Talk:Stranger in a Strange Land

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Wrong Source for Name[edit]

It was named for a line in an Ernest Dowson poem from the fin de siecle period. I'll find the poem's name shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.175.254 (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


This is an interesting line of discussion. The earliest English citation I can find resembling the Heinlein title is in the life of Eumenes in Thomas North's 1579 translation of Plutarch's Lives of the Noble Grecians... In the comparison of Eumenes with Sertorius, Plutarch says that they were both "straungers in a straunge contrie." It does not appear, though, that Heinlein used Plutarch's life of Eumenes in any way, although it seems to me more likely that he knew Plutarch rather than Dowson. GianniBGood (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Heinlein read Plutarch and was a classicist then another source is possible. Sophocles' "Oedipus at Colonus" around line 190, translated as such by Sir Richard C. Jebb 3rd edition 1893. This translation would have been a likely source for Heinlein as it was republished in the US under the "Great Books of the Western world" compendium. It could be argued that the Sophocles source carries more dramatic and contextual weight than the Exodus source. 150.107.175.184 (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of the source of the name has appeared again. As we can see from the above comment, there are different ideas about where it comes from. Any definitive statement in the article needs a source that reliably states that Heinlein got it from the Bible. Just quoting the Bible and saying "it's obvious" is WP:OR Ashmoo (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible source is the origin of the qoute. It is not WP:OR to state this. Heinlein's beleifs on religion varied somewhat though his life, but it is clear from his writings that he was quite familiar with the bible. It is WP:OR to suggest that there "may be some other source" without and evience to support this assertion. WP is about "facts", not "maybes". If there is another source then show the source. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here [1] is a source that says the title came from the quote. TwoTwoHello (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Gale, Cengage Learning (13 March 2015). A Study Guide for Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. Gale, Cengage Learning. pp. 7–. ISBN 978-1-4103-2078-0.
Mediatech492, sorry but that is not how WP:V works. If we were to put text into the article that says 'Heinlein got the title from "some other source", that would require a cite. If we say he got it from the Bible, that would require a cite. If we have no cite, we just have to not say anything one way or the other. But it is a moot point anyway, since Learning2015 helpfully supplied a cite. Thanks Learning2015! Ashmoo (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that is exactly how WP:V works. You suggested that a specified source was invalid because there might be an alternate source, though you provided no evidence that any such source existed. I merely required you to provide evidence of source to verifly your claim. As I already said, WP is about provable facts, not ephemeral maybes. Peace. Mediatech492 (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Cult Classic"?[edit]

Does the sentence, "Eventually Stranger in a Strange Land became a cult classic, attracting many readers who would not ordinarily read a work of science fiction," seem a bit contradictory to anybody else? Even wikipedia's own definition of "cult classic," linked in that very line, clearly doesn't fit Stranger. It specifically requires that 1) the fan base be specific or somehow limited, and 2) that the work was only modestly successful upon release. Neither of these are true of Stranger, and the former is even directly contradicted by the second half of that sentence. This is one of, if not the most widely read, not to mention best-reviewed science fiction works of all time - "cult" doesn't seem to describe it at all. 141.154.246.124 (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but folks in all sorts of hippy-type cults claimed aspects of SISL at their own - so you are right, it is not a cult classic in the usual sense, it is a classic among cultists! apart from that, I do not object to the term, despite the distinct nuance of meaning 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:690F:FC8E:DD64:5258 (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

one of, if not the most widely read, not to mention best-reviewed science fiction works of all time[edit]

I'm more than halfway done reading it, and I cannot for the life of me understand why it would be one of the best-reviewed science fiction books of all time. Surely this statement is intended to suggest that science fiction books are generally poorly reviewed? I wish it were not so well-known, as I would never have bothered with it had I not heard of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.134.41.179 (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference in U2 album October?[edit]

There is a song on U2's 1981 album October titled 'Stranger in a Strange Land'. Should this song be included in the list of references or is it confirmed that this is a coincidence and not a reference? Tricorne (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waterbed Patent[edit]

The claim "Charles Hall, who brought a waterbed design to the United States Patent Office, was refused a patent on the grounds that Heinlein's descriptions in Stranger and another novel, Double Star, constituted prior art." appears to be misleading or apocryphal. Charles P. Hall did in fact receive United States Patent No. 3,585,356 entitled "Liquid Support for Human Bodies" which was granted on June 15, 1971. See: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=3,585,356.PN.&OS=PN/3,585,356&RS=PN/3,585,356

I also note that the link to this claim is now dead.

AlanSiegrist (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can only speculate here, but it is possible that, as often happens, an initial patent application by Hall may have been denied as being excessively broad, with claims that were construed as being so broad as to include the concept of the waterbed itself. If so, the descriptions of the waterbed in Heinlein's books and the previous designs of waterbeds mentioned in this article may very well have been presented as prior art. Since the patent cited above was granted, presumably the application was amended or re-filed to eliminate these objections, eventually leading to the granted patent. AlanSiegrist (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, the novel does not exactly describe how to manufacture and operate one so that it does not leak, which is where the patentability lies. RAH had an ambivalent stance toward futuristic gadgets: he found he could quite easily make up plausible ones, but as a writer he felt gadgets were a cheap and unworthy way of inserting into the story's world the constraints and possibilities that its plot required. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:690F:FC8E:DD64:5258 (talk) 08:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence makes no sense[edit]

"Critics disagree over whether Heinlein's preferred original manuscript is superior to the heavily-edited version originally published." says the article. It makes no sense. It looks like two sentences got jumbled. I don't know which is true. JIMp talk·cont 08:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

:Makes perfect sense to me: critics can't agree which version is the better. Maybe it is a tad awkwardly worded, but still is understandable. Wschart (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Maiden song[edit]

On this page it lists Iron Maiden song under 'in popular culture', but on the page about the song it says "The song is unrelated to Robert A. Heinlein's novel by the same name"

Why is Dr. Mahmood Called "Stinky"?[edit]

This insulting nickname is never explained, and in fact is used by characters who are otherwise friendly to Mahmood. Was "Stinky" less pejorative when this book was written than it would be today? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.21.207 (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it occurs among the terms of endearment in RAH's stories, and I think it went out of fashion in the late 40s (to address one's friends, I mean, I still call my cat Stinky on occasion). 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:690F:FC8E:DD64:5258 (talk) 08:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add summary of material in the extended version?[edit]

Should there be a section explaining the differences between the original and extended version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.131.170 (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth is Thou_Art_God linked to this page?[edit]

What does this page have to do with Thou Art God? Can someone please fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.142.224 (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article. Read the book. Heck just google the phrase. The answer should be obvious. Thou art the internet... Gcronau (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Characters[edit]

The character listing seems to defy sense. The crew of the first expedition are described, but (unless they show up in the chapters I haven't gotten to yet) don't actually take part in the events of the book, so they aren't really characters. And some of the characters who do appear are pretty minor, and (if listed at all) should be after more important characters such as Jubal, Jill, Ben, or Patty (who is missing altogether). Is there some reason to this that I'm not seeing? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stranger in a Strange Land. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Version *actually* preferred by Heinlein?[edit]

The lede states, "Critics disagree about which version is superior, though Heinlein preferred the original manuscript and described the heavily edited version as "telegraphese"."

However the Publication history section has an entire paragraph starting with "Heinlein himself remarked in a letter he wrote to Oberon Zell-Ravenheart in 1972 that he thought his shorter, edited version was better" that explains why Heinlein thought the heavily edited version was the preferred one for readers. "The original, longest version of SISL ... is really not worth your trouble, as it is the same story throughout—simply not as well told."

So which is it? I think the lede should be modified to state clearly that Heinlein himself was as conflicted as the book's critics about which version was truly better.

It seems likely that his negative opinion hails from just after the abridgement, when the pain of killing one's darlings was still fresh, and the positive opinion upon ripe reflection — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:690F:FC8E:DD64:5258 (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Witness and format question[edit]

There used to be an article for Fair Witness; it was redirected here, but no content was added to this article. I think a section on Fair Witness should be added to the Influence section. I found a number of books and scholarly papers that support the significant influence of Heinlein's Fair Witness by virtue of these books and papers referencing the concept, but I'm not sure of the best way to cite them. Would it be weird to have a whole lot of refs for a brief paragraph?

Any ideas? Schazjmd (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article that combined examples in a single ref, I'll take that approach if no one has any better ideas. Schazjmd (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When waiting is filled listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect When waiting is filled. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Church of All Worlds[edit]

(Pinging Black Slin to discussion.)

Question for editors to discuss: should the section in this article on "Church of All Worlds" in the novel link to main article Church of All Worlds, a nonfictional church that is inspired by the church in the novel? Schazjmd (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jubal Harshaw[edit]

Content from deleted Jubal Harshaw might be usable here. Subsection?

Jubal Harshaw is a fictional character featured in Stranger in a Strange Land, a novel by Robert A. Heinlein. He is described as: "Jubal E. Harshaw, LL.B., M.D., Sc.D., bon vivant, gourmet, sybarite, popular author extraordinary, neo-pessimist philosopher, devout agnostic, professional clown, amateur subversive, and parasite by choice."

The character's name was chosen by Heinlein to have unusual overtones, like Jonathan Hoag.[1]

The main character of the novel, Valentine Michael Smith, enshrines him (much to Harshaw's initial chagrin) as the patron saint of the church he founds. Critics have also suggested that Harshaw is actually a stand-in for Robert Heinlein himself, based on similarities in career choice and general disposition;[2] though Harshaw is much older than Heinlein was at the time of writing.

Literary critic Dan Schneider wrote of Heinlein's Stranger In A Strange Land that Harshaw's belief in his own free will, was one "which Mike, Jill, and the Fosterites misinterpret as a pandeistic urge, 'Thou art God!'"[3]

A 2011 Medium review evaluates Harshaw negatively, labeling him "Heinlein’s crude wish-fulfillment stand-in for himself" and "a pedant" for whom: "There’s nothing another character can say to him that won’t produce a lecture in reply, and even the faintly interesting ones tend to slide back into tired sexist stereotypes by the time he’s done."[4]

Harshaw also appears in three later Heinlein novels:

References

  1. ^ J. Neil Schulman (1999-01-31). The Robert Heinlein Interview and Other Heinleiniana. p. 170. ISBN 1-58445-015-0.
  2. ^ Marshall B. Tymn (1981). Masterplots II.: American fiction series, Volume 4. ISBN 978-0-89356-460-5.
  3. ^ Dan Schneider, Review of Stranger In A Strange Land (The Uncut Version), by Robert A. Heinlein (7/29/05).
  4. ^ Lewis, Peter (January 5, 2019). ""Stranger in a Strange Land": Don't Bother". Medium.

Hyperbolick (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heinlein's preferred version[edit]

The article has contradictory statements about which version Heinlein preferred. The lead says the original, the body says the shortened one. --Khajidha (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Character name: Foster[edit]

We know the character names had meaning. Is there any evidence that Foster was a dig at Alan Dean Foster? Rklawton (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stranger_in_a_Strange_Land&oldid=1209100586"