Entry 095: "Stranger in a Strange Land" Pt.3 End

Dear Internet,

                I finished listening to "Stranger in a Strange Land."  I have to say that I will not be going back to it again anytime soon or for that matter ever.  The book is another one of Heinlein's preaching books where he hopes to change all of society while poorly attempting to masquerade itself as a science fiction novel.  True by definition, it is a science fiction book.  The main character is a man born on Mars that has psychic abilities that would put him as some sort of super human.  The fact that he defines those who will gain his abilities as "Homo superior" in the end is proof of his self definition of being different than man and being better than him.  There are some sort of super elevators, water beds, hypnotic techniques, and a bunch of other inventions that were not present when the book was made.   But all of these are secondary in the novel.  The main focus is clearly the philosophical discussions that the characters have rather than the novel's plot and setting.  It is a construct of Nietzsche philosophy and eastern religious constructs that emphasizes the lack of individualism while being wrapped up in escapism fantasy without the whimsicalness of reality.

                I can only get a little into this, but I will try.  I should start off with what I said I was going to do yesterday.  I mentioned the book's use of strawmen arguments.  The most obvious form of this is its discussions about religion.  The book creates a fake church for its use.  The Church of the New Revelation, or Fosterite, is so far removed of any sort of motion of religion that it is a joke.  "Stranger" acknowledges this, and it is supposed to a joke religion.  People wantonly commit nearly every sin under the sun under the protection of being told that as long as it is done under the blessing of the church it is not an act against nature or God.  It is such a joke of a church that Smith creates his own church as a reaction towards it and also in regards to the other world religions.  However, the fact that the book makes use of this joke religion as the ultimate and central foil to Smith is a failure of creating an argument for itself.  It is almost the definition of a strawman fallacy.  It concocts its own enemy from its own mind so that it can bolster the alternative.  Instead of addressing the whole arguments that real religions put forth as their dogma and doctrine, Heinlein centers his proposal of a new religion against the backdrop of a cartoon faith.  There are times that he goes off into a tandem about how real religions treat certain aspects of life, but he does it half heartedly, never really delving deeply into one religion or the other to analyze the core philosophy.  He only scratches the surface and is always shy of ever actually stating outright the incorrectness of a particular dogma.  In the end it feels more like he is too afraid to ever actually step on anyone's toes lest he actually upset anyone.  It is more cowardice than carefulness.  Maybe that is why he has Smith refuse to decide if his "Church of All World" is indeed a church with a religion or a sort of philosophy, despite them being one and the same.

                Do I need to talk again about how Smith is some sort of superman?  Some sort of Übermensch?  Smith is some sort of great being that has got every sort of mental power at his fingertips.  Astral projection, invincibility, telekinesis, teleportation, levitation, telepathy,  body regulation, and the ability to make things immaterialize, which probably already has a name in some database.  The only thing that it seems he cannot do is materialize matter.  And this is a major factor.  Smith can destroy, but what can he create?  The only thing he makes in the entirely of the novel from his own self is a child, and he does not really acknowledge it in the sense of fatherhood.  In fact, under Smith's church there is no parenthood.  Everything is communal.  But this is a falsehood within humanity for a mother will identify her child as her own even if the father cannot or will not.  To make the children as a part of this communal society would require a replacement of the process of birth.  The book treats children as accessories rather than individuals with the dignity of human life.  But I am supposed to be talking about Smith.  His wealth comes not from his own efforts.  It is inherited, so he knows not the value of a man's sweat.  Even to the end, he refers to those outside his fold or those lower to him as "marks," a derogatory term used by carnival workers to those they swindle.  Until they share with his experiences, they are beneath them.  At the end of the book, it has the gall of placing Smith as a Christ figure.  He is supposed to be sacrificing himself to the mob and becoming a martyr for his beliefs in the process.  Afterwards, his friends perform a cannibalistic ritual which is supposed to mirror the Christian sacrament of Eucharist, albeit done rather tasteless manner.  The greatest problem with this is that throughout the book, Smith is never once displayed as being subject to the human condition or even ever really being a man at all.  Even Christ was tempted in the desert and cried over the death of his friend Lazarus, but Smith never knows pain nor ever says he loves anyone because he says he cannot understand love.  He says that if Jill says he loves someone he will agree with her because she understands love.  Smith's death as a Christ figure is broken when one sees that his death was not to prove anything or even done for the benefit of those around him.  It is done for showmanship rather than love for his fellow man.  If anything it could have been done selfishly because he wanted to ascend to a higher plane.  Christ's death was done to allow the chance for the ascension of the soul of man to heaven because only once God has known death can a flawed man sit at the same table as God.  You can disagree with me on this, but having Smith as a representation of Christ is more a slap in the face of Christianity than a straightforward analogy.  Then again, this whole book is supposed to be a slap in the face of most world religions.

                The book want to erase the importance of individuality more than it wants to admit.  It pushes the hive mentality even when Smith makes an altered version of it for his church made of humans.  The word god is thrown around like a baseball.  Smith says that all living things are god with oneness, that every person is god and that god is all.  He says that it is a poor translation of what he is saying, but that does not stop him and all the rest of the characters from interjecting "grok" as much as they can, which is supposed to be a mixture of think, understand, and drinking.  All it ends up being is a sort of pantheism with a new set of cloths.  Throw in a little Buddhism, Hinduism, and a bit of sideshow theatrics and you get Smith's quasi-religion.  Individualism definitely goes out the door once everyone starts sharing each other's experiences through some sort of constant mental link.  The book tries to say that this is not the case with how it tries to keep individuals from retaining their personalities once becoming a part of Smith's collective mind, but this is a joke considering that the point of the religion is to melt everyone's minds together.  

                "Stranger" tries its hardest to remove itself from reality that it finally succeeds.  It removes itself from the manner that people behave.  It removes itself from how people think.  It removes itself from the troubles of man that someone reading it forgets his own troubles.  This is escapism plain and simple, but not all escapism is a bad thing.  It is like jumping up into the air to feel the effect of weightlessness when falling.  It is when one jumps off the Burj Khalifa to maximize the time of euphoria that a bystander should intervene.  That is what makes "Stranger" such a pile of drivel.  It goes so far out of reality that it forgets that it is a fictitious work.  It spreads a con, and worse than that, believes its own con.  The escapism that "Stranger" puts forth is the kind that makes a person lose touch with reality because they believe the unreality that is clearly being put forth before them.

                "Stranger in a Strange Land" is a terrible work.  At first I thought I was going to like it because of its premise.  A man returns home to Earth after being raised by Martians.  In the end, the book is a soap box sermon from Heinlein that again forgets to tell an enjoyable story.  After that it delves scantly into religion and philosophy while pretending it is deep.  The majority of the characters are unlikable to the point that if they in the least point step outside of the book's philosophy they are ironed out to fit the book's mold or are catapulted into a joke character.  Everything becomes so matter-of-factly in the way that the characters react to the important things of life that nothing, not even life or death, has any sort of significance.  The character of Smith fails as a prophet, a self insert, a sacrificial lamb, or even as a protagonist.  In the end, the book is a waste of time that does more as an antithesis of reason and reality.

Yours in digital,

BeepBoop

P.S. Tomorrow is the "Genocyber" OVA.

Entry 094: "Stranger in a Strange Land" Pt. 2

Dear Internet,

                That is another third of ""Stranger in a Strange Land" finished being listened to.  I have to say that this third of the novel is leaning heavily towards the same problems that I found in "Starship Troopers."  That novel attempted to delve deeply into psychological discussions without remembering that it was telling a story.  The final product was a pile of author direct soap-box preaching.  In some ways, "Stanger in a Strange Land" has some similarities with that book, and in many ways it shares the exact same aspects.  This should not be surprising to me considering that "Stranger" was written just two years after "Troopers," but then again, I sometimes forget to pre-research these items before reviewing.  Other times I completely forego research to allow myself from knowing anything about the work so I can judge it on its own merits, or simply because I want to prevent the story from being spoiled for me.  I still remember one case where I decided to read the introduction for "A Tale of Two Cities" before reading the book.  Within the first four lines of the introduction, the ending was presented to me and caused much of the suspense of the story to go straight out the window.  To this day, I do not read introductions to books because of this, or at least not until I finish the book.

                But let me get back to "Stranger."  So far, the novel spends a large amount of time picking things apart.  This is partly due to the way that the situations in the book are ones that are not encountered in day to day life.  One does not usually come across a telekinetic man raised by Martians.  The nature of the existence of the protagonist is one that brings up plenty of questions.  Can he ever get used to living on Earth?  Can a superman or Übermensch exist within a society lacking in his peers?  Does his otherworldly ability mask his humanity?   Does he ever see past the philosophy of his Martian foster parents for being a hive mentality where the queen figure is replaced by Confucian ancestral worship that has been reduced to general elder worship through the lack of a family unit?  Only that last one has yet to be touched upon so far, but I suspect the book will in due time.  With the other questions the book has addressed and in a manner that comes off as far too direct.  There is a difference between creating a situation and then allowing it to play out and the alternative of letting a scene play out and then take as much time to sit back and examine the situation.  The book makes me sometimes think that it thinks very little of its readership from the way that everything has to be explained.  Sure, there are times that the situation needs to be presented to the audience slowly for them to get a better understanding of what is occurring, but I find that the book does this a bit too much.  The shift between the plot progressing and these standstills happen frequently, too.  One moment things begin to pick up with the story and the next it comes to a screeching halt.

                Then there is the character of Valentine Michael Smith.  In the first third of the novel, I liked him plainly enough, but that was probably because there was not much there to like.  He was a naive man unaware of the truths of the world, or had half-truths behind him.  He really did not have much of a personality to begin with considering that he does not make a choice for himself for much of the novel.  Smith sits and ponders things.  Occasionally, he will make up his mind concerning his understanding of a situation, but he takes quite a while to make a decision for himself.  The times that he makes men completely disappear whenever his "water-brothers" are threatened are indeed times when he takes action, but one could argue that those moments are instinctual.  They are split second decisions made from quick assess of situations.  If anything, they can be traced more directly to Smith's moral code than choices of his own will.  I am not saying that actions made from a moral code are not a reflection of an individual's choice.  No, actions stemming from a moral code are great indicators of an individual's character.  What I am talking about are decisions that are thought out fully to the point where the individual must resort to reason and then follows through with their choice.  It is the difference between killing a bug with the bottom of your foot because it appears suddenly when you are sitting on a toilet or going to the store to pick up a bug bomb.  

                When Smith finally makes a decision for himself, it is to go out into the world of humans so he can better understand them.  After he makes this choice, his personality seems to make a 180 degree turn.  His beliefs in how to use his abilities become casual rather than following the strictly adherent rules of before.  The way he talks about people makes them seem like food, and not the reverently manner that he uses before.  Perhaps the flippant nature of Smith having ventured out into the world is a reflection of the fall of man having eaten of the fruit of knowledge, but did it have to make Smith as some sort of Mary Sue character beforehand?  A Mary Sue is a character who is a perfect being that has no faults and requires no character growth since everything comes naturally to them.  It has its origin as a term part of fan-fiction lexicon, and it was more defined as a self-insert character, but its meaning has grown.  The reason I bring this up is the kissing scene with Smith.  The book not only has one woman faint from kissing Smith, but afterwards has the rest of the women line up wanting to experience Smith's world shattering lips.  If the book just left it to one character, I could understand what it was trying to get at, that Smith's one track mind causes him to focus on his action completely without distraction.  However, the book makes a sideshow out of him, even before he does make a sideshow act, by having all available women swoon at his feet once they learn he is some sort of master locking lips.  It just all in all puts me off of the idea that Smith is supposed to be a character we are supposed to both sympathize with and adore.  He is too far away from Christ to be a Christ figure.

                There are a few other things I want to cover, especially concerning the book's use of straw men, but I will save that for tomorrow when I rap this book up.

Yours in digital,

BeepBoop

Entry 093: "Stranger in a Strange Land" Pt. 1

Dear Internet,

                Audiobooks are rather enjoyable as a format.  That is provided that they are done well.  Otherwise they turn into piles of boring text that might as well be tax code rather than sweeping narrative.  One instance I can think of is a version of H.G. Well's "War of the Worlds."  I am not sure what it is about the specific version I have listened to that constantly puts me to sleep.  I have tried twice to get through it, but it seems I will have to read it from a physical copy if I want to finish it once.  At the same time, Orson Welles' radio drama of the same work is one that can send tingles up my spine and cause me to break out into a nervous sweat.  It should come at no real surprise about the power of spoken narrative.  The first stories were told by word of mouth.  Even to this day, most people first hear stories read out loud when their parent had read a bed time story to them.  A good audiobook will have all the qualities of a good bed time story, mainly using different voices for all the characters.  There is one exception, it cannot make the reader fall asleep.  To offset this tendency which I know will occur more from my own weaknesses rather than those of the audiobook, I was able to make up for some time doing other things while listening to "Stranger in a Strange Land."

                But I am supposed to be talking about the contents and not the presentation, right?    "Stranger in a Strange Land" follows the life of Valentine Michael Smith, the first man who was born on Mars but at the same time raised by Martians after becoming an orphan.  It might be considered Tarzan in space if it was not based more on "The Jungle Book" than the vine swinging man.  Also there is the fact that the bulk of the story, thus far at least, takes place on Earth rather than on Mars.  Smith is in a unique position.  His being born as the sole heir to the exposition group that attempted to explore Mars years earlier makes him the defunct ruler of Mars in accordance with laws that have sprung up in the time from now to the fictitious future of the novel.  On top of that are the numerous fortunes that he inherits from his dead parents, all three of them.  He only has two biological parents, but being a bastard son of individuals from multiple countries with different legal standing on what a parent is, he has three legal pedigrees.  When he is discovered, he is brought back to Earth and becomes the Man from Mars.  He must then become accustomed to Earthling customs, mannerisms, philosophy and many other things.  At the same time, Smith must avoid those that wish to either take advantage of him or kill him to get him out of the way.  

                That is the gist of the first third of the novel that I was able to cover today.  I am not sure if the novel is going to divert into a different direction.  I would look up something of the summary, but I do not want to ruin a good book.  And so far it is good.  The novel does a balancing act between the story's plot and the message it is trying to tell.  Smith was raised by a race very different than that of humans, and the book wants to capitalize upon this fact.  In many cases, the book takes time to step aside and assess the situation.  This is usually done when one character makes time to explain the situation to the other.  A few other times, the book will step back and examine Smith's experiences from his perspective to gain insight into his own thinking, but this is more due to the fact that otherwise the reader would have no understanding of the character because of his reduced communication ability at the start of the novel.

                I am reminded of "Starship Troopers" to a certain extent.  This is partially due to the fact that I am approaching both works from an audiobook rather than in a printed book format.  However, what strikes me as similar is how both books press a type of philosophy within their stories.  "Starship Troopers" of course is a display of a utopian society that could not exist due to ignoring the human spirit and condition while at the same time forgetting to tell a story in the first place.  "Stranger in a Strange Land," so far at least, does not go completely towards a soap-box format as the other work, but I will reserve that decision for later.  There are some moments where the book takes a step back and compares the human race to that of the Martian race, but it remembers to balance that by not white washing the aliens into some sort of supreme beings.  But then again, that might be myself interjecting common sense into the equation.  For example, the Martians have a tendency to discorporate, or die, when faced with having committed some sort of faux pas, even when committed unintentionally.   This is done as a sort of reaction to acting against another individual as a means of recompense.  This is a wrong notion considering that some of the things that Smith thinks of faux pas are things that we would not think of committing suicide over.  Not to mention that the reaction would do nothing to correct the original action in most cases.

                Well, is that not funny, Internet?  After having written that paragraph, I realized that the two books are indeed written by the same man.  I was tempted to edit that paragraph a bit or even omit it all together and write it again, but I will not.  The fact that the two novels come from the same writer does not invalidate my feelings that, so far at least, "Stranger in a Strange Land" remembers to tell a story first and foremost.  I will however continue to scrutinize the book to see if it actually pushes forth the same tumbled around philosophy that "Starship Troopers" pushed and held as true.  There is a difference between claiming a specific philosophy as true and claiming it as false but using heavy satire to the point of being misunderstood.  It can be a fine line in these sci-fi works.

                As far as the sci-fi elements go, the book is filled with future gadgets and inventions that boggle the mind.  There are also a few elements of mind over matter.  In the very least, you can enjoy the story's cosmetics.

                That will be it for now, Internet.  The book will take another two days, so perhaps I will accomplish something with all that time while listening to this audiobook.  But do not hold your breath.  You are not a Martian.

Yours in digital,

BeepBoop

Entry 078: "Destroy All Monsters" (1968)

Dear Internet,

                Well, I made a bit of a mistake yesterday.  The title of the film today does not have Godzilla in the name, but it is called "Destroy All Monsters."  Godzilla plays a part in the story, but there is more to it than that.  The film marks the 20th Toho Kaiju film, which is remarkable considering that this film came out only after 14 years from their first giant monster film "Godzilla."  That means the company exceeded a single Kaiju film per year during that time.  On top of that is the wide variety of monsters that the company created.  A majority of those creatures come back or make appearances for this film.  Eleven of these colossal terrors come together for this smorgasbord movie that celebrates the series of science fiction monsters.

                Of course, having all these monsters come together requires a workable plot or reason for why they share a similar story.  Enter the hypothetical future of the year 1999.  Here, the monsters have been gathered to live peaceably, far from civilization on tropical islands.  The different monsters are kept from leaving the islands through the use of specialized equipment tailored to each monster's weakness.  From smoke screens to magnetic fields, there is no danger of these creatures escaping to destroy any more cities.  After this 20 yearlong effort, a select number of scientists are allowed to study the creatures in a research facility on the islands.  One day, a mysterious yellow smoke appears and knocks both the scientists and the monsters out.  Afterwards, a crew is sent into to investigate the disturbance which has also caused all the monsters to leave the island.  When they get there, the crew finds a few scientists that are under the control of the Kilaaks, an alien race that now controls the monsters and scientists through radio transmission and other advanced technologies.  The demands of the aliens are simple: either be ruled under the Kilaaks or face the destruction of civilization by the hands of the controlled monsters.  Will the humans be able to fight against the combined might of numerous titanic abominations and the power of a more sophisticated type of alien technology?

                Thus is the basic plot of "Destroy All Monsters."  It is obvious that to put all the monsters together in one film required something more than just a simple premise of just having them together and making a few stock characters run in terror.  No, by making all the monsters already rounded up and waiting for things to go wrong, the film is able to skip a lot of useless la-de-da and just straight into the good parts--the destruction of cities and them fighting one another.  There is one specific thing that I want to point out that somehow makes the film prophetic.  When Godzilla is sent to destroy a city, he is sent to New York City.  The film is supposed to be occurring in 1999.  It is somewhat humorous considering the 1998 "American made film "Godzilla" that had the giant destroy that same city.

The scene only lasted about two minutes in total.

                The visuals are classic Toho.  The miniatures are fun and work well.  I am still impressed every time the ground opens up to swallow a hill or mountain into a sinkhole.  The buildings are more than just boxes with only the outer shell being constructed.  They include interior floors that also fall apart when a Kaiju rips through them.  The monsters themselves include a variety of suits that run the gamut of being either very intimidating to being downright laughable.  This is coming right after "Son ofGodzilla" and Minilla makes a repeat appearance.  At least his importance and influence in this film is minor compared to that of the previous film.  The set elements probably take the cake for the level of corn thrown into the veggie salad that is this movie.  From laser guns that look like derringers to mind controlling pearls inserted behind the ear, the film pulls out all the stops in trying to make the story come alive while still retaining a self aware level of how campy the plot really is.  For example, the aliens place radio transmitters across the globe, hidden in various places including coconuts and giant clam shells.  They are not even hidden very well, which is evident when an elderly man stumbles upon one and brings it to the local police station for identification.  You would think that an advance group of extra-terrestrial beings could think of hiding their devices in better places.  The costumes are even more outlandish with their design.  The Kilaaks are dressed in silver caped outfits that are covered in sequins, but the best has got to be the spacesuits for the main human cast.

The look like Lego people wearing their birthday suit.

                The music is wonderfully orchestrated and pulls from the various previous films that the various monsters come from.  Although I did not hear the original Godzilla theme song in a standalone format, numerous other iconic songs seem to weave themselves into the soundtrack as well as some well done original pieces.

                There is not much I can say against "Destroy All Monsters."  This is not because it is a perfect film.  The characters are rather forgettable and some even seemed to merge together in my mind.  There are really only two memorable characters but they are reduced to "the guy" and "the girl."  Beyond those two, everyone is playing their part in a typical monster film.  There are the generals, the reporters, the other scientists, and the fleeing crowds of people.  One thing that has always struck me as being weird is how willing the press is able to sympathize with the military officials and obey what they are told to do.  The general will say something along the lines of "We do not have any information, so please try not to create a panic."  The journalists comply constantly and do not question the lack of ability of the Japanese military.  If this was taking place anywhere else, the journalists would be trying to break down the doors with questions, yelling over one another, and then print reports about how the military is incompetent and unable to protect the nation.  It must be a Japanese thing.  There are a few non-Japanese actors who deliver Japanese lines and at least do not feel out of place, but I cannot say at how well they deliver those lines.  The length is pretty good considering that even at 90 minutes it felt like much longer but not in a bad way.

                The film mostly is just trying to be an entertaining mash-up of different monsters.  In this way, it succeeds.  However, it does not try to be anything greater than a Kaiju fan's dream film, putting all the various monsters together in the same scene.  It is not trying to talk about some greater moral, deep philosophical point about the nature of man, or something like that, which is actually good to not try to do for such a premise.  "Destroy All Monsters" is a good film for the kid in all of us that likes to see a house of cards tumble apart or watch a line of dominoes fall against one another.

Yours in digital,

BeepBoop

P.S. Tomorrow is the "Godfather" trilogy, which I will spread over three days.