A 2-star reading experience for me, though perhaps more of a 3-star book, since I don’t think it is bad so much as that it failed to resonate with me at all. In fairness, I didn’t really expect it to, not having liked any of the early Earthsea books that much (Tombs of Atuan is the clear favorite but I also have some problems with it). This one I picked up in part to get to Tehanu and in part out of a general interest in reading more Le Guin. But I did try; I even attempted to increase resonance by reading it while personally traveling around an archipelago! Sadly, while having only this book on hand while waiting for delayed ferries ensured that I finished it, the similarity of setting did not make up for the fact that almost nothing in the book appeals to me. I don’t like quest stories, or all-male casts, and as an adult I rarely vibe with books aimed at younger readers. Also, I am indifferent to dragons and dislike True Kings.
And this book, well, it’s a coming-of-age story of a True King, going on a quest with an older wizard to stop an evildoer (with cameo appearances by dragons). In an objective sense, I think it’s a fine version of that—though disappointing and rather dull to me, obviously it has resonated with large numbers of people. It’s well-written, if in a mythic style rather than a high-tension one. It’s a decent coming-of-age story, also in an older style; contrasted with current work, this book is notable for its uncritical celebration of heroism. The teen protagonist, Arren, meets the Archmage, Ged, immediately hero-worships him, and while Arren’s understanding of Ged naturally becomes more complex over the course of the story, he’s never knocked off the pedestal. Likewise there’s a lot of laudatory hearkening back to past heroes.
There’s also a lot of discussion of philosophy in it, which clearly has done something for many readers. Personally, I have doubts. Ged holds forth on two main issues, the first of which is the importance of natural balance and not acting unless one must, particularly if one holds power. Certainly there is some wisdom to this—people should respect nature, and those with power should be very careful about its use—but Ged’s idea of “must” defaults to “only to maintain the status quo,” as I suspect this philosophy necessarily must; thus, for instance, he takes no action to oppose slavery because he doesn’t want to take on moral responsibility for slavers’ fates. Meanwhile, the evil in the world is all about people’s yearning for immortality, and how immortality is essentially wrong even if seeking to live is natural and healthy. To me this did not feel especially relevant, since immortality isn’t an option for us real humans anyway; in the afterward Le Guin indicates she also intended this as a critique of rampant consumerism, which I have to say I did not get from the text at all.
While we’re talking philosophy, back to the True King thing. As mentioned, I dislike this trope, especially when, as here, the reasons the character is supposed to be ideal for kingship boil down to a) lineage and b) traits that are admirable in a regular person but have little to do with aptitude for governance, like physical courage and endurance. Le Guin has convinced me that Arren would make an A+ firefighter or battlefield medic; if you ever need rescuing after a natural disaster, Arren is your man. But I remain without information to pass any judgment on his merits as head of state.
And there’s the added weirdness of romanticizing the creation of a centralized government for the archipelago at all, when it has none during the story. Why does Le Guin, or anyone, think this is better than the current, localized rule? The islands don’t seem to have a weakness for warring with each other; they’re already held together as a cultural zone by ties of trade, immigration, culture and language, all of which seems to function fine without political unification. The only time anyone in the book talks about wanting a king, it’s when evil is seeping over the land—and of course people do tend to long for strong authority in times of trouble, but having a king wouldn’t have prevented what happened. It might conceivably have hastened the response—one of the things central government is good for is bringing to bear resources from unaffected areas in response to disaster—or it might not: central government is also known for overlooking the periphery. Anyway, the book doesn’t actually delve into this change in political system at all, which is baffling to me from the author of The Dispossessed.
In the end I suppose it’s an illustration of the 20th century maxim that science fiction lends itself to progressivism while fantasy is inherently conservative. The latter I think is no longer true, but 20th century fantasies were notorious for championing monarchism, maintaining the status quo, and returning to past glories, even when the authors’ personal politics were progressive. And apparently thinkers like Le Guin fell prey to it just as much as anyone else. Maybe that’s why I prefer her sci fi. Also, even her older sci fi sometimes has women in it.
At any rate, that’s one off the list. I hope Tehanu will be worth it, and possibly should have just skipped to that one directly.