when an author becomes a best seller their editors don't stand up to them any more and force them to make cuts, and their work suffers for it. I wonder if that isn't part of what happened with Heinlein. Because most of his later stuff is unquestionably less "tight" than the earlier in terms of advancing the plot. Whole portions of his later work read like being at a dinner party with a bunch of people talking about ideas rather than like an adventure. Then again, at least its a reasonably interesting dinner party.

*laughs*

That's just it Bunny, the subject matter and ideas are really very interesting, even if I don't always agree or they're based on assumptions or social norms now out the window.

As much as I'm enjoying this, I'm not sure that I'd ever want to read anything else by Heinlein.

Seriously though Shannon as many many people have already said ad nauseum, his early and late work are sufficiently different he could almost have been two different authors. So before you decide not to read more, it would be good to get the full picure by reading something he published before 1960.

Shannon, you should try some of his short stories. Lots different, no preaching (except 'Gulf') just fun & adventure in exotic locales & times. One of my favorites is 'The Menace from Earth' where a teenage girl is the heroine & has a problem with a straying boyfriend on the moon, while flying with wings. He makes it all seem so prosaic, yet once it's done I shake my head & think, "Wow!" What a cool, but strange trip.

Well that does pique my curiosity :)

I think this is an interesting conversation. I'm not that deep into the book yet, but can already see the social conventions that are made.
A lot of the books that I like to read are ones that questions our current social conventions. That question that we are constantly improving as a society; the assumption that we either have the best social conventions or are heading on the path to having the best social conventions.

What are your thoughts on that? Do you think that we ever have a condescending view of the past? Do you think that we are on a constant upward spriral as a culture?

Personally I am glad that woman are no longer considered chattel and that we no longer make artificial distinctions between people because of who their parents are or the color of their skin. Well, I am glad that we are at least making the effort. At the same time I do lament our society no longer placing a value on such things as honor or integrity.

I received an email a year or so ago that was supposed to be a joke - it wasn't funny. It purported to be an article from a 1950's 'Ladies Home Journal' & I think it listed ten things a woman should keep in mind when her husband came home from work. I couldn't find a copy or I'd post it here. The differences in attitude are pretty incredible. I showed it to my wife who said she recalled her mother acting just like that article.

Some of the advice to women were things like:
- Make sure you are cleaned up & pretty for him before he gets home. Put on a nice dress & brush your hair.
- Have all the chores done & dinner close to ready so you can be attentive to him.
- Let him get comfortable & settled after his long day at work.
- Keep the kids out of his way.
- Listen to what he has to say about his day before bringing up any home items (this was suggested, I think) after all, he's done the important job & you just did housework.

It was pretty disgusting & I don't swear to having it exactly right, but the gist is correct. When I compare it to how Heinlein portrayed his women, I think he made huge strides forward. He was probably teetering on the brink of heresy back then.

Jim: As it just so happens, my wife and I were talking about that very article this weekend. You get some of the details wrong, but I won't quibble to much except that it was never suggested in the article that what he did was more important than what she did. What was suggested was that what he did was more stressful than housework. Whether that's fair or not isn't to me all that important; like I said I don't want to quibble about your characterization. It definately assumed that the wife stayed at home to manage the household while her husband worked. That much is certainly true.

The point is that even so neither of us could figure out what was either offensive or funny about the article.

For the record, my wife has a Ph.d in biology.

For my part, depending on the job site I'm working at, I may get home earlier than she does. When I do, I always try to get the dinner on and the table ready before she gets home.

Why wouldn't I? She's my partner. She's had a tough day at work too, and she's dragging home my two energetic three year olds by herself. Of course I want to make the home welcome for her?

Man or woman, if you don't want the home to be a haven to come home to after work, I think you are lying. Man or woman, if you don't want serve your partner, then you clearly don't want your marriage to stay together.

Managing the household as a practical matter became obselete not so much because of feminism or women's rights or anything else, but because dishwashers, electric stoves, washingmachines, convience food, polyester, and a disposable consumption oriented society changed the former highly valuable highly skilled work of keeping house into low skill labor that doesn't consume very much of the week and doesn't produce much economic benefit. The result is that most families require two 'working' adults, and only a few families are fortunate enough to keep one partner at home (often to do home schooling where much of the economic value is not paying for daycare/private school). If I was staying home to manage the household (many years of our marriage she's made more than I have), I'd want to abide by those sort of standards, not because I'm a man or a woman, but because that would be my job and to do it less well than I could would be letting down my spouse.

So neither of us could see the problem.

I have seen several different examples of the articles to which you refer Jim; actually in situ in the various publications in which they appeared. Some of them were a great deal more offensive than the one you described. The general tone of a number of them was that husbands were rather like lions, dangerous beasts who might possibly turn on you unless you carefully placated them with drinks, snacks and complete agreement and sympathy with anything they might happen to say. And for lord's sake keep the children out of reach until the lion has been well fed and is in a benevolent temper! One item that has always stuck with me out of a particularly gemlike example was "Many women complain that their husbands do not listen to them. What they do not consider is that their household concerns are not very interesting. Its a good idea to look through the newspaper for topics about which you can ask your husband questions. He will enjoy informing you on the events of the day, and you will have the opportunity to learn something."

"The general tone of a number of them was that husbands were rather like lions, dangerous beasts who might possibly turn on you unless you carefully placated them with drinks, snacks and complete agreement and sympathy with anything they might happen to say."

The sexism of low expectations. You teach men that they are beasts, don't be surprised if they act like it.

We've still got that today. Just turn on the TV and watch 'King of Queens', 'Everybody love Raymond', 'Home Improvement', and any number of shows (I don't watch alot of TV so someone will have to help me out) where the father is a self-centered air-headed bimbo. It's become the default representation of a man in advertising.

I'm not sure we've come all that far. We've just become easier to offend and we take our ability to be offended as proof of our superior virtue. But sort of like the online test where my wife was rated a poor wife, but the same answers got her rated an excellent husband, I don't think we've really made the progress we think we have.

For that matter, the sterotype we have of women is that they are like lions, dangerous irrational beasts who might possibly turn on you unless you carefully placate them with drinks, food, complete agrement and sympathy with anything that they might happen to say, and little white lies about their weight. And for god's sake, don't disagree with them when it's their time of the month!

Matt, I'm not surprised I got some of it wrong. A year or more ago for something like that is a long time to retain it. (If you want to email me a copy, that would be great.) The article certainly seemed like a put down to women - the overall impression more than just he had stress, but that his job was more important. The ideas aren't really bad, as I recall - having a happy, clean significant other to come home to is nice. It just seemed condescending, but I really can't argue it too much since I obviously don't recall it well.

I will agree that we're a lot easier to offend on some subjects, but there's a reason. Race, sex, sexual orientation & religion were all caught up in or rode on the coattails of the Civil Rights/Womens Liberation Movements which changed things dramatically in the mid 60's. Things didn't change over night & decades later there is animosity against them in some quarters. Once a person starts a fight like that - a wearing, decades long one - it tends to stick. People become defensive.

My wife's mother was a 'June Cleaver' in many ways. My wife is 55 & fought against that stereotype passed on by her mother. She rebelled against it. She found the article offensive, completely not funny. In her dealings with the conservative equine industry & farmers, she faced a lot heat about equality of the sexes. Nothing major, but lots of remarks & irritations.

My wife & I do laugh at a lot of the stereotypical jokes about men & women. So many are true & that's OK - between us or family. Let another man say something similar & she'd take off his head. She wants equality, but she also wants 'lady-like' respect. In some ways she's right, in others confused. Not unreasonable since she was one of the ones who broke away from the old mold. She was taught one thing from an early age & isn't completely free of it.

It's like my grandfather who would take off your head if you called him a 'Mick', but I couldn't care less. I never had to fight off the stereotyping.

By any marker you care to name the legal and social position of women has changed markedly and substantially in the last 100 years. If you wrote about the lives of women of 2008 in 1908 people would definitely call it science fiction. If they didn't burn you in effigy.

Just wanted to add that I always have a problem watching old movies because of the way the woman characters are portrayed. It's similar to what Shannon said about women in this book.

Well, I'll jump into this conversation and probably become extremely unpopular since I pretty much disagree with most people here.

Heinlein was a champion a questioning the status quo and the establishment. Mrs. Douglas, for instance, exemplifies the irrationality of politics and how little power a world leader has in reality. He's used his wife because he is, at the same time, questioning the entire institution of marriage and its hypocrisy, as regards to "free love".

As for Jill and the three beautiful secretaries, as you move into the story you see that they are not only beautiful but brilliant, knowledgeable, multitasking, courageous, and with integrity. What's wrong with being beautiful on top of that?

Heinlein has always used women's sexuality --and men's for that matter-- as a tool to demonstrate how discriminatory we really are. One of my favorite quotes from Heinlein, in one of my favorite books of his, Time Enough for Love is this:

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

He didn't say that man should be able to do all this, but a human being. I'd say it sums up his attitude.

M.d.: I don't think that your opinions will be as unpopular as you think. I agree with you.

Besides, I like unpopular opinions. I take a club to political correctness and common sense every chance I get. Now that you've tried to be unpopular, you've left my competitive nature no choice but to try to top you with even more unpopular comments than that. ;)

I agree with you about Heinlein's intentions, but I don't agree he necessarily achieved what he intended. Look at it this way, suppose Mike was a woman, and suppose the three talented secretaries and the nurse were 'beefcakes' rather than 'cheesecakes'. Now suppose that Michelle 'grows up', and the first thing she does is start sleeping with all four of these men. Would we still emotionally respond to it in the same way? How do we respond to Mike in an orgy compared to how we'd respond to Michelle? And would we still see the secrataries and Jack the nurse as appendages, and if so would it bother us? What does that tell us, if anything?

I think that there are three possible conclusions from that. Either we should respond to Mike sleeping around the same way we should respond to Michelle sleeping around, or we should respond to Michelle sleeping around the same way that we respond to Mike sleeping around. Or else, we could admit that men and women are physically different and hense might have different physical and sexual rules. All three could be true and none of the three percludes seeing men and women as equal legally, socially, and in their capacity for genious and achievement. Instead of focusing on seeing men and women as equal in their capacity for genious and achievement, far too often we get hung up on questions that don't really have anything to do with that. So we end up seeing some feminists fighting mostly for the right to sexually objectify themselves as if the goal of feminism was to achieve the chauvenist goal of making women attachment free easy sexual playthings, and we judge how enlightened someone's opinion of women is by how he or she portrays them sexually and in sexual relationships above all other considerations.

So, Heinlein 'bad', but 'Sex in the City' good?

As for being beautiful and brilliant, that's how I would describe my wife. Of course there is nothing wrong with that. And she is definately a women - she's had children, which like it or not is the defining act of womanhood. The defining act of womanhood can't be anything else, because I agree with Heinlein that the rest - changing a diaper, planning an invasion, butchering a hog, conning a ship, designing a building, writing a sonnet, balancing accounts, building a wall, setting a bone, comforting the dying, taking orders, giving orders, cooperating, acting alone, solving equations, analyzing a new problem, pitching manure, programming a computer, cooking a tasty meal, fighting efficiently, dying gallantly, and all the rest - is part of the common inheritance of all humanity and not something particular to a gender.

Once again I'm left wondering whether our response to the book only tells us something about ourselves and very little about Heinlein.

M.d., I don't see where you disagreed with me & I agree with you. I thought I was pointing out how he equalized the sexes before it was cool - no?

I actually have this Heinlein quote on my quote page & have defended it in another group. I practice it on a daily basis & raised my children this way. My daughter got a tool set for Christmas one year & can drive the tractor, just like the boys. My wife might normally cook, but all of us can & do, as needed. I generally do the sewing (it's my sewing machine) but all of us can. Since we all ride the horses, we all pitch the manure, as needed.

While I may tease my wife occasionally that something is "woman's work", I don't believe in any such thing, except when it comes to having or nursing babies. I'm just not equipped, any more than she is for heavy lifting.

Matt wrote, "Once again I'm left wondering whether our response to the book only tells us something about ourselves and very little about Heinlein."

I find that an interesting point. I liked your other ones about reversing the sexes too. I like a book that tells me more about myself than the author. In fact, I can't think of higher praise for a book. Maybe that is why it has been a favorite of mine for so long.

I'm not very good at or into analyzing what I read. An author here (A) pointed out why he thought an author (B) wrote poorly. B had been a favorite years ago, but on a re-read, I was having trouble keeping up interest, even though I didn't remember the story well. After A pointed out the flaws in B's writing, I realized that was the problem. My taste had become more discriminating & I could no longer 'read past' the flaws, even when I didn't consciously recognize them as such.

In thinking about what you said, I realized that I really don't care to know too much about the musicians I like. Some of their politics & personal habits are disturbing &/or disgusting, but I like their music. So why should I want Heinlein's book to tell me about him? I like that he wrote something that challenges my prejudices & makes me think about my reactions, though.

Thanks for the thought.

I agree with Matt's pondering. I would also note that most of the energy in this discussion has actually gone into talking about issues of sexuality rather than of gender. By which I mean that its all about who is sleeping with whom and who should or should not be sleeping with whom, and who is or is not a "sex kitten." As someone has pointed out... Shannon? Duke also says duh, and huh and works as a foil for Jubal to elaborate on his notions, but nobody assumes that means Jubal doesn't respect men, or regards Duke as a sex kitten. Nowhere in the book is it suggested that women do not or should not have full legal and political rights. The social issues of appropriate or desirable sexual behavior were unresolved for Heinlein, and I would suggest, are still unresolved for us today. Precisely because they are more difficult and complicated than the legal and political ones.

Sorry, Jim, I must have skipped your entry. I'm also married to a man who doesn't typecast gender but values people for who they are and what they can do. I also agree with you that Heinlein put forward that very notion -- that people should be judged, as we all will be, from their accomplishments and not their "equipment."

And I agree with you Bunny that Heinlein slapped his reader in the face with what might be considered (and still would be today) inappropriate sexual behavior. In Time Enough for Love, for instance, he explores the idea of incest. But he also exposed people's religious and political beliefs, as well as their tendencies to follow rather than think for themselves. I love this line: "...most neuroses and some psychoses can be traced to the unnecessary and unhealthy habits of daily wallowing in the troubles and sins of five billion strangers."

Amazing that it's still like that today with all those "reality" shows, the Dr. Phils and Oprahs, the "Biggest Losers" and the "Style by Jury."

M.d., that "daily wallowing in the troubles and sins of five billion strangers." makes me think of an article I read in Readers Digest about a lady who let her 9 year old take the subway home in NYC. She brings up some very good points about how the media has skewed our sense of how often some crimes are committed & it's slanted our thinking.

I've felt that way for some time. My wife & I rarely watch the news, preferring to get the little we want by other means. Most of it isn't something we can do anything about, is lacking in meaningful content & so skewed that it's a bore. We NEVER watch 'reality' shows or any of the talk show 'experts'. I talk to people who do & it amazes me how their opinions are formed by these shows. Often it is complete defiance of common sense.

A specific example would be Oprah & James Frey who wrote A Million Little Pieces. My mother read the book with her book club, recommended it to me, so I read it shortly afterward. I was amazed that anyone could believe such an obvious pack of lies. I was shocked at the resistance she & some of her book club buddies displayed when I pointed glaring flaws out. Not too long after, the book was exposed as a fraud, but I was surprised it took so long. It seemed that since Oprah had endorsed it, it must be gospel, even though it's a subject on which she has no experience or expertise.

It's scary to think that so many opinions are formed by TV this way. People who hold degrees in one field pass themselves off as experts in other fields all the time. Movie stars pass along their opinions to the masses & everyone believes them - why? It's not just silly & frustrating, but scary. I won't unplug the 'damn noisy box' because I like it for entertainment, but I sure take any ideas I get from it with a grain of salt.

I think Oprah endorsed the book because she thought it was interesting reading not because she was endorsing the subject matter and because the author pushed it as something that happened to him.

But yes, too often we are prone to let other people decide: how we behave, what we wear, what we eat, where to spend our money and even how to pray.

I just started reading this book and I'm not that much through it but you can tell the time difference from today. I find Mike very interesting how he is human but then again he's not human.

Take the same hullaballoo with The Da Vinci Code book (which is awful, IMO). People were having deep discussion about the heresy in the book --People? it's FICTION!!

We are so indoctrinated by the media, who decide what we should like and not like that you're considered unhinged if you disagree. It doesn't matter whether is ideology or the best taco in town. If you stepped out of the parade, you'd better keep your mouth shut.

Ha ha ha @ M.d. I remember all that about The Da Vinci Code. People I knew were boycotting the book/author/movie because it was all lies, and I always said "well, you know what fiction is, right?"

I am always amazed by people who scream heresy with anything that chalanges thier preconceved notions.

I have great respect for religious beleif and even wish I could beleive. But if your faith can be shaken because someone has the theory or beleif that Jesus had children with Mary Magdelen before he started his mission at age 30. Your faith needs some real close examination.

If satan exists it is in the shadows. it is faith that can not be held to a bright light that is scarry to me.

The Da Vinci code does this.
StraNGER in a Strange Land does this by showing taking our current big TV evangelism to the extreme of youcan drink wiskey if it is made by a church sponser.

I recall a Book I read as a teen about a man who went back in time to met Jesus. (a preist I believe).

He discoved that Jesus had an iq of 60 and had downs syndrome so he took up the mantel and became the Christ of our history.

I remember a second book were a priest determined where the star was that went nova to anounce the birth of christ. He discovered the remains of a civilization the epitonized the christian Ideal. He lost his faith because God chose to destroy this world to anounce the commin of his son.

Some of the most memorable stuff I have ever read challenges our faith. Or looks at it form the outside.

That second novel you mention was a short story. I think I remember discussing it at some point around here. Or maybe it was in another group. Anyway. It was one of the classic authors, I want to say Clarke? Does anybody else remember?
Ah, never mind I found it, it was Arthur C. Clarke, The Star.
Edit: Re heresy; As Heinlein himself said, if all the other monkeys rub blue mud into their belly buttons, its wise to solemnly rub blue mud into your belly button too. But nobody owns the inside of your head. :)

Kevinalbee,
I agree with most everything you said. A belief or faith that cannot accept being challenged is of little worth. I am a christian, but that is because it makes the most sense to me of everything that I've looked at and studied and experienced.
In some ways I regard scientists as the philosophers and priests of this age. It seems like most scientists have preconceived ideas that they set out to prove like priests of old. When one group of scientists disagree with another it is almost like watching religious conflicts. And of course the word of a scientist is sacrosanct, unless they disagree with what you already believe and you have another scientist to support you.
It almost seems like it is human nature to have unquestioning belief in something. Whether that belief is in what we were raised with or what we found after turning from that, it seems like we have a need to believe something irrespective of any evidence or examination on our part.

I forgot to mention a book that I liked called Kicking the Sacred Cow: Heresy and Impermissible Thoughts in Science.

"I am always amazed by people who scream heresy with anything that chalanges thier preconceved notions."

I agree with you that its very common, but I've been around too long to be amazed by this sort of thing.

Where I disagree with you is I don't think any of the things you listed actually consitute a challenge to anyone's preconcieved notions.

In other words, I assert that I disagree with your notion of what constitutes a challenge to someone's beliefs.

As just the simplest of examples, you write, "Some of the most memorable stuff I have ever read challenges our faith" and "[I:] even wish I could beleive". So, things that 'challenge faith' don't in fact challenge your beliefs. If in fact you wanted to challenge your own beliefs, you'd have to read things that challenged you to believe - that is things that challenge non-belief.

Now, you might argue that the 'heresies' you listed challenge people not to believe, and so for example challenge my beliefs. But they don't, because you don't challenge my beliefs by presenting to me something unsympathetic and deliberately offensive. To really challenge my beliefs you have to present me with evidence something I'd want to believe or would be compelled to believe on the evidence of my senses and reason where I had previously resisted doing so. It's easy for me to read the short story where the Christmas star annhilates a planet full of sentient species. Such a 'what if' doesn't challenge my beliefs at all. I'm not compelled to believe that such a planet exists because of such a short story nor would I ever imagine such a story tells us more about the universe than the person writing the story. I'm not in fact the target audience of that story. Just like a sermon that begs the argument without an actually empathetic appeal to the nonbeliever, the target audience of such a story is the choir of people who don't believe.

You can't change a persons mind unless you first respect them and their beliefs.

I just finished the book today - I'm kind of late to the discussion.
This thread has so many themes pertinent - I'm going to summarize for myself so I can think about my responses for a while.
1)gender and gender roles
a)what is Heinlein's view?
b)does the book actually represent Heinlein's view or reflect our own personal beliefs?
c)are the gender roles as portrayed in the book forward-thinking for the time it was written but quaintly outdated now?
d)What is Heinlein saying about marriage in this book? (the comment above about Mrs. Douglas, the various comments about wifely roles
2)Sex (as separate from gender roles)
a)how do you separate it from gender (or can you)? (I'm thinking of the comment above on the 'sexism of low expectations' - that's more of a gender issue than a sexuality issue?)
b)what is the purpose of sex? of jealousy?
3)How to judge cultures - how to conceive of cultures not based on 'human' characteristics
- and then how to tell what constitutes improvements in culture?
4)Faith versus belief (belief is not really the word I'm looking for. When Mike is talking about the Martians versus Earthlings - when he's trying to understand religion - he talks about how the Martians just 'know' because that's the way it is.)
5)Futuristic novels - and the problems that arise because they reflect the era they're written in.

Too late for the discussion, but my take:

Stranger In A Strange Land is one of Heinlein's most creative novels, but that doesn't mean it has withstood the test of time, or even that it was all that great to begin with, just... creative.

Heinlein wrote in two styles: simplistic pulp (think Starship Troopers) and more subtle and complex stuff that often had weird psychological baggage. He got pretty weird with the sex at times, especially in his later books when his fame meant he could pretty much write whatever he wanted. But even early on... well, if you can find his short story "--All You Zombies--" you'll get an eye opener.

SinSL wasn't as weird as some of Heinlein's stuff, but with the grok stuff, and the Christ stuff, well, it certainly isn't a good introduction to Heinlein.

If I were to recommend a single Heinlein book to an intelligent adult, I'd point to The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, his final Hugo-winning book.

Stranger is Heinlein's best known book--yes it is dated, but it does contain so many ideas it is still worth reading.

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is less dated, and more enjoyable, so I reccomend readers try that before abandoning HennLein.

Also, do try his short story collection, The Green Hills of Earth and The Menace from Earth. HIs short stories are often neglected, but are quite good. For one thing, most were written earlier in his career and the amount of rambling off topic was much less. His short stories are much tighter written than his later novels.

I found Heinlein's Friday to also be dated, eve n though it was published in the 80s. Actually, Stranger and Friday are the only two works by Heinlein that I've hated, which is surprising since they're the most well known.

I really recommend reading anything by Heinlein except those two books. Starship Troopers and Red Planet are two of my faves, and all of his short stories are delightful.