SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Group Reads Discussions 2009
>
"Left Hand..." discussion -- "An Instant Classic" or "Dull, Dull, Dull?"
date
newest »
newest »
Very much deserves to be a classic. When I read it for the first time a few years ago it blew my mind wide open.On a related note, take a peak at this.
I read this a couple of years ago, after it had been in publication for nearly 40 years. I think it deserves the designation of "classic". I truly believe that The Left Hand of Darkness is capital-L literature. It's timeless and really examines what it means to be human.
Greyweather wrote: "On a related note, take a peak at this."Oh my gosh! Do you think that editor is still kicking himself (or herself)?
I'd like to think so, but it has been forty years, so probably not.
I say it's a full out classic, but I understand the thought that it is "dull, dull, dull." I've used this book a few times in novel and short story classes, and first and second year college students often express their boredom, at least until our discussions start opening the text up for them. There is a density in the early part of the story that can make it a tough go until one's engaged, so I sympathize with the readers who respond in the second way.
Personally I think a work needs to be in print for at least 100 years to be considered a 'classic', a much overused term, IMO. Is there a technical definition of a 'classic'?I last read TLHOD when it was new on the shelves and I was in college. It did not do much for me then and I have ignored Le Guin since, except for Earthsea. I am now reading all of Le Guin and find her SF most compelling.
I can understand why some think it dull, too, esp SciFi addicts. This work is not action, plot or character driven. It is idea driven. And, the ideas are only presented without much debate. The Mobile and the PM give their opinions leaving the reader to develop his own. I find a lot of Ganly's gender ideas rather naive, but likely typical of how a straight male would react to true androgynes. These are part of what make the novella great, I think, and also a reason it appeals to lit. types.
I also find it a slow read. Now, usually I read slowly because I am savoring the prose. This is a bit different, partly due to what I think Brad means by density— few wasted words. I also find Le Guin's style a bit difficult. I have had to re-read a number of sentences to get the meaning, because a word is in a funny place, words are used strangely or punctuation is lacking.
All in all I think it among the great short stories of SciFi. I know it is technically a novella and usually called a novel, but to me its structure is more like that of a short story. Is she up their with, say Katherine Ann Porter?
I think it may become a classic like a Dickens or Twain story. Time will tell, though I wont be here.
i read this pretty recently, and definitely come down on the side of classic. i think all Great sci-fi revolves around what it means to be human, and this one does that better than most.
Kernos wrote: "I can understand why some think it dull, too, esp SciFi addicts. This work is not action, plot or character driven. It is idea driven. And, the ideas are only presented without much debate"I'm in agreement with Kernos’ comments. I read this awhile back and found it to be dull. I do appreciate a fair amount of idea-driven literature but simply wasn't pulled in by this book- especially since in this century many of the ideas are not exactly "new" anymore.
When I picked this book up a few years ago, I did not know much about it apart from the title and expected a different book, especially since I was familiar with Le Guin's Earthsea series. I think my incorrect expectations affected by opinion and I'm curious to re-read it this month and see if I have a different take in light of what I know now.
I might have to try to re-read this with so many people thinking it is a classic. I've tried it a few times over the years - loved her Earth Sea trilogy & a couple of others - but could never get into this book.
I am going to get beat up now.I hated this book. I hated it when I read it 30 years ago I hat it now.
I have read much of her work including the earth sea and Only thing I liked was the "lath of heaven"
I may be in the minority but I feel that the entire time she is looking down her nose at me and sneering.
Then many of her book just seem to stop. Its not an ending point it is just over.
I am left very dissatisfied. not unhappy with the ending but actually checking other copies of the book to see if mine is defective and missing the final chapter.
I beleive this is a classic. The story is great . the concept of a genderless society and how that would effect the human condition is grand.
the presentation left me gritting my teeth.
I have to admit that I'd never even heard of this book until it came up here, and I'm no stranger to sci-fi, classic or otherwise. At least I thought I wasn't. From just a few chapters in, I can see why TLHOD could be considered a classic, at least in sci-fi circles.I'd like to know what both critics had to say to back up their respective points. Are the "classic" and "dull" quotes pulled from larger critiques?
Ryan,
Both of them come from Amazon.com. "An Instant Classic" is a snippet of a review I have not seen, but it is pasted on the book's cover and all over Amazon. The "dull, dull, dull" comment is from one of the one-star reviews. While it's not really a scientific survey of opinion, I think the comparison encapsulates two basic ways of thinking about this novel. I don't think they are incompatible, but they sound very diffferent.
Both of them come from Amazon.com. "An Instant Classic" is a snippet of a review I have not seen, but it is pasted on the book's cover and all over Amazon. The "dull, dull, dull" comment is from one of the one-star reviews. While it's not really a scientific survey of opinion, I think the comparison encapsulates two basic ways of thinking about this novel. I don't think they are incompatible, but they sound very diffferent.
There are a lot of classics that are dull, dull, dull. I never could get into Herman Melville, that guy was as boring as boring can be, but his books are considered classics and read in high schools and colleges all over the place.
Kernos wrote: "Personally I think a work needs to be in print for at least 100 years to be considered a 'classic', a much overused term, IMO. Is there a technical definition of a 'classic'?I last read TLHOD whe..."
I wouldn't go quite that far ... personally it it survives for 3 generations (in other words, we see our children reading it ... i.e. 40-50 years after first publication), then it should be considered a classic. There are a lot of books that are candidates, but are not time tested yet.
Kernos wrote: "Personally I think a work needs to be in print for at least 100 years to be considered a 'classic', a much overused term, IMO. Is there a technical definition of a 'classic'?Not that I've ever heard of. The connections between social class and education make this a very murky issue. My interpretation sort of combines the two, which not everyone may agree with, is that it's a book that I would use to teach a class with, on some subject. Of course this only pushes back the problem to defining the subject but it's a start. Similarly saying that they are the 'best of their kind' only requires us to specify the kind.
I thought that the origins of the word "classic" were in the classical education received by many students during the 1700s and 1800s. Such an education focused upon the classical authors of the ancient Hellenic and Hellenistic world. To be a bona fide classic, a book must be over a thousand years old and written by someone with a name like Eristratos. The current practice could honestly replace the phrase "a classic" with "I liked it" or at least "I think you should like it." Thus, "Born to be Wild" is a classic, as is "Goodnight, Moon."
I think you would have to rank Le Guin with Theodore Sturgeon, as probably the two most significant authors, in terms of changing the nature of Science Fiction (making it psychological rather than technological). I think I would call her work pivotal, rather than classic—perhaps in the way that Jane Austen took the sentimental novel of the 18th Century and gave it a literary face.BTW, I don’t think anyone has mentioned Le Guin’s parents. She obviously had a special, nurturing childhood, and her mother’s book on Ishi was required reading in anthropology, while Le Guin was writing her Hainish Cycle.
The first time I read this novel I was blown away by the world building. I had been reading Asimov and Bear and found the world of Winter extremely engaging. This work stands up to the test of time and has something to say. To me that makes a classic whether it fits all definitions of classic is a debate I find pointless.To young minds or immature minds or minds that don't take the time LHOD can be dull. As Kernos wrote LHOD is about ideas. If you are not engaged by those ideas then you will not enjoy the book. I read it when I was young. As I re-read it now I am engaged in it at different levels. Could the trait of finding new meaning in a work give it classic status. I believe it should.
LHOD was both to me. Anything involving the characters and ideas was excellent, while I wasn't particularly thrilled by the descriptions of the places. This is no fault of the book or LeGuin, just that I'm not much for pure description in my reading.I did really like the intermediate myths and stories, they made the book somehow more real to me.
I've picked this book up and put it down numerous times in the last twenty years, and never got past the first page. Last week I sat down and forced myself through the part that had always stopped me, and found it to be an excellent read once I got into it. To me, it read like The Lord of the Rings: a little heavy on description and world building. So I read it like I did those books, skimming lightly over some passages. When I finished it, I started over and read the first chapter more carefully, and other passages that I knew I might not have grasped the first time through.
I absolutely loved it.
My review of the book follows... I read it well before joining this group. There is no way that I could think of this book as dull. I knew nothing about it in advance of selecting it from the library shelf, and I consider myself very fortunate for having 'lucked' onto it. I have not returned to Ursula Le Guin yet....does she ever again get to this standard?Another seminal science fiction from the 60s...I really enjoyed this book. It starts slowly and for a bit the names and places are so unpronounceable, and the ideas so perplexing that one feels very much like an outsider. And this is just the point! Genly Ai is the central character and he is an alien envoy on Gethen (Winter...its appropriate "Terran" name - the planet is frozen in mid ice-age). The story is somewhat ethnographic, which appeals to the anthropologist in me! It tells of the first contacts, the structure of various societies, the myths and legends, the nature of power, etc. And then you get this great story of Genly and Estraven, their escape across the polar ice, and the nature of their developing relationship. The mixture of environment and genetics that make culture of the peoples on Gethen is really intriguing...gender, sexuality, stereotype, otherness, are all cleverly explored. Recommended reading...
It's one of my favorites as well, though at the time I was reading it, I wouldn't have thought it would end up among my favorites. I remember thinking that I would have liked more description and background, and also I disliked the ending. It was the characters that kept me reading, and finally won me over.
I agree with those who've pointed out that it could well be considered a sceince fiction classic, but maybe not a classic in the same sense as Twain or Austen.
I agree with those who've pointed out that it could well be considered a sceince fiction classic, but maybe not a classic in the same sense as Twain or Austen.
"This book qualifies in those respects, because 40+ years after its publication, it is still being read and being passed down, discussed and debated."My thoughts as well. I'd add that classics are the
the bricks in a good foundation in a genre. Reading
them increases our understanding of books by later authors.
Has LHOD had an impact on later works in its genre?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansible
I just finished this book fairly recently and felt that I really had to see what others got out of this book and this certainly was an interesting thread.I'm not sure that I would consider this a classic, but I'm also not fully aware of the original impact it had on the literary and real world. The reason is that the straight forward story of a diplomat trying to convince a world to join his planetary alliance just isn't strong enough, but also don't think that this is the story Le'Guin wanted to write. It's just the vehicle for her analysis of human behavior/society and sexuality.
I think the world building, with inserted lore between chapters with the main story and other tempo changing tricks made it an amazing read and I'm likely to re-read it at least once as it's the kind of book that leaves you with the impression that you haven't gotten everything when you've read the last word on the last page.
Sherri wrote: "This is by far one of my favorite books, one I've read repeatedly over many years and with which I have a long relationship. It is also a seminal work that keeps showing up when I'm reading about ..."Yeah like what Sherri said.
Sorry I can't add anything constructive as Sherri has very eloquently expressed my sentiments much better than I ever could, but just wanted to let you all know that we're still out here taking it all in.
I think back in July 2009 I described The Left Hand of Darkness as a book that deserves to be read digested and reread regularly.
Sherri wrote: "Martin, it's definitely a book that needs repeated reading and it can be read with an assortment of "lenses", so to speak -- as a political commentary, as a discussion of gender roles and biases, as a romance/love story, as an adventure story, as an exploration of and commentary on science itself, as a tragedy, and there are more..."I agree that LHOD has great depths, which can be explored and I think this would make a great book for a book circle, as there are many things to discuss.
What I was trying to get across was that if you as a reader are staying at the shallow end; because you're not that experienced a reader or you don't have anyone to discuss it with - then the obvious/outspoken story isn't that interesting. So if you're not interested in anything more than cooling of your feet, then you're not likely to appreciate this book.
"It's a good book to revisit after a few years, though."
Re-reading the book at a later time might be a good option to get a different perspective on the book. As your gained experience is likely to highlight a different aspect of the book, compared to the first time you read it.
At the same time there are things you are unlikely to be able to fully 'understand' as a lone reader. One example is the sexuality/procreation, which I as a man is unlikely to fully understand (no matter how much experience I might have) without the female perspective.
I wouldn't say that I thought it was dull, dull, dull, but neither do I see this book as an instant classic.I thought it was a mildly interesting, slightly underwhelming read. I did find the concepts regarding duality, relationships, gender, and sexuality very interesting.
I thought that she handled the aspects of cultural miscommunication very well. Given their very different backgrounds, it was a wonder that Genly and Estreven were able to find common ground, let alone come to develop affection.
I was not "underwhelmed", but it did take a long time for it to grow on me. I remember at the beginning wondering if it would be hard to follow the political intrigue, and then suddenly there were 100 pages of walking through the snow! I found the writing very cerebral, not action-oriented or emotional, but I thought by the end the implications sunk a little deeper in my psyche because of that. I was stunned at Estravan's fate, and found myself reconsidering the whole story, and what it all meant.
Good points about the cultural miscommunications, Valerie. That, plus it's innovative gender ideas and it's immersive experience, made it 5 stars for me. And yet, wow, that was a lot of work. I think I would get a lot out of rereading it, but I dread the idea of going through all that snow again!
OK, I am glad that we have reopened up discussion of this great book, and this thread about dullness seems the ideal place to do so.I personally found The Left Hand of Darkness to be a classic in the same sense that Dune is a classic, perhaps on a smaller scale. And like Dune, The Left Hand of Darkness is well worthy of both the Nebula and Hugo awards it received.
Dull, well, yes, it is dull. It is dull in the sense that it is a book about ideas and concepts and not about actions. But these ideas are anything but dull. They are rich with insights and commentary about love, gender roles and identity, about social and political structures and about mythos and religion.
I won't tackle the gender thing, but I found two other concepts discussed in this book to be quite fascinating. The first is the exploration of how our cultural and personal biases effect our communications and interactions, “cultural miscommunication” as Valerie so aptly puts it. We see this on an interpersonal level, as Genly Ai and Estraven struggle to understand each other, both verbally and non-verbally. We also see this on a larger level, as the governments of both Karhide and Orgoryen misunderstand and misinterpret the intentions and motivations of both each other and of Genly Ai as the alien embassador. This also plays out as Genly struggles to communicate with them in this “first contact” situation. I think Le Guin has in this book made some very perceptive comments about how difficult cross cultural communication can be.
A second set of thoughts that occurred to me was Le Guin’s social commentary as she fleshes out the political and social structures of Karhide and Orgoryen. The honor and propriety, the shifgrethor, of the Karhides is contrasted to the logical and rigid socialist structures and attitudes of the Orgoryen. The Left Hand of Darkness was published in 1969, and I can’t help but wonder if there wasn’t some cold war commentary going on here, comparing the United States to the old Soviet Union.
And there is so much more to think about and to ponder in this book. I was impressed with how The Left Hand of Darkness has such staying power and remains relevant even now. I also gave it five stars.
There comes a time in the life of a changing artist where they can no longer care what other people think of their work. They can't care if it will make money, they can't care if they become or remain famous.Now, this might be the greatest sin in the eyes of paying and caring audience but the reason why the author no longer cares is for themselves AND their audience.
If I try to write something that will make money, if I try to become famous with a story or novel, I will fail. It will eat away at my remaining sanity (all writers are a little crazy) and my soul and you won't have a good book because I'm trying too hard to please everyone.
The Left Hand of Darkness is a wonderful book because it does not care what you or I think of it. It was written for one person: Ursula K. Le Guin. Sure, if you like it, that is okay, she will be happy you liked it. If it makes money, she will be happy because it made her money, she can pay some bills with it. But she did it because she likes to write complicated stories that maybe you will get but some will learn from indeed.
Is it for today's audience? Again, why would she care? She published this in 1969. Speculative Fiction Writers are known for predicting the future but they can't, with a few hits to the effect that did come true. Le Guin couldn't and shouldn't have wrote it for future generations to marvel at and say "Hey, this is for my time, in my life."
Again, she didn't care.
I loved this book because it was unique and few books are ever this unique, usually based on cliche and old plot-lines. Some of you didn't like it and that's okay, it's not for everyone. I'm not a huge fan of Harry Potter but I can see brilliance in it.
Was it commercial enough? Maybe and maybe not. Most commercially successful books are poorly-written, without-a-shred-of-imagination crap in my opinion. I know, I've read them. Hell, some "Literary" books are crap too but their crap smells slightly different.
The Left Hand of Darkness, again not for everyone, took a great deal of effort and love to write. Which means, to me, it's not crap.
And it's not dull, at least to me, but exciting in the way she put those words down. She showed her own unique style for characters, plot and themes and made Science Fiction a genre to be valued, even though it should have been valued longed before this novel was even published.
But then, she doesn't care about that. And that is precisely what makes a terrible or mediocre book into a great one...like The Left Hand of Darkness truly is.
"Valued Long" not "longed". I hate typos but that is the human in me giving a crap...about my art.
Publishing is about the main chance; that’s why so much of what gets published is derivative. Of course, by 1969, LeGuin was at least beginning to develop a name, and was less constrained.
I've experienced the book as both. Read it first as a kid expecting another book like the Earthsea trilogy, and nearly died of boredom. When I returned to it as an adult I was enthralled by the high concepts and social commentary. Not much action but a lot of food for thought. I think it deserves "classic" status in the sff field.
Joseph wrote: "There comes a time in the life of a changing artist where they can no longer care what other people think of their work. They can't care if it will make money, they can't care if they become or rem..."I don't know if we can say who Ursula K. Le Guin was writing for, unless she said something in her interviews, and even then, who knows if she would be completely candid about it. Can't remember who she dedicated the book to, maybe she wrote it for them.
A book will speak to me depending on my personal viewpoint, regardless of author intent. For me, this book definitely spoke to me on many counts. The themes of understanding those different from you, the boundaries of friendship, the balance of light and dark - those are timeless themes, and definitely apply today as much as they did 50 years ago. At first, I thought the ambisexual component might be dated, just because there is much more discussion of transgender/transexuality topics in the media these days, which predisposes one to think of sexual fluidity. I found myself personally wanting LeGuin to explore that phenomenon deeper, while realizing that 50 years ago the basic idea probably blew everyone's mind right out of the water. And yet, even this concept is still relevant, as we think about what sex/gender means to us in today's world. I don't think it is that much easier than 50 years ago to imagine the sweeping world-view changes she is proposing by this ambisexual society. It's a big concept.
Jonathan's question about younger readers is interesting. It seems to apply not just to bridge across 50-year culture differences, but the action-oriented, low-attention-span, tweeting culture that is the current status quo. It would be hard to think this book is geared to that mind-set. And yet, the folks that are going to take the time to read novel-length books at all, probably wouldn't have a problem taking the time to enjoy a quiet, cerebral book like this one. Any teens/twenties out there (or know some who've read it) who can speak to this?
Left Hand of Darkness deserves every inch of its podium. It is a quiet, slow revolution. There aren't fireworks and car chases, Dan Brown style. I can understand why fans of high-adventure-action would call Left Hand "boring". But that just means it is not suitable for that demographic.Taken as a critical literary work, it deservedly earned its place and LeGuin's masterful subterfuge, subversion speaks to this.
My Speculative Fiction group chose this as our Scifi read and I can not get into it. I feel kind of bad being the group leader and hating the group read but that being said I can't get into the writing style so I haven't given it a real chance. I will try again.
I don't think it's everyone's cup of tea, and it certainly feels less approachable than her fantasy stuff. That said, I do think it deserves its place as a classic. It has a slower, more thoughtful pace which suits the subject matter. However, that can also make it boring if you're in the mood for something with more of an action-oriented focus.Interestingly enough, I liked her short story (set in the same world) "Coming of Age in Karhide" (spelling?) more. It examined many of the same themes, but it did so in a way that I felt was more emotionally engaging.
L.G. wrote: "I don't think it's everyone's cup of tea, and it certainly feels less approachable than her fantasy stuff. That said, I do think it deserves its place as a classic. It has a slower, more thoughtful..."I actually own the first book in her Fantasy series and I couldn't get into the writing style either.
I´m about 3/4 (chapter 16) into the book. The gender thing is fascinating, and I imagine it was even more so back in ´69, and the idea of cultural differences and misunderstandings is very well played out. But for me, the plot has not been very engaging. When I´m reading the book I find it interesting, but after setting it down I´m not really excited about picking it up again and I have found myself reading other things. It´s not about wanting fireworks and car chases, or having a low-attention-span tweeting culture. It has simply been pretty boring, with a bunch of characters who are pretty much indistinguishable from each other. Especially all the Orgota politicians, I have no idea who everyone is or what their motivations are. None of the characters seem very interesting or well defined other than Ai and Estraven (and maybe Faxe). I regained interest in the plot when Ai gets arrested and then with their trek through the snow, though, so we´ll see where this goes. Also, some passages are overloaded with alien made-up words, to the point where to me it is unreadable. I have seen this complaint in other people´s reviews of other books and always thought that these readers must be new to sci fi & fantasy, and thought I would never have this problem, feeling smug about my geek superiority. But with this novel it can get really, really dense. I think that the idea is to make us feel as lost as the Envoy feels, confronted with this completely alien world... and I guess it works, but it makes reading it very tiresome.
The most enjoyable parts of the book have actually been the shorter non-plot chapters, where we get short Gethenian stories. I loved these.
L.G. wrote: "Interestingly enough, I liked her short story (set in the same world) "Coming of Age in Karhide" (spelling?) more. It examined many of the same themes, but it did so in a way that I felt was more emotionally engaging. "Thanks for the recommendation!
Paolo, I have to agree that some of my favorite parts of the book were actually the chapters of Gethenian lore.
Michael wrote: "Can't remember who she dedicated the book to."She dedicated the book to her husband Charles, but I have to believe that she wrote it for herself: I get the sense that she considered it her finest work, and it’s just too good to have been produced for the sake of some external incentive.
And it’s not about transsexuality; it’s about the arbitrary nature of sexuality: gender is a social construct (like race) but even sexuality is important but insignificant.
David wrote: "Michael wrote: "Can't remember who she dedicated the book to."She dedicated the book to her husband Charles, but I have to believe that she wrote it for herself: I get the sense that she consider..."
It'd be nice to get some quotes or references for your assertions, not just for confirmation, but I think knowing her thoughts might enhance our reading experience. Do you know of any?
I didn't say it was about transsexuality, sorry if that sentence was confusing. I was talking of how the modern transsexual/transgender conversations have opened the public consciousness to the ideas of sexual fluidity, which helps if you want to be open to certain messages in the book, whether or not they are actually about "sexual fluidity".
But this is getting into the sex and gender topic, and it's a discussion in itself, so I will post some more thoughts at "Left Hand..." discussion -- Sex and Gender. (Actually, it looks like you posted the original thread, so I will read your comments before I post...)
Wow, that Sex and Gender thread is ancient.The dedication is to “For Charles, sine qua non” (if it weren’t her husband Charles, she might have been in big trouble). I pulled a few of her other works to see how they were dedicated (not an exhaustive search) many of them weren’t, but she dedicated one to her brothers, and one to her children.
I guess LeGuin is one of those authors you think you understand even when there’s no evidence to support your perceptions. I wonder if that’s because I read some of her parents’ work, or because I grew up in the Bay Area. I think the notion of familiarity comes when you, as a reader, recognize the author’s voice—something that transcends narrative voice and opens you more completely to the reading, making it an emotional as well as cognitive experience. I noticed this first with Raymond Carver’s work (he was my writing instructor for a year at Berkeley) but I’ve also sensed it with writers who were dead long before I was born.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Given the steady beat of critical acclaim, I won't ask if this is a classic. Instead, do you think it deserves that status?