Stranger in a Strange Land

While reading Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, I found one of the most important aspects of the book to be the many subtle conversations the author has with the reader. There are many points where Heinlein has two or more characters talk to each other for an extended period of time on a subtopic, such as art, history, literature, or economics, to name a few, and I believe there was more to this than a simple character conversation. Heinlein is attempting to engage the reader directly by finding something that they will likely be interested in and offering his views to them. When his characters Jubal Harshaw and Ben Caxton speak about art, for instance, it is a chance for Heinlein to offer up his views through Harshaw, while he uses Caxton to give the kind of general responses the reader might feel like giving. Stranger in a Strange Land is almost entirely a philosophical discourse between character to character on one level, and author to reader on another. This has the effect of pulling the reader in, as you start to feel less like you are reading and more like you are being spoken to. This is strongest with the main character, Valentine Michael Smith, who always speaks directly about humanity's flaws and ways to overcome them; Heinlein is using him to tell you what might be wrong with you, and to comfort you by offering you ways to change. This is a strange approach that I have never found in any other book that I have read, so I noted it as something that specifically interested me about Stranger in a Strange Land.

Does an author who attempts to change the opinions of his readers change the very nature of the story in his/her novel?

Defining Art

It is hard for one to define art, even though it is usually obvious to one what is art. I believe that art is that which we can label as having a greater significance after observation by aesthetic principles. There are certain qualities and criteria an art critic will look for; these can be culturally, personally, and socially biased. Not to say that art is subjective, only the person's perception of the art. A work can be considered art without necessarily appearing as such to each and every observer. If that were the case, than a vast majority of the younger population could declare Mozart no longer a valuable composer as all his symphonies are not art, and their four-chord-progression screaming would be the new high art. Thus, art cannot be subjective to either one person or a group of people. However, art is still observable by those who can find, aesthetically, a greater significance in the work. Once they find something pleasing that elevates the work higher than just the ordinary, it has the potential to be considered artwork. However, just because it is aesthetically pleasing does not make it art. Art also has to exist on some level of intellect; it has to provoke thought at some level. Without this, it stops being art, and simply becomes entertainment. So those are my criteria for art: it cannot be subjective, it has to have a greater significance than the ordinary, it has to be aesthetically pleasing or displeasing, and it must provoke some level of thought.

Why might be other definitions of art that contradict this definition?