Sci-Fi & Fantasy Girlz discussion
This topic is about
The Lathe of Heaven
Group Reads
>
May/June 2014 Group Read: The Lathe of Heaven by Ursula Le Guin
date
newest »
newest »
I've just started The Lathe of Heaven. I was going to read Butler first and then Le Guin, but as I went to bed last night I couldn't find the copy I'd picked up last week, and Lathe was just sitting there, so.... (The couch had swallowed Parable of the Sower but I've rescued it. Still, I'll take a cue from my furniture and read that one second.)First impression: Cute dystopic elements. I like the notes about starvation, over-crowding and global warming. Mr. Weasle EMT/Responder/Nark was funny in a "goddammit" sort of way. Other elements are dark but at the same time... a little quaint, maybe? The book was first published in the 70's, so that's probably it. It was definitely ahead of it's time in one sense, but at the same time a little dated from a 21st century POV. That is, the exposition about things like global warming and lost species is by this time a little old hat. Nowadays, the idea of New York sinking away isn't all that outlandish or unfamiliar, so the exposition on that reads awkwardly.
Note, please, that that's not really a knock on the book itself. It's the literary equivalent of pointing out that lapels of a certain size are no longer in fashion.
I found the description of the doctor/psychiatrist's office HILARIOUS. The affectations of the medical profession are rampant and silly, so reading them from a 3rd person semi-omniscient POV was amusing.
That in mind, he does an AWFUL LOT of talking.... Therapists in the future, apparently, don't use the boiler plate questions that we're used to in our media:
"And how does that make you feel?"
"Tell me about your mother."
"MmmHmmm. I see. Please go on...."
Which is a little weird, because the patient, Orr, describes a fairly classic Freudian issue. Your aunt was sexually aggressive, and that annoyed you for some reason. I think I might have a few thoughts on that....
Instead, this is a very yakity doc who does more talking that the patient.
I've just touched on the actual dynamics of the story regarding the dreaming affecting the real world. I am intrigued.
I'd like to get in on this. Just give me a sec here to find a copy... done!
Matthew wrote: "I'd like to get in on this. Just give me a sec here to find a copy... done!"It was in the fantasy section of my local used bookstore. I blame Sparrowhawk.
Now that I am back from crazy rock-filled weekend I'll have to catch up and read this one. Life is filled with hard choices, read from my never ending tbr or mosh to rock. :P
I started this book last night. It's my first LeGuin and I'm intrigued by it so far (40 pages in). I have a lot of the same impressions Gary has about the depiction of the future. Sometimes I get bummed when I read a recently written book set in the future knowing that I won't be around to see what parts of the author's envisioned future will come to pass and what will seem ludicrous to a 22nd century reader.
Just started myself. She's a spellbinding lady, and can definitely turn out a good yarn!
I'm pretty sure this is the reference that she makes later in the book (for when you get there.) In T.S. Eliot's The Family Reunion, Act III:Chorus: I am afraid of al that has happened, and of all that is to come;
Of the things to come that sit at the door, as if they had been there always.
And the past is about to happen, and the future was long since settled.
And the wings of teh future darken the past, the beak and claws have desecreated
History. Shamed
The first cry in the bedroom, the noise in the nursery, mutiliated
The family album, rendered ludicrous
The tenants' dinner, the family picnic on the moors. Have torn
The roof from the house, or perhaps it was never there.
And the bird sits on the broken chimney. I am afraid.
Ok, I finished the novel a few days ago, but didn't have the time to organize my thoughts about it until today. I really loved the story. This is the first story I've read by the author and it was a very pleasant introduction.
I was surprised for a second to find that the main character is a guy. Not because I was expecting the main character to be automatically female because it was written by a woman, but it did surprise me that the author being a woman she made the main character a guy. Not sure if I'm making any sense though :)
Is this the norm with her novels, or is this a result of this story being published in the 70s, because maybe it would have been unusual to have a female main character on a sci-fi story back then?
For me the book was kind of hard to put down, I loved the way it was written and always needed to find out what happened next.
I've started a bit late reading sci-fi classics like this one and 1984, and have found that it is weird to read about these visions of the "future" that is actually our "past".
Yoly wrote: "I was surprised for a second to find that the main character is a guy. Not because I was expecting the main character to be automatically female because it was written by a woman, but it did surprise me that the author being a woman she made the main character a guy. Not sure if I'm making any sense though :)"I didn't personally find it odd having read a little of Le Guin in the past. The other stuff I've read (the Earth-Sea series) has a lot of male characters.
Some authors have trouble writing characters of other genders. I don't think Le Guin is one of them. I'm tempted to say that's because her characters don't exude a sexual identity in the same way that other writers attempt, but I don't think that's really accurate. Sexuality is apparent in her work (in this case mostly in the marital relationship--which I did find surprising) but it takes a kind of second place to her story. Again, not really a fair characterization....
Nothing really stood out for me as being an issue with gender in this case. Did anyone else think so? Or not?
Ohh, I'm a bit late to the party, I guess? I read the book some weeks ago. :')I guess I'm too new to the Science Fiction genre to really contribute much to the conversation. Plus, I'm rather young. xD
Only this:
When I was a teen, I did have some therapy ... and, you know, they still ask 'How are you feeling' and 'What are you thinking about'.
It's rather tedious.
Well, if you read it, tell us what you think! :P And don't worry about being new to the genre, we are all at different stages of how much we've read and what genres and still all our opinions are valid.
Has anybody seen the either film adaptation? Thoughts?The 1980 PBS version is up on youtube.... I've only got through the first bit.
First impression: It looks OK. I mean, it's 80's PBS. Not going to have the budget for massive sets. Kind of surprised but liking the casting; acting a little broad.... Long tracking shots "walking down the hall" and such.
One bad side, I'd swear you can practically hear the editor screaming, "Soundtrack to MAXIMUM POWER! We need more VOLUME! I want those eardrums to bleed!"
Gary wrote: "Has anybody seen the either film adaptation? Thoughts?The 1980 PBS version is up on youtube.... I've only got through the first bit.
First impression: It looks OK. I mean, it's 80's PBS. Not..."
I didn't know there was a movie!! I should have known you'd be the one to do your homework Gary. :P
Alicja wrote: "I should have known you'd be the one to do your homework Gary. :P"I always was teacher's pet....
Here's the PBS version up on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8VRb...
Gary wrote: "Has anybody seen the either film adaptation? Thoughts?"I watched a few minutes a couple of weeks ago and made a mental note to continue watching it but forgot. Seems like a nice option to have playing in the background while I work today. Will report later :)
I am more interested in the 2002 version with Lisa Bonet, James Caan and Lukas Haas, but couldn't find it :(
I finally started reading this and first thing that I'd notice is the feel of the prose, it reminds me of PKD (Philip K. Dick). The psychological content (being a psych major in one of my previous incarnations) also seems a bit dated to me, the field has moved on from hypnosis and in a different direction that this future. Yet, I find the premise of dreams changing reality interesting. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it has a dated feel but it still gripping and makes me want to read more. And as you've said, Gary, the dystopic elements ate pretty generic these days... who doesn't have climate change and/or major wars as themes these days?
As far as Gary's comment in the Freudian issue, I think it is the time period again. The response to Freudian psychology was behaviorism. Where psychoanalysis (what you refer to as Freudian psychology) delves into the subconscious, behaviorism looks at only the observable and reduces human psychological reactions to behavioral explanations such as one would with an animal (aka the human animal). Then the 60s and 70s brought in cognitive psychology movement, the earliest descriptions were akin to not the human animal or the hidden subconscious but looking at the human computer (aka human brain functioning as a computer... this was being developed alongside computer science theories while both were in their baby stages). The psychiatrist seems to be a futuristic guess of where cognitive psychology was heading... The only psychoanalytic element I could find so far is the hypnosis, and by using EKG she ties hypnosis to cognitive theory and comes up with practical applications. On top there is some behaviorism in there too, because there are some things (like phobias) where behaviorism still works the best these days. It seems like a precursor to behavioral-cognitive theory in practice, or at least an imagined practice of the future. What the psychiatrist seemed to be doing was psychoeducation, and I think the imagined future of psychology seemed to be that we do figure out how our brains work so asking about feelings becomes irrelevant because psychiatrists don't need that insight anymore. Therefore psychoanalysis (Freudian theory) is out (I guess she couldn't imagine modern psychoanalytic theories, lol) and a cognitive-behavioral model is in with a bit of neuropsych (in a world where psychiatrists have figured it out).
At least that's my impression so far...
Oh, just one more question... what do you guys think of the psychiatrist's impression that Orr has feminine qualities and his thoughts of that man being easy to dominate. My first impression was shock that it seemed like she was calling weak a feminine characteristic but then I started to think in terms of power dynamics and think the psychiatrist has issues himself. I'm only 50 pages in but the psychiatrist seems to be a bit of a control freak, possibly sadist. And this made me realize that that comment wasn't about Orr or a slight on femininity but a look into something more disturbing about the psychiatrist.
Yoly wrote: "I was surprised for a second to find that the main character is a guy. Not because I was expecting the main character to be automatically female because it was written by a woman, but it did surprise me that the author being a woman she made the main character a guy. Not sure if I'm making any sense though :)"I was also initially surprised. But then why should the author's gender get in a way of a good character. Do you think the story would be any different if the character was female?
Alicja wrote: "Oh, just one more question... what do you guys think of the psychiatrist's impression that Orr has feminine qualities and his thoughts of that man being easy to dominate. My first impression was shock that it seemed like she was calling weak a feminine characteristic but then I started to think in terms of power dynamics and think the psychiatrist has issues himself. I'm only 50 pages in but the psychiatrist seems to be a bit of a control freak, possibly sadist. And this made me realize that that comment wasn't about Orr or a slight on femininity but a look into something more disturbing about the psychiatrist."I think you're quite right. She wasn't actually commenting on Orr, but characterizing Dr. Haber through his dialogue. He gets worse.... (view spoiler)
At the time, that probably wouldn't even have registered on most people's radar, and to be frank, I don't remember it either. I do remember how frustratingly passive Orr was. After a while that kind of passivity just makes one want to... well, let's say "shout" shall we?
In the context of the novel, of course, he has to be something of a archetype of passivity, and in 1971 when the attention of language wasn't as extensive as it is now regarding gender politics, I think that note was probably softer.
Gary wrote: "In the context of the novel, of course, he has to be something of a archetype of passivity, and in 1971 when the attention of language wasn't as extensive as it is now regarding gender politics, I think that note was probably softer."Just wondering since I wasn't around in the 70s... were women back then expected to be more passive then now? And were they really passive more than now? Or is it just a stereotype that has nothing to do with reality. I'm just wondering because I don't think I have a female friend who could be described as docile or passive... of course most know how to play docile or passive if it suits them but they all have sharp claws and a good right hook. I guess I'm just wondering if women in general have changed or if just the stereotypes and language used to describe women has changed.
Bonus Material: Apparently, the quote from Chuang Tzu from which Le Guin got the title of her book was mistranslated. What she read was:"Those who cannot do this will be destroyed on the lathe of Heaven."
Should probably have been something more like:
"Those who cannot do this will lose to the heavenly scales."
The word that got translated as "lathe" was more like "balance" or "equilibrium."
It seems the lathe had not been invented in China at the time of that writing.
Were women more docile or passive in the 70s? Hmmm. Not really. But society expected us to be. Women still were being directed by high school guidance counselors to take typing classes and go to secretarial school. I was openly discouraged from applying to colleges because I would have needed to take out loans to go, and the logic was I would be saddled with loans which would burden my husband when I stayed home after having children. :) Feminism was a radical concept then and women were just emerging from the infantilizing 50s (post WWII give the jobs to the men and make babies era) that produced our mothers. Women in the media were docile, peacemakers, seldom aggressive and almost never angry. In the media. But in real life my friends and I were outspoken, liberated, and struggled to be heard. Le Guin is making a commentary on socially prescribed roles. :) Just my two cents. I'm revealing my age here. It was a very exciting time for women, but it's easy to forget how very pervasive old gender roles still were then.
If we see 2014 as an end result (it's not, but lets say it is) then I'd say the 1970's were right smack dab in the middle of that whole process, and not just mathematically. It's kind of illustrated by the entertainment of the time: Think of the 1950s as Father Knows Best, 1960 as Leave it to Beaver (June & Ward Cleaver) and 1970 as The Brady Bunch.... I've blanked most of the 80's from my consciousness, so I'll have to leave it there.Le Guin, ahead of her time, was hinting at the brash, fatherly, bearded (beards are often a sign of patriarchal know-it-alls--my beard included) therapist was using "feminine" in an authoritarian way. He'll do more of that later in the book.
Alicja wrote: "I guess I'm just wondering if women in general have changed or if just the stereotypes and language used to describe women has changed."
It's most likely a 50/50 push-pull kind of thing.
Certain things do tend to be trigger words more now than they had been in the past. But when it comes to social equity issues, I think the definition of femininity itself has probably changed. Masculinity has probably shifted as well, for that matter, so Orr being described as "feminine" is likely a statement about Haber in that sense as well.
Most of the 80s I spent watching Sesame Street and the Smurfs but late 80s and early 90s reminds me of Full House and Saved by the Bell. I'll keep watching the psychiatrist... can't say I particularly like him but he does seem like an interesting character.
I think it is a kind of mindrape. It's also a deeply disturbing form of enslavement. He's engaging in a form of mind control that makes him, essentially, a god. Orr is really the god, but he's a kind of dormant one given that he exerts no conscious control over his dreams. Arguably, in manipulating Orr's mind, he might have been dooming his own control....I think Le Guin left that somewhat ambiguous on purpose, but are the "treatments" changing Orr's personality, or is his shift the result of experience?
The limitations of his power being related to Orr's mind do make me wonder about the complain about his passivity. Were he a more aggressive person, could his dreams have been used even more drastically or easily?
I think she made Orr male because if he had been female readers would/could have assumed her passivity was due to her gender.
I don't even know if I'd consider Orr that passive. He (view spoiler). He also (view spoiler). No, he's not aggressive, the opposite of passive, but he just seems like a mellow guy who does something when it needs to be done that gets mentally worn out because of all the changes. He comes from a position that makes it easier to control him and his "power" is passive in itself.Where the doctor is in a position of control from the start. What the doc does isn't just rape but also prolonged torture. Trapped and out of control in such a situation would wear anyone out.
I also found it curious that the lawyer, a black woman, would see him as strong. Versus the doc who sees him as weak.
I'd agree. I don't think he's passive, really. I think that has more to do with his demeanor rather than his actual character. He maintains a calm where I think most people would go crazy. Aside from the horror of his situation (can you imagine waking up and finding you'd killed millions in your sleep) he doesn't lose it when he realizes Haber is using him to manipulate reality. His "problem" is making a god out of a (mad) scientist...Maybe its because I watch too many mafia movies, but the first conclusion I came to was that Orr was going to have to kill Haber. It wouldn't solve his problem, but Haber is Hitler, Stalin and Mao all rolled into one with mystical powers. As soon as you recognize what's going on, you take a gun to that guy, don't you?
Coralie wrote: "I think she made Orr male because if he had been female readers would/could have assumed her passivity was due to her gender."She mentioned in an interview that if the dreamer had been a woman there would have been the whole gender thing about a man pushing a woman around and it would've been confusing to the story.
Here's a link to that part of the interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1bZe...
Yoly wrote: "She mentioned in an interview that if the dreamer had been a woman there would have been the whole gender thing about a man pushing a woman around and it would've been confusing to the story."It would have been distracting. At least, it would have brought up a whole slew of issues. The induction method (putting a hand to Orr's throat) implies dominance, a threat of violence, etc. If Orr had been a female character, however, that implication would have stood out more, wouldn't it?
Maybe if Orr was a woman that we would see her passive regardless of whether she was passive or not. I think then even more than now we are trained to view women a certain way regardless of evidence. I had an ex like that, he's always call me irrational regardless of wheat her I was the calm, coolheaded one and he was an emotional freak-out. He was male and therefore rational, me female and therefore irrational, always regardless of behavior. We didn't last long.
Here's an interview with Le Guin about The Lathe of Heaven and the adaptation:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1bZe...
In the introduction to that interview, Moyers describes her work as "Science Fantasy" and the various categories of things she's written get described a bit, with her discussing their various characteristics.
I heard "Science Fantasy" and rejected it at first, but in the interview she does make the point that Orr's power is, essentially, magical. It goes unexplained. There are definite Science Fiction and Sci-Fi aspects in the rest of the book, but that core plot element remains fantastic. If one were to attempt to categorize this book, it would be particularly problematic on that basis unless one has a term like "Science Fantasy" to use.
Still, it seems like a kind of cheap mash up term for some reason. If we can have Zombie Romance and Alien Westerns then I guess Science Fantasy isn't all that much of a problem. But it does still bug me on some weird level.
Gary wrote: "Here's an interview with Le Guin about The Lathe of Heaven and the adaptation:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1bZe...
In the introduction to that interview, Moyers describes her work as "Sci..."
I think there is a lot of crossover between science and fantasy. Take Star Wars for example, classic science fiction, right? And a lot of it is science fiction but to me the force seems like fantasy, a space magic. I would classify that as Science Fantasy. And then you have something like Abercrombie's The Heroes which is a fantasy but there really isn't any magic at all, it just happens on a planet similar to ours and they fight with swords. There seems to be less fantasy there than in Star Wars. I think that the categories are vague and with so many cross-overs and elements of both appearing in so many books that those two seem to be used to describe an overall feel of a novel rather than strict categorizations.
You have heard the equivalency between George Orr and George Orwell, yes?Also, the novel was wonderfully dramatized on PBS some years ago. Alas! It's impossible to find on DVD and they never rerun it.
There is a 1980 movie that's on YouTube completely.The Lathe of Heaven (1980): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8VRb...
I finally wrote a review for this book, if anyone is interested check it out here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Sci-Fi & Fantasy Girlz
Books mentioned in this topic
The Lathe of Heaven (other topics)Authors mentioned in this topic
Philip K. Dick (other topics)Ursula K. Le Guin (other topics)
Edit: The group read time period for this read is over but the threads will stay open forever and additional readers are encouraged to discuss here (and past readers are encouraged to continue discussing as well).