Opinions on this book(Stranger in a Strange Land).
I like it.
>>7549755
That Heineken dude was waay ahead of his time. SiaSL is the OG Neckbeard's bible.
*tips grok*
>>7549755
one of the absolute best books i've ever read. it literally changed my life and made me a better person.
It's decent except for that one line all Heinlein fans pretend isn't in the book but it most certainly is and there's no taking it back now.
Sadly dated. Like Earth Girls Are Easy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PU3mGrjjQg
I'm thinking of getting a "All that groks is God" tattoo.
What do you guys think?
>>7551325
Not the guy you're replying to, but I remember there being a line about how gay sex and non-platonic love are wrong.
>>7551381
You mean when the woman was experiencing sexual attraction to another woman by proxy, and Mike was like "don't worry, you're just feeling my experience; it's not your own."
And she says, "thank goodness! I don't know what I would do if I found out I was a lesbian."
That's the only part I can think of, and it never seemed like an attack on lesbianism to me. Just a straight girl experiencing something foreign and being surprised.
>>7549755
I enjoyed the banter at the beginning. Fucking badass Harshaw. Felt like the ending was lackluster. I started to hate the protagonist by the end and generally lost interest because the turn wasn't remotely what I was expecting to happen.
>>7549755
I didn't expect I would love this book as much as I did. I thought it was marvelous.
>>7551403
Huh, I don't really remember that part. I think there was something about Valentine reassuring Ben (they were sitting naked next to each other, I think?) about not having to worry, and that gayness wasn't a part of grokking.
>>7551468
Hmm I don't remember anything like that, though it has been several years since I last read it. Would be interesting if we could find that passage.
>>7551403
There's literally a part where he says he would never be friends with a homosexual.
>>7551479
Jubal says:
"I would expect men to kiss men."
Ben looked sheepish. "I held out on you. But it's not a pansy gesture."
So, Jubal expects men to kiss men, as well as women, as well as women kissing women, in Valentine's church's kiss of brotherhood (I forgot exactly what it's called). However, Ben saying "it's not a pansy gesture" clearly indicates that "it's not gay", and to me shows disapproval of gayness. Why else would Ben care, and why wouldn't such a sex- and orgy-driven group not dissolve into total bisexuality unless it was viewed as wrong?
Found the short passage with a Google search, don't know if I'd find the one I remember that way. It's been 3 years since I read it, and I gifted my copy to a friend.
>>7551514
And here's the exact quote:
"Jill suspected that Mike would grok a 'wrongness' in the poor in-betweeners, anyhow—they would never be offered water"
Started off interesting in my opinion.
However, it went down hill as soon as Mike started being a magician.
I read it sometime in October /November of last year.
Finished the moon is a harsh mistress a few days ago, which I think was much better
>>7551526
Yeah that really is fascinating. And I may be remembering this completely wrong, but I was under the impression that it did turn into a bisexual orgy. For spiritual growth.
Could that part with Ben be him in a phase of growth, as he was shedding his preconceived notions about homosexuality and still getting used to the new experience? That he looked sheepish seems like maybe a good indication of this, considering how open the water brothers are with each other at the end.
Or maybe I'm completely wrong, and Heinlein was entirely unenlightened in this way :P
>>7551548
That was in reference to gay people? Seems like maybe Jill is homophobic, and depending when in the novel this happened it could be something Heinlein had her say in order to build character growth. Same with the lesbian stuff making her uncomfortable, and eventually leading to her being so open to lesbian sex later on.
>>7551558
>>7551548
Or perhaps groking was never mean to supplant the innate sexual preferences of individuals. Those are written as Jill's own thoughts, not the narrator's. There is something coercive in demanding that male and female distinctions be divorced from sex entirely regardless of the individual.
I sense homosexuals and progressive allies as getting as butthurt about that lack of nusexual ideology as a regressive would have been about the book 50 years ago. It's clearly people defending their ideological turn, which I think means they have also failed to fully grasp the book. If you think the book is about sex, you'd a deviant anyway.
>>7551614
Heinlein himself was a sexual deviant and huge pervert, among other things (visionary?). I'll admit that as a bi trans girl I'm hoping they all fucked each other regardless of sex, but you may have a point about the expectation of homosexual encounters being coercive. The impression I got though was that in becoming spiritually and sexually liberated from their traditional societies they found joy in physical expressions of love within their community. Meaning like all of them. Joy in men kissing men, joy in women kissing women. Hopefully more than kissing.
Or maybe I'm just projecting.
With the characters making homophobic statements like that it seems very open to interpretation. Mostly because it wasn't Mike saying those things. It could be that Heinlein is a homophobic asshole. I'd be fine with that if true.
>>7551351
If you're enough of a bad decision maker to get a tattoo then I suppose it wouldn't be any worse to get that shitty quote while you're at it.
>>7551712
Lol
>>7551673
You're projecting for sure. People have been kissing others (on the mouth, too) platonically for thousands of years.
But Valentine states himself in the book that he could never share water with a homosexual.
>>7551754
Where did he state that? Find the quote please!
This is making me think I need to reread the book.
>>7551351
Completely awful
P good but the sex was overbearing
>>7549755
Main character was kind of strange. The land was even stranger
>>7551673
Why was he a pervert, because he wrote a lot about the female form, and was clearly quite fond of women? I suggest reading 'Time Enough for Love'. He was clearly against coercive sexual constraints (or obligations), but I think more generally he was against ideologizing sexuality, which tends to has those kinds of effect one way or another.
>>7551673
One other think I'll add, is that his seemingly libertine view of sexuality has to be considered in the context of his very strict and formal definition of love. The quote more or less is that love is the state in which the happiness of another is essential to your own. Simply sexual pleasure does not inherently contain this element, and it was this kind of human connection, whether it's platonic or romantic that he is preoccupied with, at least in SiaSL. People focus on the sex and miss the point imo.
>>7552066
I didn't mean it in a bad way. We're all perverts. And yeah, going on about the female form all the time as he did makes him a pervert and deviant. His writings were often sexist, and went beyond the realm of "appreciation of beauty" into that of a dirty old man. It's part of his charm.
>>7552093
His work doesn't have to be defined as EITHER dirty and sexual OR romantic, sincere and meaningful. It's both.
I would argue that if you can't enjoy his work for being crude and perverted you're limiting your perspective to the deeper meaning and denying a very important and human piece of what him the wonderful author he was.
>>7552098
The concept of sexism is only valid if one denies innate sexual difference, and to do so is ideological, no empirical. And going on about the female form is the appreciation of aesthetics, not pornography. Only someone repulsed by someone else's sexuality (perhaps because it's not their own OR because they themselves cannot differentiate the two) would assume lust and aesthetics are identical. The reflexive embarrassment about the fact that humans are sexual beings is what turns people into fetishistic deviants in the first place--they revel in what they perceive to be liberating dismissals of sexual norms, while in their self-righteousness actually mirror the basic beliefs as the puritans.
>>7552113
I'm saying crude and perverted mentalities can only exist in people who are on a deeper level disgusted with their existence as sexual beings.
>>7552120
>The concept of sexism is only valid if one denies innate sexual difference
lol this is a ridiculous statement. it's possible to recognize differences between genders and discriminate against one or the other. maybe i misunderstand, but it seems as though you're suggesting that feminist ideologies purport there to be no differences between men and women, when the truth is they simply seek to celebrate and legitimize femininity as equal to masculinity in terms of worth.
heinlein is famous for going on about the female form in humorous and crude ways. i'm not saying that lust and appreciation of the human form are the same thing, just that heinlein had a genius way to blending the two to result in something wonderful. i don't understand how you can deny the presence of the "wise and dirty old man" character in almost all of his works, particularly the later stuff. they often did things like blatantly hit on their secretaries as they discussed the finer points of art.
>>7552120
>I'm saying crude and perverted mentalities can only exist in people who are on a deeper level disgusted with their existence as sexual beings.
and where is this coming from? i don't understand the correlation in the slightest. crude and perverted is simply human, along with their opposites of maybe being refined and proper.
>>7552198
>i don't understand how you can deny the presence of the "wise and dirty old man" character in almost all of his works, particularly the later stuff. they often did things like blatantly hit on their secretaries as they discussed the finer points of art.
I am rejecting the notion that that is sexist. As I am denying the the dominant social forms of male/female pair bonding are sexist. The only people who claim they are are anti-human and anti-nature.
Show me a matriarchal, non-binary, marriage-less (they exist) or otherwise non-male-dominant pair bonding society, in the past or in the present, that has advanced/survived beyond the hunter-gather stage, and you will have an argument.
>>7552198
>legitimize femininity as equal to masculinity in terms of worth.
I totally agree with you there though.
>>7552234
oh well now we're just getting into the semantics of "sexism". is it sexist to compliment your secretary's tits in a work setting? i say yes, you may disagree. it doesn't really matter, especially here on the internet. and that quote from stranger in a strange land, about 9 out of 10 rapes being partly the woman's fault? i see that as sexist too, though it's nothing to be upset over.
the instances with the dirty old men usually aren't about pair bonding, either. these are older characters who are presumed to be experienced in romance making uninvited comments about the young women around him. women that "pair up" with different male characters, most of the time. like jubal harshaw and practically every female he encounters in the novel.
>>7552268
>partially
If 9 out of 10 rapes are between people who know each other (that's what they say, right?), then I'd say his statement is reasonable if insensitive.
Fault and moral responsibility are two different things.
>>7552268
>making uninvited comments about the young women around him.
There's nothing wrong with that.
>>7552325
yeah i'm not sure how i feel about that. i like how you're differentiating between fault and moral responsibility, but i also see how it could be considered "victim blaming" and contribute to a culture of rape by making rapists feel less morally responsible for their actions.
i've had a lot of fun talking to you tonight btw. you're a swell guy :)
>>7552331
well now, many women would disagree. i work with a dirty old man and he likes to tell me how pretty i am and give me hugs and things, but i'm not always comfortable with it. particularly in a "professional" setting like school or work this sort of thing can get annoying very quickly and border on harassment. having a workplace culture of men objectifying women really makes for a less-than-welcoming environment.
in getting along with each other and maintaining equal opportunities for all we have to make some sacrifices. this includes offensive jokes and hitting on your coworkers.
>>7552359
Oh really? What do women give up in the workplace? Besides farting every three minutes as they do in their natural state.
>>7552365
telling offensive jokes and hitting on their coworkers?
>>7552374
never happens. fuck off. they're not "giving that up" that is not their natural temperament. In fact, it would be delightful if they STARTED doing that.
You know why you're not seeing it? You have female privilege.
>>7552388
i don't have female privilege.
>>7552359
Yes, good discussion.
>>7552390
That is the sort of defensive reaction I expect from someone faced with their own relative privileges.
>>7552411
I think that poster is actually a man who subjectively posits a female identity.
>>7552417
my god.
my god.
my god.
>>7552424
They're both me.
>>7552436
well you're quite the fascinating character. i take it you're not a fan of the whole transgender thing?
>>7552447
I think the real question about the transgender thing, as well as the gay thing, is whether the dispositions of a 1-2% minority, or a minority of a minority in the case of transgenders, justifies the other 98% of the population altering or altogether jettisoning certain prior sustaining values of their society. The west seems to have decided that they should.
I take the Sartres, the Butlers, the and the Gessens of the world at their word, that the intellectual core of "the movement" has always been more interested in destroying bourgeois family values than it was in protecting homosexuals. I actually think the Stonewall Riots were a just response to police brutality, but that doesn't mean I want to uproot western civilization.
Anyway, I ultimately think it's moot, because our days are numbered as a culture, and it really has nothing to do with gays or trans--those are really only luxuries of an affluent and decadent time. They will be swept aside in a return to a state of survival. I have my doubts that a culture can sustain itself on the mere value of tolerance alone, and unfortunately intellectuals have not bothered to construct a hardier philosophical justification for trans and homosexuality that would have a chance at surviving future wind shifts in social convention that may move back against it.
I guess I say enjoy it while it lasts.
>>7552488
are you serious? i never can tell here on 4chan. you seem sincere but you're saying some very outrageous things.
what makes you think modern western culture values only tolerance? i like to think we're headed to a place where we espouse courage, sincerity, compassion, and wisdom as a society. and for all of our differences, we're really not that much different from past generations. like our similarities far outweigh our differences. which values were altered and jettisoned in order to make room for my "disposition"?
i don't believe this to be moot. while nothing lasts forever and we probably will face more periods of grim survival there is no telling if that will even happen in our lifetimes. the present is what we known and experience, and thought stemming form there is more grounded than prophecizing tends to be.
i think it's ridiculous to suggest the progressive agenda is attacking family values. and i don't at all understand what you think we've had to sacrifice for my being allowed the same rights everyone else enjoys.
if such a time comes when i'm greatly persecuted for who i am, then i suppose it will come and i will suffer. for now though i feel happy and fulfilled.
I liked the first 100 pages or so but then it just turns into heimlich masturbating onto the page while thinking about his weird mars wizard sexist wet dream bullshit
>>7552531
If you're response to this is "well, that's just one person's opinion" then you haven't taken the very movements and people who brought about your new rights very seriously.
Divorce rate, illegitimacy rates, fertility rates, all show that there has been a falling confidence in the logic of traditional family arrangements. Every action has consequences. The unsustainability of the current trajectory can only mean it will end and be replaced with something else. I don't think that something else will be gay friendly. It's more likely to be Islamic because when stripped of certainty and confidence, people instinctively gravitate towards metaphysical objectivism and strength, and not values of openness, relativism, and tolerance. This would is bigger and more primal than this tiny island of calm in the late west.
If societies were sustainable on gay-friendly values and other derivatives of New Tolerance like muliticulturalism, there would be more surviving examples of them in human history. If they have every existed at all, they always died out in short order.
I don't think there's anything that can be done about it though, so there's no use brutalizing or persecuting homosexuals in the mean time--that'd just be purposeless cruelty. So by all means, have your rights.
>>7552531
You should probably also know that I'm not white and I'm not even a Christian, or party of any Abrahamic faith. So I'm just just spouting religious dogma.
>>7552593
i'm not trying to be dismissive, it's just that the things you say don't make sense to me. as you well know correlation does not equate to causation, so what makes you think trans acceptance and divorce rates are related?
i suppose it makes sense, now that you have me thinking. but i'm inclined to agree with the woman in your picture, to a point. nothing needs to be destroyed, and while traditional marriage is an archaic institution there is no need to outlaw it entirely. people should be free to enjoy traditional marriage if they wish, and they most certainly are allowed that freedom as things are. the change we're seeing today is simply the legitimization of other lifestyles alongside what has been tradition.
and tradition is still very much the norm. people getting marriage, having kids, growing old. sure a lot of people get divorced, but a lot of them remarry and make it as a couple eventually.
i'm feeling a little scared thinking about the future you've outlined here, which is silly. but i really hope this age of tolerance lasts. i'm harmless and my harmlessness is a gift to the world and all its inhabitants. why would my culture turn against me? thoughts of nazi germany. you have a grim perspective of things, anonymous.
>>7552619
honestly the thought never crossed my mind. kind of assumed you were part of the "redpill" crowd, but after talking to you for this short while i fear it's much worse than that. your thoughts and opinions aren't so childish, which is scary. you'll be more likely to hold onto them that way.
i still say you can't predict the future, and making assumptions as you have is a fruitless endeavor. or maybe your fruit is rotten, making you pessimistic and cold. you're one of my favorite posters so far but i worry for you.
>>7552675
Im not sure if you're trolling but,
your faith in the progressive narrative of "Change is Good" is frightening. Granted, I'm speaking as a radical leftist and fervent progressive, but the more you analyze the movement you come to realize that progressivism is an inherently destructive force. It constantly calls for the breaking down of traditions that are perceived as barriers to enjoyment of life. Change is dangerous; choose to support it in spite of the risks, not in ignorance of them.
>>7552675
>here is no need to outlaw it entirely
That was never the goal. If people no longer believe in something, it doesn't need to be outlawed.
Your culture will not turn against you. When will happen is stronger, less tolerance, but more cohesive societies will supplant the current one from the outside, and then the inside. It's the tragedy of openness. Some of the more illiberal tendencies of traditional societies are the very things that strengthen those societies against other groups. The double edged sword is sometimes nice people find themselves at odds with one illiberal value or another, but when you get rid of them entirely, the hard edge that keeps the society together is gone. Who's the hard edged society on the horizon that can plausibly claim to bring order and certitude in the wake of growing confusion and atomization? The only claimant at the moment is Islam and you're already seeing it slowing grow from within. There are already Islamist Parties in Europe, and in a few years they will have a couple seats in national parliaments. Project forward 100 years, 150 years, and things that seem impossible are not so.
>>7552730
Which is why radical leftist revolutions always transition to authoritarianism--It's not because they're evil, it's because it's the only way to preserve the gains.
>>7552747
Can you give a good example of that happening; net gains of a radical leftist revolution being preserved by transition to an authoritarian regime?
>>7552730
really? of the people talking here, you think i'm the one who might be trolling? change is inevitable, and a positive change toward acceptance and compassion is definitely a good thing. again, i'm not sure what traditions are being attacked. because in spite of people like me being around and sort of accepted these days, the traditions are standing strong and remain the norm. suggesting overwise makes me think of american christians that claim persecution when people say, "happy holidays!"
>>7552731
yet people still believe in marriage. everyone around me seems to be obsessed with the traditional life. marriage with a good partner, kids, house, etc. in what way are our valued traditions being eroded? my being allowed to marry the person of my choosing does nothing to diminish the value of your marriage.
after this post you strike me as european. am i right? islam is a religion of peace, and it will change in time too. right now the violent extremists are gaining momentum which is frightening, but hopefully things turn out well in the end. looking 100, 150 years into the future is yeah. just speculation.
refugees deserve our compassion, and if we have the means to help them it's only right that we accept them with open arms. we may have some conflicting ideas but it's nothing that can't be worked out through productive dialogue. the instances of violence are the exception, not the norm.
>>7552756
Maoist China. Soviet Russia. Hell, Pol Pot just put into literal practice all of the theory he had heard while sitting in Parisian salons. You might enjoy reading New Lies for Old by defector Antatoliy Golitsyn as well as Love Letter to America. Basically, in the progression of revolution, societies are destabilized until they can be conquered, at which point the core radical ideologues are purged so they don't cause trouble for the new regime. Then no further destabilizing ideologies are tolerated.
Even Hitler pulled this trick by first implementing the thuggish brown shirts who riled things up. Then the black shirts (SS) purged the brown shirt (SA) leaders and instituted order. He had a counterrevolution in is own revolution if you think about it--kind of brilliant. It's not entirely unique to leftist movements. It's just that it more overtly negates, contradicts, certain leftist conceits in a way that isn't as contradictory to right wing movements, which to no claim adherence to liberal ideas like equality.
>>7552778
Islam has never been peaceful in its whole existence, except for the tiniest fringe sects like Sufis. Ask any Arab Christian how peaceful Islam is. I suggest refreshing your history on the Battle of Tours. In only a century from its founding, Islam had invaded all the way to central France, unprovoked. This was the earliest, purest form of the religion that fundamentalists are merely tapping into. Not even Al Azhar, the premere Islamic academic insitution on the planet--basically their Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge combined x1000 (NOT stupid people) can declare ISIS unislamic.
You ultimately have a difficult situation because most of the people who are migrating to the west are less liberal than the people that are currently here.
>>7552823
>Maoist China. Soviet Russia. Hell, Pol Pot just put into literal practice all of the theory
I suppose at the core, we just have different ideas of what a gain is, which is probably irreconcilable as class consciousness matters nothing to me. Regardless, thanks for the thoughtful response, anon.
>>7552823
yes, i've taken a history of islam course and know about its violent history. but that doesn't point to the religion itself being violent. as with all religions, it really comes down to how people choose to interpret the teachings. what you might call "liberal progress" is happening in many islamic cultures, and given time i think we'll be better able to see eye to eye. resisting all of islam and insisting that it's a violent religion is only going to push those muslims who would stand with us to the enemy. there's no reason we can't stand united with our muslim friends against ISIS and other extremists.
"less liberal" i can deal with. hopefully these wars don't shatter or severely harm the established western countries. if it does then "less liberal" will no longer seem like a problem, until the dust starts to settle.
>>7552889
If Islam was violent at its INCEPTION by following its dogmas as written and merely following them out, then it was in and of itself violent, again, at its inception. That is inherent by definition.
Islam also had concept that makes interpretation difficult--in the sense the non-muslim westerners like the use the term. "Abrogation" Means that textual references in the Koran that come last supersede in authority whatever came before it in verse order. This means the nastiest parts of the Koran have authority over all of those nice quotes people like to cite to prove how peaceful the religion is. And the Koran does not hold the same place in Islam as the Bible holds in Christianity, which is more like a Hadith--someone writing what they saw Jesus do at some place and time. The Koran is the uncreated Word of God that has existed since the beginning of the time. You will not find the infinite shades of grey in Islam that you find in Christianity. Being intellectually honest about this is the only way to find a solution if there is one.
>>7552908
there are still shades of grey. muslims worked to protect jews and christians in the past, and there is no reason they can't do the same today. we all have muslim friends, i'm sure. i don't understand the finer points of why they're able to be peaceful given the truths you've outlined, but violence certainly does not have to be emphasized the way extremists think it does.
anyway, i'm falling asleep now. so tired. thanks again for chatting with me and i hope we can do it some more. you should make a trip maybe so we can be 4chan friends? it bugs me that everyone has the same name.
>>7552908
Diff anon. I'd add that the impact and power of abrogation is a really difficult concept to explain but the potency of its application cannot be understated. It allows a muslim to maintain a constant sort of cognitive dissonance in discourse, that is then only ever resolved in the quran through this abrogation. This is how you will get conflicting answers if you query a devout muslim; in their mind there is no contradiction, and they're not being dishonest.
>If having tons of sex with everyone gave you godlike powers, it would be the correct course of action to take!
>>7553198
You're right, of course. It's too late to delete and rewrite m ycomment.
>>7549755
Good book (for what I read of it) but, and I don't know why, I stopped reading it 2/3 in.
I guess I just started becoming bored, there were many interesting themes (I hardly remember them now) but I remember being familiar with them already.
So the book sort of flopped for me around that point.
>>7553675
Blasphemy.
I think people get too hung up on the hippie narrative and forget to notice the writing and ideas that bring you along the way.
My favourite parts of the book were always Jubal's assessments of art and literature and the things Heinlein had to say about beauty and understanding through the guise of Martian philosophy. Also that because it was Martian philosophy, he inherently supposed that Earth philosophy had no real care for such things.
Cut out any significant portion of the hippie bullshit and you get a societal commentary and an advocation of fine arts and a sort of Waits/Bukowski-esque view of beauty. These are what I find most valuable in the book.
>>7551549
This a million times.
heinlein, good shit, for youth though, it was my favorite book for quite some time, i matured a bit, read it again and it didnt have the same sheen of brilliance, but it's a great sci fi novel, probably sexist and all that jazz, but who cares, the main character is a mary sue and is a jesus allegory. it's not deep, but it's fun and interesting. heinlein had a fun way of playing with some ideas, and this was one of his best. i also liked some of his shorts, "and he built a crooked house" or Waldo, or Magic Inc. all fun shorts. wasnt a big fan of starship troopers though, but i was pretty old by the time i got to that.
OH, i forgot to mention, there's also Job A comedy of justice which is a book loosely based on another interesting book, Jurgen, A comedy of justice. Heinlein was just a world builder, he wasnt the best, but he was very entertaining.
>>7553717
Yeah it's funny, I read one other book of his and stopped reading it around the same point.
The book was Citizen of the Galaxy, I thought it was pretty cool, but it just cycled through the same theme too long for me.
>>7553754
Why would you want to emphasize that over the "hippy narrative"? In learning the Martian tongue the characters developed a heightened sense of empathy, and came to appreciate and love each other all the more deeply. That Mike considered Jubal enlightened from the start is significant, and him expressing his feelings about art and beauty was one of the best things going for the novel. But to downplay the importance of the very human expression of peace, open and deep love, and compassion is to do Heinlein a disservice. My favorite parts of the book are the ones that made me cry out of hope for humanity.
>>7549755
It has a great paragraph where they receive a message from Mars.
Good book, but not my favorite of his.
