Tina’s comment > Likes and Comments
4 likes · Like
It is much more than a "sexual fantasy for young men". When I read it as a teenager, it helped shape my politacal and religious views and when I think back on it today, sex is not one of first things that pops into my head.
Agree with Phil. Is sex really the only theme you take away from this book? There are so many other relevant themes... If I wanted to read a sexual fantasy, there's 50 Shades or some other mediocre erotic novel.
Hey, Tina! STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND is ©1961, when Hef was spewing his Playboy Philosophy and Hein was changing the game for science fiction. Personally, I think the wrong guy discorporated; it's the other one who should now still be among us. STRANGER isn't sexual fantasy for me, but rather male-ego-massage; what works for me is Jubal versus Big Government out to crush him; yes, the female sex is secondary, SECOND SEX type of category; but Hein was writing in the time of Hef. [Will you think better of me, if I spill that my favorite TV show of all time is THE CLOSER Seasons 1-5?] @hg47
Well, Phil and Harv. You are men. Therefor, you WILL interpret things differently. Most women who I know that read the book couldn't get past the Male dominating sex and threw the book against the wall. We (female) expect more than that shallow view of women in any type of literature, and the moment a writer incorporates those elements, he (yes, only men portray women that way) will lose 55% of their readership, which are women. Fact, not fiction
What a completely stereotypical and generalized statement to make. Certainly men are not exclusive to portraying women as sex slaves and objects. Returning to 50 Shades, E.L. James is one such example that effortlessly refutes your statement. What about the countless contemporary novels involving bondage and other such female domination written by FEMALE authors? You sound as though male writers are the only one who depict women as shallow, when in fact you’re wrong. There are novels that include women domination and men submission written by both men and women. Fact, not fiction.
Calm down now, Grey ject. It's just Goodreads
I could say the same thing to you, purporting random statements that make no sense.
Let's cut Tina some slack. Guys and Gals are after different things when they read fiction. Can't say I've ever thrown a romance novel across the room into a wall, but I have read a few Harlequins, Loveswepts, and Silhouettes [for research, cut me some slack!], and I can understand how a guy could throw one of those. I always come away with: "Wait. Guys like that don't exist."
If Tina wants to call Robert A. a dirty old man who didn't bother to understand or write well about women…she has a point, and is correct judged by 2013 standards.
Still, for ©1961 in my biased male P.O.V.: STRANGER is a hell of a novel. It is flawed, and falls apart in the second half, but reading it has given me many hours of enjoyment, over the years.
Cheers!
@hg47
Not everyone can grok the greatness.
I have to say as a woman I don't agree with Tina. She is certainly able to voice her opinion as we all can, but for me I didn't see it as a slight in any way towards women. Quite honestly most of us treat men the way these women treated the men in their lives. They didn't think they were "objects". If anything they talked down to the men more than the men objectified the women. But IMO it was a good natured back and forth with no ill feelings on other side. To read into it that the women were treated as objects to cook, clean and have sex with cheapens the relationships between the characters. I have no idea what kinds of relationships anyone here has with their partners, spouses, etc, but I know my husband calls me "dear", "sweetheart" and other pet names and has joked that when I get home from work what am I making for dinner. Does that mean he treats me as a second class citizen? Maybe to some, but between us it's more of a joke (since he actually does more of the cooking than I do) and I don't take offense to it at all. It's how OUR relationship works. That doesn't mean it works that way for everyone. But in the same light I don't think RH was trying to belittle the women in his book at all. They had their strengths and gave as well as they got. And this book is still something I read every year and have since the first time I picked it up in my early 30s. It is easily one of my all time favorites.
“Whenever women have insisted on absolute equality with men, they have invariably wound up with the dirty end of the stick. What they are and what they can do makes them superior to men, and their proper tactic is to demand special privileges, all the traffic will bear. They should never settle merely for equality. For women, "equality" is a disaster.” -R. Heinlein.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Phil
(new)
Oct 09, 2012 10:26PM
It is much more than a "sexual fantasy for young men". When I read it as a teenager, it helped shape my politacal and religious views and when I think back on it today, sex is not one of first things that pops into my head.
reply
|
flag
Agree with Phil. Is sex really the only theme you take away from this book? There are so many other relevant themes... If I wanted to read a sexual fantasy, there's 50 Shades or some other mediocre erotic novel.
Hey, Tina! STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND is ©1961, when Hef was spewing his Playboy Philosophy and Hein was changing the game for science fiction. Personally, I think the wrong guy discorporated; it's the other one who should now still be among us. STRANGER isn't sexual fantasy for me, but rather male-ego-massage; what works for me is Jubal versus Big Government out to crush him; yes, the female sex is secondary, SECOND SEX type of category; but Hein was writing in the time of Hef. [Will you think better of me, if I spill that my favorite TV show of all time is THE CLOSER Seasons 1-5?] @hg47
Well, Phil and Harv. You are men. Therefor, you WILL interpret things differently. Most women who I know that read the book couldn't get past the Male dominating sex and threw the book against the wall. We (female) expect more than that shallow view of women in any type of literature, and the moment a writer incorporates those elements, he (yes, only men portray women that way) will lose 55% of their readership, which are women. Fact, not fiction
What a completely stereotypical and generalized statement to make. Certainly men are not exclusive to portraying women as sex slaves and objects. Returning to 50 Shades, E.L. James is one such example that effortlessly refutes your statement. What about the countless contemporary novels involving bondage and other such female domination written by FEMALE authors? You sound as though male writers are the only one who depict women as shallow, when in fact you’re wrong. There are novels that include women domination and men submission written by both men and women. Fact, not fiction.
Calm down now, Grey ject. It's just Goodreads
I could say the same thing to you, purporting random statements that make no sense.
Let's cut Tina some slack. Guys and Gals are after different things when they read fiction. Can't say I've ever thrown a romance novel across the room into a wall, but I have read a few Harlequins, Loveswepts, and Silhouettes [for research, cut me some slack!], and I can understand how a guy could throw one of those. I always come away with: "Wait. Guys like that don't exist."If Tina wants to call Robert A. a dirty old man who didn't bother to understand or write well about women…she has a point, and is correct judged by 2013 standards.
Still, for ©1961 in my biased male P.O.V.: STRANGER is a hell of a novel. It is flawed, and falls apart in the second half, but reading it has given me many hours of enjoyment, over the years.
Cheers!
@hg47
Not everyone can grok the greatness.
I have to say as a woman I don't agree with Tina. She is certainly able to voice her opinion as we all can, but for me I didn't see it as a slight in any way towards women. Quite honestly most of us treat men the way these women treated the men in their lives. They didn't think they were "objects". If anything they talked down to the men more than the men objectified the women. But IMO it was a good natured back and forth with no ill feelings on other side. To read into it that the women were treated as objects to cook, clean and have sex with cheapens the relationships between the characters. I have no idea what kinds of relationships anyone here has with their partners, spouses, etc, but I know my husband calls me "dear", "sweetheart" and other pet names and has joked that when I get home from work what am I making for dinner. Does that mean he treats me as a second class citizen? Maybe to some, but between us it's more of a joke (since he actually does more of the cooking than I do) and I don't take offense to it at all. It's how OUR relationship works. That doesn't mean it works that way for everyone. But in the same light I don't think RH was trying to belittle the women in his book at all. They had their strengths and gave as well as they got. And this book is still something I read every year and have since the first time I picked it up in my early 30s. It is easily one of my all time favorites.
“Whenever women have insisted on absolute equality with men, they have invariably wound up with the dirty end of the stick. What they are and what they can do makes them superior to men, and their proper tactic is to demand special privileges, all the traffic will bear. They should never settle merely for equality. For women, "equality" is a disaster.” -R. Heinlein.
