Ever since I first grokked the meaning of the word grok, I loved the word. It seemed to have a niche all its own, filling a perfect word void, like any good word should. And it somehow seemed to sound like just like what it meant.
So when I learned that this word came from a science fiction book (damn you, Merriam-Webster Word of the Day!), I was very excited to read more and learn the origins of my beloved word.
Readers: follow not where I have tread!
The word ‘grok’ comes from Robert A Heinlein’s 1961 book Stranger in a Strange Land
First big problem:
Heinlein was completely unable to separate himself from the time in which he lived. I was anything but surprised to be reminded that the publication date was 1961. There was pretty much no other time that the book could have been written. You could feel it in every character and every interaction. It is a terribly difficult task for an author to write something futuristic that doesn’t betray the biases and assumptions of the time in which he or she is writing, but some authors do a thousand times better than Heinlein did. His concepts of the future were completely constrained to the physically mundane, like flying taxis and carpets made of real grass. Meanwhile, he was so entrenched in the personal dynamics of his own time, so (subconsciously) sure that they were right and true, that he assumed without a second thought that they would be identical centuries hence.
Second big problem:
Heinlein has a message, and he won’t let you free from it. Heinlein clearly thinks that the world is in need of a new religion. The new religion should be an all-encompassing lifestyle of free-love, creating a nest in which members do nothing but have (straight of course, 1961 remember) sex, tell each other that they are God, and convert new members. This nest should be supported by a couple of rich men. Heinlein’s belief system is completely clear, completely unconvincing, and he hits you with it over and over with it. Ouch.
Third big problem:
The characters are annoying. Maybe this is the bias of my own time, or maybe this is just a bias of me, but I truly cannot stand almost any of the characters in the book. I hate listening to them talk, I hate listening to them think, I hate watching them interact. Almost all of the females are identical, and the males are of few varieties. Colin says that someone once told him that there are 3 kinds of male characters in a Heinlein book:
- Heinlein as a strong, young, sexy man
- Heinlein as a mature, accomplished, sexy man
- Heinlein as a wise, learned, sexy man
The female characters are universally maternal, girlish, and turned on by being insulted and discounted by the male characters.Heinlein’s true brilliant discovery was the need for a word in the ‘grok’ in the English language. He clearly knew this was a brilliant discovery, because the word is used in practically every sentence in the book. And it is shoved in in a completely inelegant way. Valentine Michael Smith arrives speaking no English. He learns English quickly and uses no Martian. For most Martian words with no English concept, Valentine just says “I cannot express this in English”. But, completely without explanation or apology, Valentine just uses the word ‘grok’ in every-day speech and expects everybody to understand it. It’s the worst kind of writing – a totally obvious conflict in the story line without a hint of explanation.
At any rate, my quest for the origin of the word grok has entirely spoiled the word for me. I can no longer use the word, nor can I listen to other people use the word, without thinking of this book. I should have lived blissfully in ignorance, and if you love this word, I suggest you learn from my lesson.
December 10, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Wow, I wouldn’t call myself a huge fan of “Stranger”, but I definitely liked it better than you did. Some thoughts:
First and foremost: 1961 was BARELY the sixties. In fact, I have argues that it wasn’t part of “the sixties”. You seem to be suggesting that his view of the future was overcome by the time he lived. I’ll suggest that the time he lived was in part defined by the ideas he was writing at the time. In other words, I think he was more of a leader in this kind of thing, not a follower. This was two years before the Beatles recorded “I want to hold your hand” and ten years before the first full frontal nude centerfold in Playboy, and he’s writing about love and sex with many people as a meaningful experience. Oh, and I kind of liked the grass carpet thing. :)
I wasn’t struck by the idea of him thinking that the world needs a new religion. I doubt that he really believed much of what he wrote. But, I think he did wonder about our minds possibly being more powerful than we think they are. I think he’s suggesting ways in which they might be, and I think he’s wrong. But, hey, it’s science fiction, whatever.
If you were reading this book looking for a leading 1961 feminist presentation, then you’d definitely be disappointed. I’d been warned about Heinlein’s misogyny, and then actually wasn’t that struck by it in this book (I hear that others are much more that way, but I haven’t read any others). It was written in 1961, and not by a feminist. Naturally, the women are not portrayed very well. Having said that, consider these ideas: First of all, there were women in the book. And they talked about things other than men. Only one woman that I recall was a source of badness. Many of them had important plot-significant ideas. They talked back to their male counterparts, etc. Don’t get me wrong, it’s sexist, and I’m glad that it sounds bad to our ears here roughly 50 years later, and I’m glad the future isn’t going to be like that. I just don’t think that going back pre-1970 and criticizing the sexism exhibited in the literature of the day is very interesting. This is why there was a feminist movement in the 1970s, this is what they were reacting against. Of course we shouldn’t celebrate what came before, but we might celebrate that it’s not like that anywhere in the US anymore.
Finally, I think it’s funny that the tidbit from the book that I think of the most often didn’t even make your review: “The water of life”. The Martian’s appreciation of water fascinates me, although I admit that I was already something of a water worshipper. Still, again, in 1961, to see that kind of reflection on the relationship between water and life in an extremely popular book seems remarkable to me.
In music school, people would sometimes talk about listening with your “historical ears”. Beethoven doesn’t sound revolutionary to us at all anymore, but you can learn how to hear it that way. Of course, you can also just appreciate Beethoven with your modern ears. You seem to be saying that this book is unappreciable with modern ears. I think it’s more appreciable than you give it credit, but still, it is definitely dated. On the other hand, I don’t get a sense from your review that you appreciated it at all with your historical ears, and that surprises me.
December 15, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Well, you have a number of good points, David.
Your point about it being 1961 and not 1969 is a very good one. This book may have been more ahead of its times than just reflecting its times, as I was picturing. That definitely puts a different spin on it.
I also did think the water stuff was a fairly interesting theme, or could have been. In fact, there were a lot of things in the book that I view as having had the potential to be interesting.
I guess that a lot of my issues with this book may come down to that I think it was really poorly written. It is definitely something that I have observed about myself that if the art/literature/film/theater/etc
is poor quality, I have a terrible time appreciating anything else about it. I basically have a really hard time being forgiving enough to take in anything of interest about the work.
I think this goes to your point about the sexism. I certainly agree with your point of hearing a work with “historical ears”, and I generally do have that attitude. I have greatly enjoyed scores of highly sexist (and other-bais-ist) books and either just ignore the biases, or take them as an interesting window into the particular kinds of ignorances of the time.
My issues with Stranger frankly mostly come down to “I think the writing sucked”. Poorly-structured, poorly-executed, poorly-edited writing frustrates me so much that I end up feeling really picky about everything else when I am being put through it. I am then unable to enjoy aspects that I might otherwise find cool. I am also much more prone to serious annoyance when things like period-based biases appear than I would have been in a different book that felt well-written to me.
That’s probably part of why I’ll never write a book. Too picky :).
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. Interesting discussion.
December 18, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Ya, _Stranger_ is a fascinating book, if not for it’s sterling mechanics, but for the concepts it puts out there to chew on. What Heinlein lacks in quality of writing style, he makes up for with quantity; 32 novels, 59 short stories and 16 collections were published during his life (wikipedia).
And, ya – I really like the “Historical Ears/Eyes” idea. Have you read Asimov’s Foundation? It seems sedate, pedestrian, and quaint by today’s standards of the “space opera” sub-genre (my fav, by the way) – until you realize Asimov was really the first one to popularize the concept. So many books today are clearly derivative of Asimov. In some instances, the same can be said for Heinlein.
I think of Heinlein not as much as a science fiction writer, but a writer who uses science fiction to make his points on how society should be run. If you delve into a few more of his books (I’ve read four to date; enough for my personal tastes) you see some very clear messages over and over: The damage of Government’s corruptness is only mitigated by government’s incompetence, If you do not serve in the military then you should not get a vote, and weakness is shown through a lack of honor.
Where I give Heinlein the most fault though, is that as I look back over the four books I read, I cannot really distinguish any of them from the others. Anne Rice is the same way to me – it’s simply hammering out one note over and over.
While Heinlein in some ways pushes concepts of sex and sexuality along the lines of open (heterosexual) relationships, he also has some pretty bent ideas. One character in one book has a major sexual crush on her father with the idea of “No other man can measure up to my father – why would I want them?” It’s quite disturbing when you see how Heinlein resolves the situation.
Heinlein does put forward a fascinating exercise in one of his books though that I can’t wait to run with Verl. A young girl approaches her father (the same girl from above) and asks whether or not she should follow the ten commandments. The father replies that some of the commandments are good, while some are stupid, and a few others are simply wrong. He then challenges the girl to come up with her own ten commandments and grills her on why they should be followed. It gets to a point which resonates strongly with me; there is no “natural morality,” and believing in one is simply handing over your power to some other source. Instead we should be thoughtful and diligent about how we form (and more importantly) and reform our morality.
As David and I have discussed previously, I am also looking forward to the time when I can bellow “Front!” and have have Verl appear, waiting to do my bidding.
December 21, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Yes, it is an ironic fact that sometimes the people who are the first to do something end up looking non-creative when you look back at them, because it’s often the people after them who really develop their techniques. A good example is trying to watch the original Star Wars without your historical special-effects eyes. I mean the stuff is now practically B movie!
Colin said that he tried to read another book of Heinlein’s and ended up throwing it in the trash; he didn’t just want to not finish it, he wanted to make sure nobody else would ever read that book again! Of course he couldn’t control all of the Heinlein books in print, but he could control that one book.