What do you think?
Rate this book


320 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 1989
"You see, she [Irene Claremont de Castillejo] is trying to show how a woman's desire to have children, and to love and care for them, can be twisted all out of shape by ethical coercion, until it becomes a bondage , a hideous sentimental trap. Here she offers an example of natural, unperverted feminine morality:
I have been struck with the spontaneous reaction of many women and girls to the thalidomide tragedies. So often they exclaim with absolute conviction, "Of course they should be aborted! It is criminal to make a woman carry a deformed child." [And pressed further, they say,] "It is monstrous that men should decide whether a woman should or should not have her own baby."
If we can get that realistic feminine morality working for us, if we can trust ourselves and so let women think and feel that an unwanted child or an oversize family is wrong -- not ethically wrong, not against the rules, but morally wrong, all wrong, wrong like a thalidomide birth, wrong like taking a wrong step that will break your neck -- if we can get feminine and human morality out from under the yoke of a dead ethic, then maybe we'll begin to get somewhere on the road that leads to survival. "
Success is somebody else's failure. Success is the American Dream we can keep dreaming because most people in most places, including thirty million of ourselves, live wide awake in the terrible reality of poverty. No, I do not wish you success. I don't even want to talk about it. I want to talk about failure.There's a book called DILF: Did I Leave Feminism? regarding the transmasc social activist journey that I'll be reading at some point. Until then, I return on bended knee, hat in hand, to a number of women authors who once served as gender model, if not light in the dark. Le Guin last left me more than cold in the shape of The Lathe of Heaven, and since then fate has sent me on multiple paths, some through work, others through illness, and even a few through community, farther and farther away from her bibliography. Inevitably, though, the smoldering embers of The Left Hand of Darkness began to haunt, and there's The Dispossessed my beloved, and wouldn't it be swell to go on a reasonable road trip up north to Le Guin's PNW stomping grounds? This was the last and long suffering copy of her work still left on my shelves, and so this is what I sacrificed on the altar of reunion with a once fond friend.
Any artist must expect to work amid the total, rational indifference of everybody else to their work, for years, perhaps for life: but no artist can work well against daily, personal, vengeful resistance."Talks, essays, occasional pieces, and reviews from the past ten years": such is the summary of these contents derived from the introduction. An ungrateful perspective would term it a collection of waste products excreted from the hustle culture of print matter, but what is any literature under capitalism? Fortunately, this is Le Guin we're speaking of, so my uncharitable view served more as fulcrum than blockade. This was especially useful when dealing with the good yet the bad, the sympathy yet the presumption, the wide reading yet the myopic living, willing to invoke women of color when talking women but not to maturely tackle the whiteness that casts many of her universalizing statements in a shade of naïveté, if not fatuousness. And then there is the whole gender thing, which certainly has its uses but would go much farther if Le Guin ever acknowledged how frequently her statements on men could be easily applied to many a white woman, to greater or lesser degree, to perhaps (especially) even to herself. It didn't help when Le Guin decided to spend a number of those reviews at the close talking about yet another author + work I had been taking a sustained break from (Doris Lessing and her Shikasta, one canonical yet disappointing white woman at a time please!), but upping my objectivity buffer honed through the last 15 years of varied reading helped. In the end, there are certain stronger pieces with certain stronger quotes, but I wouldn't recommend this to anyone without at least 2-4 of the author's more famous works under their belt.
When either the political or the scientific discourse announces itself as the voice of reason, it is playing God, and should be spanked and stood in the corner.
The Representative also indubitably has worked and laughed and will die, but he does not want these matters mentioned as "profit incentive," "recreation.," "life expectancy." I can't think how he would refer to grief at all—perhaps as "mental health problems."This collection is well suited to my current level of reading acumen and ill suited to anyone looking for an introduction to Le Guin. Here are reflections on "Left Hand" and projections on the state of sci-fi (ideal and otherwise) and scathing reviews of various contemporaneous works (Close Encounters, Star Wars before the I became the IV, etc) that require the reader center on the author herself and her career, rather than the book. For all my griping, I found a handful of bread crumbs leading to what treasure troves Le Guin long ago seduced me with, and if I had to cherry pick this collection, it would consist of:
There is no such thing as a moral filter that lets good books through and keeps bad books out.
'A Non-Euclidean View of California as a Cold Place to Be'However, as evidenced by 'Over the Hills and a Great Way Off', Le Guin and I have been going our separate ways for some time, and it is indeed much for the best.
'A Left-Handed Commencement Address'
'Whose Lathe?'
'The Second Report of the Shipwrecked Foreigner to the Kadanh of Derb'
'Bryn Mawr Commencement Address'
"Where Do You Get Your Ideas From?"
'The Fisherwoman's Daughter'
What worries me in this model is the dependence upon cybernetics as the integration function. Who's up there in the engineer's seat? Is it on auto? Who wrote the program—old Nobodaddy Reason again? Is it another of those trains with no brakes?
The choice, then, would seem to be between collusion and subversion; but there's no use pretending that you can get away without making the choice. Not to choose, these days, is a choice made.
'"No house worth living in has for its cornerstone the hunger of those who built it.'
J.R.R. Tolkien, Lewis's close friend and colleague, certainly shared many of Lewis's views and was also a devout Christian. But it all comes out very differently in his fiction. Take his handling of evil: his villains are orcs and Black Riders (goblins and zombies: mythic figures) and Sauron, the Dark Lord, who is never seen and has no suggestion of humanity about him. These are not evil men but embodiments of the evil in men, universal symbols of the hateful. The men who do wrong are not complete figures but complements: Saruman is Gandalf's dark-self, Boromir Aragorn's; Wormtongue is, almost literally, the weakness of King Theoden. There remains the wonderfully repulsive and degraded Gollum. But nobody who reads the trilogy hates, or is asked to hate, Gollum. Gollum is Frodo's shadow; and it is the shadow, not the hero, who achieves the quest. Though Tolkien seems to project evil into "the others", they are not truly others but ourselves; he is utterly clear about this. His ethic, like that of dream, is compensatory. The final "answer" remains unknown. But because responsibility has been accepted, charity survives. And with it, triumphantly, the Golden Rule. The fact is, if you like the book, you love Gollum.
In Lewis, responsibility appears only in the form of the Christian hero fighting and defeating the enemy: a triumph, not of love, but of hatred. The enemy is not oneself but the Wholly Other, demoniac.