The Evolution of Science Fiction discussion

The Dispossessed by Ursula K. Le Guin is our first read of 2022.

I have a question about this book. I see it’s part of a “cycle.” How strictly defined and structured is this sequence? Like would I have to read other books in this cycle to understand and enjoy the book? I’ve read The Left Hand of Darkness from this author, but that is it.

I believe they're pretty loosely related. Some things like the ansible (a means of interstellar communication) are shared between them, but they're pretty much stand alone novels.

Julie wrote: "I have a question about this book. I see it’s part of a “cycle.” How strictly defined and structured is this sequence? ."

The cycle is made of a completely separate stand-alone novels set in a common universe. No need to read others to enjoy this one

The Hainish "cycle" is not a real series, and does not need to be read in any particular order.


From Wiki: Le Guin herself often discounted the idea of a "Hainish Cycle", writing on her website that "The thing is, they aren't a cycle or a saga. They do not form a coherent history. There are some clear connections among them, yes, but also some extremely murky ones."

The thing they have in common is that each one has an ambassador visiting a planet or region and observing the culture. The cultures of the different planets in the different books are all very different.

This one is a bit different from most of the cycle because it explores and contrasts two separate alien societies: one is a collective quasi-socialist society, and the other is a capitalist one.

Since I read this book in summer of 2019, i will not re-read it now. I may re-read a part of it, but not the whole thing. And I may read the short story "The day before the revolution" which is set in this world in the distant past and concerns the founding of the socialist society.

I'm keen to see how the discussion progresses as I read this some years ago. Skimming through the wikipedia page on the book it appears that I've forgotten a lot of the plot, so I'll probably just lurk!

I've also read it a few years back and while I enjoyed it very much, I don't plan to re-read it any time soon. It is a great overview and example of anarcho-communism with clear separation from totalitarian Soviet-style system. And while many western SF authors lean to the Left, here Le Guin shows that this is not an utopia, there are problems, unlike say the author of Murderbot that builds a socialist utopia without drawbacks as an alternative to ugly capitalism :)

I’ll be reading this one. I’ve also only read Left hand of Darkness by her, Julie, plus a few short stories. I’m looking forward to it.

Chad wrote: "I’ll be reading this one. I’ve also only read Left hand of Darkness by her, Julie, plus a few short stories. I’m looking forward to it."

I liked this book more than Darkness

I really like that LeGuin created an imperfect utopia. Nothing is all good or all bad. The imperfections make the setting more realistic, and believable than the future in display in 1984 or The Giver.

Renee wrote: "I really like that LeGuin created an imperfect utopia. "

I wholeheartedly agree!

Only 60p in, not very excited yet. I guess this is mainly a sociological story?

Leo wrote: "Only 60p in, not very excited yet. I guess this is mainly a sociological story?"

Yes, an ode to anarcho-communism

Antes de Los Desposeídos sólo había leído La mano izquierda de la oscuridad, con este libro quedé más sorprendida con la escritura de Úrsula, es una creadora impresionante a nivel antropológico y sociológico. Apenas terminé seguí con El día antes de la revolución, ¿con qué libro me recomiendan continuar para conocer más a Úrsula? Gracias.

----------------------------

Before The Dispossessed I had only read The Left Hand of Darkness, with The Dispossessed I am more surprised by Úrsula's writing, she is an impressive creator on an anthropological and sociological level. As soon as I finished it, I continued with The Day Before the Revolution, with which book do you recommend continuing to learn more about Úrsula? Thank you.

Oleksandr wrote: "Yes, an ode to anarcho-communism"

Great. Just what I needed.

Leo wrote: "Oleksandr wrote: "Yes, an ode to anarcho-communism"

Great. Just what I needed."

To be fair it's a little more sophisticated than that, from what I remember. It might be more accurate to describe it as an exploration of the interaction between scientific progress, individual morality, and cultural ideology.

Yenny wrote: "with which book do you recommend continuing to learn more about Úrsula?."

If you are into fantasy then A Wizard of Earthsea is a classic by her

The Lathe of Heaven is another nice, short, one from her. She also did nice short stories.

Yes - I got very PKD vibes from The Lathe of Heaven, which I guess shows her versatility.

Everything I’ve read of hers is elegant written and intelligent. She has a certain magic that’s present in all of her works, from Earthsea to The Dispossessed.

The first three Hainish Cycle books are early (Rocannon’s World, #1, was her first) shorts. I have an omnibus edition but have only read the first of them, so I don’t know if they’re related at all (I think not).

I'm going to put this aside with all kinds of respect, as it is considered a masterpiece. It's just not what I am looking for in a book. I liked Lathe of Heaven, so it wil not be my last UKL.

Ed wrote: "The Lathe of Heaven is another nice, short, one from her. She also did nice short stories."

This is my favorite Le Guin story. I also liked the movies adapted from it. Unfortunately her work got a little so sociological for my taste later. I decided to read The Day Before the Revolution to see if I would be interested in The Dispossessed but I didn't enjoy it very much so I won't be reading The Dispossessed.

Jim wrote: "This is my favorite Le Guin story. I also liked the movies adapted from it. Unfo..."

Agreed, "Lathe of Heaven" is my favorite, too. I really liked the 1980s PBS movie, especially when it had the original Beetles singing. The cover band they used after they lost copyright on it sucked, though. I heard Le Guin wasn't happy with the remake & I never bothered to see it. Since we agree on the rest, I'll see if I can find it now.

I'd put the original Wizard of Earthsea trilogy as my other favorite of hers. I never bothered to read the two books she added later. That short story about the utopia that depends on the suffering of one individual was good, too. Otherwise, I've never found her work to my taste. I read most of her early stuff at one time or another.

Jim wrote: "Jim wrote: "... That short story about the utopia that depends on the suffering of one individual was good, too..."

That is The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas.

It is probably most effective if read when young. But it is another classic that every SF fan should at least know about. (Even though Jim's review says it "doesn't do a lot for me". Heh!)

Ah, that was the name. I see I gave it 2 stars, so I remembered it more fondly than I found it. Well, that gives you some idea of how much I like her work.

That is another one of those classic stories, like "The Cold Equations", that keeps getting re-done by other authors.

By the way, Le Guin also sometimes did translations. I'm currently reading her translation of Kalpa Imperial: The Greatest Empire That Never Was by Angélica Gorodischer.

Jim wrote: "Jim wrote: "This is my favorite Le Guin story. I also liked the movies adapted from it. Unfo..."

Agreed, "Lathe of Heaven" is my favorite, too. I really liked the 1980s PBS movie, especially when ..."

I saw both movies a long time ago and now that i looked them up I think the first movie was much better even if it had less of a budget. I would like to watch them again especially the 1980 version. The fact that I am not a fan of Le Guin should not be taken as a slight on her importance in moving SF in new exciting directions. I was born in 1947 and grew up on classic SF and don't find much enjoyment in newer SF with strong sociological themes. Since I retired I have spent a lot of time catching up on my favorites like Sturgeon and Simak.

Im literally only by about chapter three, so I don't know how much of a legitimate comment I can make. but basically it's...eh, odd. I don't particularly like the writing style. There's a real sense of it trying too hard to be "look how artsy and literary I am", with weird fragmentary, almost stream of consciousness style writing, odd breaks and pauses. I dunno, it's just rubbing me up the wrong way.

I am really liking the worldbuilding going on, and I know one of best things about her is the fact she actually bothered to intricately flesh out and develop whole entire alien ecosystems and societal structures, having a background in interest in anthropology. And my god, compared to the kind of 50s Heinleinian fascist garbage, where many of the time "alien" is just a substitute for "bad foreigner", she is a welcome relief. Even still, it isn't gripping me so far. It feels very esoteric and abstract to me, abit hippy dippy. Still, the stuff about the anarchist planet doesn't use individual pronouns or any possessive words is fascinating and a brilliant idea. its also interesting that some folks here seem to praise her on her left utopia skepticism, as she was actually a self described anarchist, and firmly on the hippy dippy side of the left all her life. Perhaps that's why she's able to actually criticise it so well, considering she actually understands the principles better than an outsider would.

I'll see how it goes, but I'm a tad dissapointed so far. Her short stories, especially Nine Lives, was amazing!

Andrew wrote: "the kind of 50s Heinleinian fascist garbage, where many of the time "alien" is just a substitute for "bad foreigner""

I actually quite dislike when people, who fought of the Allies side in the WW2 are called fascist. moreover, in Heinlein books aliens are often absent or depicted positively, his 'bad aliens' are Bugs from Starship Troopers and Puppetters from The Puppet Masters, and I cannot seriously claim that they are bad foreigners

If you think the sheer existence of fighting on the side of the allies means you were automatically an antifascist you're utterly wrong. I mean, Churchill did, obviously, and this is a man who praised Mussolini and Franco, was a self professed white supremacist and eugenicist, and later supported Greek Conservative collaborators with nazism during the Greek Civil War. That's hardly a requisite for being politically committed to the anhilation of fascism. Many of those countries probably considered it 'defending their country' than smashing fascism, and certainly, the raving right wing anti communist politics of America after the war, which included supporting neo nazis in South America, and the continual stream of racist ideological belief systems that spread in the American political system Nixon onwards, clearly shows that there is a very unique, far right, arguable form of American fascism, one which defined itself on the back of westward expansion mythology, Jeffersonian libertarian adulation for private property and evangelical Christanity, one very very different to the one in Europe. Sure, Heinlein doesn't tick all those boxes. He was clearly very anti religious, and doesn't seem to be particularly concerned about race (there are positive coloured protagonists in Starship Troopers after all. Although there are some very questionable comments in Methusela's Children). But I mean, wow, you don't think Starship Troopers is depraved fascist propaganda? The insane screeds against Marxism, the completey unironic and seemingly utterly neutral of a depiction in which democracy has been abolished, not to mention the completey demonised 'bugs', soley there to be exterminated? It's the ravings of a madman. But it's everywhere in his works. His constant adulation of the ideal of a kind if hyper efficent, totally competent, utterly assured ultra macho man who can do anything (who can forget his deranged 'specialisation is for insects' speech, an ode to testosterone laden masculine aggression), his bizzare libertarian fascination with the notion of the rugged individual conquering the odds based on nothing but pure will alone, has real, real weire overlaps which plenty of far right, and indeed, explicitly fascist tropes. His work is often what gives sci fi a bad name. Plus, the absence of depicted alien cultures in an of itself is somewhat telling to what the priorities of alot of pre-New Wave sci fi writers were focusing on, especially in the pulps. And let's not get onto his gender politics more generally, cus boy, there are things in Stranger in a Strange Land that are questionable at best.

Don't get me wrong, there's loads I love in that period of sci fi. Heinlein clearly had an amazing imagination, and much of time he is very enjoyable. But my god, so much of his work is insufferable suffocating hysterical right wing projections of the rugged man of the 50s onto space its beyond a parody some times.

this video, BTW, is a good overview on Heinlein, his work, and the often really batshit views he had. https://youtu.be/y5bHLrGBUKo

Heinlein slid around the spectrum a lot over his life. He was generally an advocate of individual liberty and (somewhat hypocritically) self-reliance. Right-wing libertarian may be a more accurate descriptor. There are several fascist tropes in his writing such as ubermensch characters, militaristic authoritarianism, and alienisation. There's also some pretty anti-fascist tropes such as polygamous relationships and anti-statism.

Bit of a tangent, though.

Back to Le Guin, I don't think other commenters were praising her utopian skepticism because they oppose the idea of a successful leftist society. At least that's not the case with me. It's just refreshing to see a more realistic treatment of it which does not gloss over the inevitable downsides, and which clearly distinguishes itself from some of the ways in which modern communist states have failed in their original goals.

I’m enjoying this more than The Left Hand of Darkness. Politics aside, I love her explorations into sexuality. Given the time period, It seems to me that her main points live there. After all, she is not celebrated today as a groundbreaking political writer.

Chad wrote: "After all, she is not celebrated today as a groundbreaking political writer."

I've just recently finished Debt: The First 5,000 Years and the author (who is an anarchist) quotes from The Dispossessed, so at least for some she remains important

Chad wrote: "... she is not celebrated today as a groundbreaking political writer. "

I see her strength as creating believable alternative civilizations. Alien anthropology, if you will. That can be considered politics.

(I've also read "Debt". I found it quite interesting, but it is so long that I eventually got bored.)

Ed wrote: "(I've also read "Debt". I found it quite interesting, but it is so long that I eventually got bored.)"

It contains a lot of info, but sometimes there is a straw man rhetoric

Jim wrote: "...I decided to read The Day Before the Revolution to see if I would be interested in The Dispossessed but I didn't enjoy it very much so I won't be reading The Dispossessed. ..."

I just read "The Day Before...." and didn't enjoy it very much. It is much more dry than "The Dispossessed".

It reminds me how much Le Guin can sound like Dorris Lessing. Neither of them will appeal much to those wanting action, action, action!

Oleksandr wrote: "Chad wrote: "After all, she is not celebrated today as a groundbreaking political writer."

I've just recently finished Debt: The First 5,000 Years and the author (who is an anarchis..."

Yes, I didn’t mean to undermine that aspect of her writing.

I’m not a big fan of fantasy but I find her mixing of SF and fantasy to be refreshing. Taking a space ship somewhere and then enjoying a hot chocolate or brandy by the fire when you get there.

I, like Ed, Sabri, and Oleksandr, read this a while ago (2019). But I read it on Kindle and highlighted key points. I thought the book was rather cold (except for a few scenes with Takver) because of its focus on Shevek's scientific discoveries and the politics of Anarres and Urras rather than the people of the novel.
But I was struck by my notes at how many intellectual ideas LeGuin peppers her writing with.
For example, "But no society can change the nature of existence. We can't prevent suffering,"
"You can't crush ideas by suppressing them. You can only crush them by ignoring them. By refusing to think, refusing to change," and
"we think that time 'passes,' flows past us, but what if it is we who move forward, from past to future."
LeGuin explores anarchy, time, suffering, government and laws to name a few. I have read The Left Hand of Darkness but I wonder if she further develops some of these ideas in other books in the series.
Still, this book is definitely not warm and fuzzy. I never warmed up to Shevek but instead was intrigued by his thoughts.

Back when I read this in the 90s I summarized it like this:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

I also loved the original Earthsea trilogy as a teenager, BTW.