Sci-Fi Group Book Club discussion

This is the discussion thread for the third book of the month, or group read, for November. Please remember to use the spoiler tags where necessary.

The other group read topics for this month (Philip K. Dick's Electric Dreams: Volume 1 and The Collected Stories of Arthur C. Clarke) can be found here and here.

I read this the first time in the 70's and it was a perfect fit for the times. I also thought it was a very different topic and style from the Heinlein I had grown up with in the late 50's. I devoured his YA novels back then. I reread it again in Nov 2016 and gave it 4 stars since it is a tiny bit dated now. I would have given it 5 stars the first time I read it.

There are many reasons why I nominated this book.

1) I knew it was one of Robert A. Heinlein best books so it has been on my too read list for some time.

2) It was recently listed as one of 10 best books from the 60s: https://lithub.com/a-century-of-readi...

3) I have been reading about Charles Manson (the cult leader and murderer) and this was not only his favorite book, it also inspired a lot of his theology. In essence his world view is a mixture of this book, The Beatles (how he interpreted the lyrics), Scientology and Nazism.

4) Very few books are so inspirational that people start a religion based on them. Church of All Worlds is a made up religion in the book but it was founded in the real world in 1968 and modeled on how the church is in the book. You will find polyamory, non-mainstream family structures, social libertarianism, water-sharing rituals, an acceptance of all religious paths by a single tradition, and the use of several terms such as "grok", "Thou art God", and "Never Thirst". The church still exists and has members all over the world.

So if this is not enough to make you interested in the book, I don't know what will. :)

This text is from the site with the 10 best books of the 60s:

"Heinlein’s classic was the first science fiction novel ever to become a New York Times bestseller. “It didn’t just sell to science fiction readers, it sold widely to everyone, even people who didn’t normally read at all,” Jo Walton wrote. “People claim it was one of the things that founded the counter-culture of the sixties in the U.S. It’s Heinlein’s best known book and it has been in print continuously ever since first publication. Sitting reading it in the metro the other day, a total stranger assured me that it was a good book. It was a zeitgeist book that captured imaginations.” The book is certainly problematic by today’s standards, and I even thought it was pretty corny when I read it as a teenager, but there’s no denying its cultural influence. (This kind of observation has led at least one critic to call it the Catcher in the Rye of SF.) It got thousands of readers into science fiction, and was so famous that one of its essential invented terms—to “grok“—made it into common usage and even the OED. For another, it invented a religion— the “Church of All Worlds”—that was eventually actually founded by a guy named Tim Zell. It also probably made the waterbed happen. No big deal."

Jim wrote: "I read this the first time in the 70's and it was a perfect fit for the times. I also thought it was a very different topic and style from the Heinlein I had grown up with in the late 50's. I devou..."

Jim, when you reread the book, which version did you read? The shorter original version or the uncut version? The only version one can buy now is the uncut one, which is strange since Heinlein himself thought his shorter, edited version was better. Maybe you felt it was not as good because you were not reading the same version?

Where does one start when discussing this book? There is so much one could talk about.

One aspect is the religious one. It is interesting that even though the book goes against most of what Christianity would preach (especially regarding nudity and sex) Heinlein still turns Valentine Michael Smith into a Christ figure. Not only does he have a name of love and and angel, his last name is Smith, which is what Jesus was before he started preaching (a carpenter). There are also many similarities between Smith and Christ. Both perform miracles. Both preach love and unity. Both want to save humanity. Both have dual nature. Jesus is both human and God. Smith is both human martian. SPOILERS!!! Both sacrifice themselves and are killed by those who don't understand. Smith even goes to his death to help spread his teachings. END OF SPOILERS.

It would have helped Heinlein if he had asked someone who has studied theology to proofread the text. There are a lot of shaky interpretations of Bible texts and teachings of Islam here. Not that it matters much for the message of the book but it did irritate me a little. One such example is the Sodom and Gomorrah. The point of that story is not sex but the obligation to protect your guests at any cost.

I did get a little tired of all the preaching in the latter part of the book. It felt like Heinlein just wrote the story as an excuse to preach his Gospel and once he got to the part where he could preach he forgot the story he had started writing. In fact the latter half of the book feels like another book all together. He actually admits this when talking about the difference between the shorter original version and this longer version sold today.:

"I cut it myself to bring it down to a commercial length. But I did not leave out anything of any importance; I simply trimmed all possible excess verbiage. Perhaps you have noticed that it reads "fast" despite its length; that is why. ... The original, longest version of SISL ... is really not worth your trouble, as it is the same story throughout—simply not as well told. With it is the brushpenned version which shows exactly what was cut out—nothing worth reading, that is. I learned to write for pulp magazines, in which one was paid by the yard rather than by the package; it was not until I started writing for the Saturday Evening Post that I learned the virtue of brevity.""

I would very much like to compere these versions. While I'm happy that we have a chance to read the longer version I think it is totally ridiculous that the original version (which is preferred by the author) is no longer in print.

Thorkell wrote: "Jim wrote: "I read this the first time in the 70's and it was a perfect fit for the times. I also thought it was a very different topic and style from the Heinlein I had grown up with in the late 5..."

Sorry, but I don't know which version I read. The reason I dropped my rating 1 star is because it was more relevant to the culture and mindset of the 60's and 70's and has lost some of that impact today.

Just wanted to say that Thorkell has kindly agreed to be the discussion leader for this topic. Thanks Thorkell! :)