Storyline: 2/5 
 Characters: 4/5 
 Writing Style: 1/5 
 World: 2/5 
 - This was worth reading if only (and perhaps only) to meet Jubal Harshaw. 
 - belabored 
 - the book that gave dialogue a bad name. 
 The above comments are the ones that figure most prominently in my mind and which I want to shout out to anyone who is willing to listen. What follows is less succinct. 
 The edition I read contained a helpful preface that described the publishing history of Stranger in a Strange Land. Apparently this copy was originally rejected by publishers and only resurfaced after Heinlein's death. Friends, family, and editors considered this superior to the one Heinlein had grudgingly edited down and which was first sold. I'm curious as to how the two editions differ (though not enough to read the abbreviated one), the preface suggests that not only did the original editors think it was too long but that it was too provocative for the time. I'll comment on both of those aspects. 
 I like long books - I look forward to a good 600 to 1000 page beast of a novel - but the essential substance of this book could have been presented in about half the page length and would have been a far superior read. Supposedly Heinlein felt he couldn't cut down the word count very much without doing damage to the story, but I'm stating decidedly that he needed some editorial assistance. Too many ideas are repeated too many times and too many conversations preach the same point in non-interesting and repetitive scenes. 
 The book was certainly provocative. The story suggests that our science is infantile, our religions both self-serving and elementary, and that our infatuation with sex slightly misunderstood but on the right track. I cannot even guess what Heinlein removed from the book to make it more palatable to the civilized readership of the 1960s. I wouldn't think it possible. 
 I didn't like this book. I did feel somewhat the hypocrite, however, because I liked Starship Troopers, and I've defended it against naysayers. Critics harp on the authoritarian elements of Starship Troopers and say that Heinlein was a fascist. I've held (without any actual research) that Heinlein was simply pursuing an idea to its conclusion and Starship Troopers was the result. I've been happy with that reasoning, and I believed I would enjoy other authors who would be willing to entertain ideas not because they were advocating them but because they wanted to see where they would lead. Well I found myself in immensely uncomfortable with the ideas in Stranger in a Strange Land - far more so than with Starship Troopers (could this suggest that I'm more comfortable with rigid hierarchies than a true, univeralist, pantheistic religion?). I've had to consider the possibility that I didn't like this book because I simply didn't like the ideas even though I fancy myself open to new, revolutionary, and provocative messages. (view spoiler)[ The ideas that I object to aren't the homophobic and misogynistic elements in a book written in the 1950s. Critics today show an undue hysteria when they find that the supposedly libertarian and progressive Heinlein wrote such things about rape, Islam, and gender roles. Their rage is particularly misplaced, I think, because Heinlein was aware of at least some of these tendencies and used those qualities in the characters in the book to contrast it with the new ideas Mike was bringing. But I digress. If the book had an overarching idea - again without actually doing any actual research to see if Heinlein spoke himself on the matter - it was to present us with a future in which a radical new philosophy arrives and challenges all of the sacred institutions of earth: power, money, monogamy, mutually exclusive religions, physics, and the afterlife. How would people respond? Would some of the heresies be more acceptable than others? Would some people commit partially? Heinlein tells us what he thinks when he has Mahmoud and Patty keep their religions; Duke's pornography habit is excitedly embraced and justified, Harshaw refuses to acknowledge or accept the theistic and mystical elements and instead insists on understanding them as extensions of physics. Those questions are great science fiction question, but I did not enjoy Heinlein's dalliance with free love and cults to make the point. (hide spoiler)] I think, however, that my low evaluation of the book is not due to underlying and overlaying themes but due to its quality. It simply wasn't a good book. 
 The ideas are grand, the goals are ambitious, but it fails in almost every category. First, in wonder. We have a book of space exploration and first contact that completely neglects wondrous findings and aliens (of which there are both). (view spoiler)[ Of the two things we find - 1) a human survivor from a previously failed Mars expedition and 2) Martian civilization - our interest is in the human. In over 500 pages only perhaps a page's worth is devoted to Earth's interest in what else was found on Mars. (hide spoiler)] It is absolutely dumbfounding. I understand that Mars wasn't the purpose of the book, but it was a huge hole in the story and suggests that the entire narrative was framed poorly from the beginning. The second failure was in the introspective look at human behavior. Yes, we do have multiple meanings for the same word. Yes, humor is a quirky concept. Yes, most religions are full of people who are confident in beliefs incompatible with others who are completely confident in their beliefs. Most of the insights weren't all that insightful. Amusing but seldom funny, descriptive but never trenchant, trivia that was trivial. Third, the format was pretty awful. The dialogue was endless (and I like dialogue!). The ideas and story never got put into an order or context that dazzled. This was an acceptable first draft. Entire sections needed to reordered, several scenes needed to be excised or combined, Mike's learning needed to be paced throughout the book, and Earth's understanding of the new ideas needed to be demonstrated in a way other than Mike's "father" explaining it to someone. This, simply, was poorly put together. 
 I think people must be awarding an A for effort when they review this favorably. Heinlein didn't lack for ambition here. Perhaps it was more significant in its 1961 context than I realize. This simply lacked polish, however. The ideas were confused and overhandedly introduced and discussed. There wasn't much of an attempt at a plot. The writing really did read like draft where nothing was working right. Its most notable redeeming quality was its characterization. I haven't given up on Heinlein, but I certainly revere him a bit less now.