SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

I haven't finished the book yet so can't say much but for those who have discuss away.

Haven't finished yet either, but I am more than half-way through and anticipate finishing in the next couple of days. Am ready for spoilers up to that point.

Great book for a summer read for me so far.

Kathy wrote: "Great book for a summer read for me so far. "

Or winter if you're burning the candles like Penny, et al. (Still blows my mind that the Earth is so big.)

I'm at the 75% point, will probably pop back in here on Monday...

Michael you wrote on the other thread about the "axis on a wheel" and how it's not doing anything, but if you remove it everything falls apart. That's exactly how I was seeing Orr's character! A critical character, but he was so neutral that you could almost lose sight of him during the book.

Also, on the other thread, David was commenting about Haber and asking if he became more hubristic as his assets increased. I would say yes, but I think it was as his status and power increased. He seemed to develop a God complex.

So, would anyone want to have this ability? To influence the way the world around you is constructed? If you did, at what point would you realize you're just making things worse and let it go?

Thanks for creating the spoiler thread by the way!

I think it was Shy Souths book and Logan was a co star Abercrombie also handled the Mayor the same way. Loved the book second reading almost as good as the first.

Don wrote: "I think it was Shy Souths book and Logan was a co star Abercrombie also handled the Mayor the same way. Loved the book second reading almost as good as the first."

I think you meant to post this in the other thread...

When Haber was trancapping Orr, it somehow reminded me of the stories of Edgar Cayce. While Cayce was in a trance, skeptics would stick him (violently) in the leg with a hat-pin, hoping to jolt an admission of consciousness from him. He wouldn’t feel the hat-pin at the moment, but would of course suffer the residual pain when the trance ended. I think an entranced Orr becomes a non-person (an object) for Haber. Once Haber sees Orr as an object, he is no longer able to see him any other way.

If Orr were the only one capable of effective dreaming, then I think he would eventually revert to a kind of solipsism. If he isn’t simply the cosmic dreamer (in which case, you might argue that no one else really counted) then perhaps all the realities he encounters are already there: he’s not changing reality, but traveling between realities (7 billion people don’t cease to exist—they’re still in one reality, they just never existed in the other). Haber then is not the “villain,” he just is (I don’t think Le Guin sees him as a villain). Orr is the point of contact (wormhole, or the philotic web, or whatever) between the seemingly infinite number of possibilities that he encounters serially. Haber’s transgression is sending Orr to one reality rather than another without Orr’s informed consent (like sticking him in the leg with a hat-pin).

I did wonder about the traveling between realities possibility. It seems like a likely option.

At the beginning of the 3rd Chapter, Le Guin creates a kind of cartoonish image of Orr literally floating in the sea of humanity of an overcrowded subway car, and she explains it with a quasi-force summation: “the force of crowding (c) exceeded the force of gravity (g).” Of course, it doesn’t work like this. Even if he were to get squeezed in and raise his feet off the subway floor, he would be held up by the frictional force parallel with the wedging bodies (F=Nnu) not the normal force perpendicular to those bodies (N=c). (Okay, if you don’t get this, think of the comedic quality invoked by Orr bobbing above the mosh pit of his subway car). Is the surrealism (and its slightly flaky explanation) intentional? I’m not sure, but it does pay off when she introduces the spider imagery with Heather Lelache, and the turtle imagery with the space aliens (I found both surprising—more surprising than if I’d found them in a PKD piece). Is the plastic imagery with Orr and his supporters intentional? Does it extend beyond the support characters (which I suppose would include Manny)?

I'll have to admit my opinion began turning around about this book right after the aliens came to earth. This happened for 2 reasons.
1. The dialogue picked up a good bit (was never very strong in my opinion) compared to the pitiful and almost non-existent dialogue in the first half of the book.
2. George took on almost a hero like quality in the last 50 or so pages of the book compared to the zombie like sap he was in the first half. He knew his power would destroy the world in the hands of Haber and took active steps to deal with the situation he had helped create. The axle comparison wouldn't hold up at all for his character during the climax of the book.
As far as the other characters, I disliked Haber so much that i actually was satisfied with his condition at the end. And the struggle to find Heather after each dream shift was a nice way to tie things together in the end I thought.
Though i wouldn't read it again, the whole thing had a Vanilla Sky vibe to it that I wound up enjoying.

I enjoyed all elements of the story and the way they interacted. Climate change was ever present and especially topical today. Nice ending, whimsical in a way. George found the answer and had it inside: the alien gave him the song and George had created the aliens, peaceful ones of course.

Manny and LeLache seems to be touchstones, existing independently at the level of Orr and Haber (maybe the movies develop this more completely) but the aliens just show up. Orr is definitely energized by them, so if he created the aliens, was he being energized by himself? Was it a slow, natural process of discorery?

I liked the irony of how the situation of Orr and Dr Haber by the end of the book was completely reversed. At first it seemed to me some kind of revenge of Orr on the man who took advantage of him, now I am more inclined to consider it the inescapable consequence of Haber's choices.

I liked best of everyone LeLache. The meeting with her and Orr ( or rather the realization of his feelings for her) was the turning point for me. Orr had then something to fight for and that made him interesting, before that I just didn't really care for him.

The aliens were bland. I got what they stood for in the development of Orr, but to me the way they were depicted was just an echo of what I disliked about Orr's character: his apathy and submissiveness.

Over all it was a nice, short, enjoyable story, but not as memorable as sometimes I felt it could have been.

Giorgia wrote: "I liked the irony of how the situation of Orr and Dr Haber by the end of the book was completely reversed. At first it seemed to me some kind of revenge of Orr on the man who took advantage of him,..."

I think part of what kept it from being memorable for me was that the ending kind of just petered out into a dream fugue. Okay, yes, there was the grand conflict between Orr and Haber and that was resolved, but what about the dreams? Is he okay with his power now? Is reality getting back to normal partly because of his dreams? Or did Haber really "cure" him as he dictated in his last hypnosis? What about the others that must have this power as the aliens seem to imply?

Some things I liked:

The references to Eastern ways of thinking, how Lelache compared Orr's placidity to an almost zen-like quality that could be the salvation of humans. (Unlike some others, I really admired Orr's "passivity": doing nothing is better than doing something if you don't know what you are doing! There is great wisdom in waiting and gathering information. He only took action when it was clear doing nothing was worse.)

The ehtical tension of the dreams - should he try to use their power? will it always be a trap? does he have a right to change other people's lives?

The unexpectedness of the racial relations topic and other progressive ideas. I remember expecting Lelache to just be the "secretary" at the law office since we had just met another woman who was Haber's assistant. I was still kicking myself for the assumption that she wasn't a lawyer when suddenly she held out a brown hand and I had to kick myself for making the assumption she was white, too. Was anyone else disappointed that she was always an assistant in future iterations and never a lawyer again, even though she was restored to her brassy, brazen personality?

Michael wrote: "I think part of what kept it from being memorable for me was that the ending kind of just petered out into a dream fugue...."

Remember when Yellowstone was burning and the rangers decided that forest fires (as naturally occurring phenomenon) should be allowed to just happen? Most of the people who went to Yellowstone that year were pissed, but I think we got over it. Imagine if the park rangers had decided to napalm Yellowstone (or napalm all of the farms within a 100-mile-radius of Yellowstone).

The caution is against using technology to amplify nature (upsetting and perhaps destroying natural equilibrium). It doesn’t mean you never get a forest fire; it’s just that they happen at a rate where you can do something about it if you choose. This makes Le Guin’s ending the ripple rather than the splash.

I think LeGuin was showing her inner (or outer) flower child. :)

I agree with you Michael about assuming she was an assistant or some sort of minor inspector. Something along those lines. I also get frustrated that it's atypical to have non-white characters. I'm reading a book right now that has mostly black characters including the protagonist. I keep having to readjust my picture of them, which only frustrates me more that there aren't more minority protagonists.

This is really a great discussion, I love all of the different opinions.

Overall I thought the writing was excellent and the book dealt with interesting and important themes and questions. My only criticism would be that the main characters seemed less like real people at times and more like straw men invented to represent two opposing moral philosophical arguments. Books with a "message" or an ideological viewpoint are fine, as long as the book doesn't come off as primarily a vehicle for that message; story and characters should come first. This book veered dangerously close to crossing that line for me, but I enjoyed it anyway.

I actually thought that they seemed more and more hollow add the story went on because of the dreams. It was like the more the world changed, the less depth the characters had. They lost pieces of themselves along the way and became more two dimensional.

Sarah, I share your frustration with our brains' assumptions and how they are shaped by "white" saturation of the marketplace. My hope is to read enough books that "surprise" me that it is no longer a surprise, and my brain keeps more of an open mind when it comes to what a character might or might not look like...

As to their "hollowness" or "straw men" characteristics, yes, I would say they seemed like archetypes, which isn't a bad thing in my opinion, since I thought this was definitely more of a philosophical book than a fictional narrative. Though I admit their personalities at the beginning were what got me connected to the storyline. I thought the flattening of their personalities had to do with the theme of power/responsibility. Haber in many ways did lose himself in his greed for control; he struggled to remember that he wasn't the big CEO a week ago. In the end he wasn't even present anymore, kind of like an extreme analogy for the midlife crisis, or the disillusionment of fame or wealth.

Orr is trickier. I agree with Giorgia that he became more relatable when he cared about someone (Lelache), but he still represented a kind of neutrality in the midst of the chaos. The consequence was that as the chaos grew, his presence seemed less significant, until the end where his presence was needed as intervention. And yet, I keep getting drawn back to the Zen thing. Our temptation is to find the chaos interesting, to focus on the action. But what if inaction is the more interesting thing? There was this great bit that I felt LeGuin kind of snuck in toward the end, in the final scene with the Augmentor:

"... a sense of well-being came into him, a certainty that things were all right, and that he was in the middle of things. Self is universe... He felt an equanimity, a perfect certainty as to where he was and where everything else was."
...
He said aloud, "Did the Augmentor do that?"
...
"It's merely amplifying what your own brain's doing at the moment, selectively reinforcing the activity, and your brain's doing absolutely nothing interesting..."

I thought it was a brilliant and hilarious analysis that at the critical moments when Orr is happy, science finds nothing of interest. David noted the cautionary theme of technology amplifying nature, but this is almost the Star Wars' cliche of technology versus nature. Is the pursuit of science what gets Haber into trouble? Or more specifically, the pursuit of what cannot be understood? (Recall the mistranslated "lathe of heaven" quote of Chapter 3: "To let understanding stop at what cannot be understood is high attainment." Is the message here that "following your dreams" in a kind of passive/organic, non-invested, non-scientific way is the answer to happiness and universal equilibrium? And how do you determine whether something lies in the realm of "cannot be understood" vs. "not understood yet"??

Haber seems unable to value knowledge without application: “He was not interested in detached knowledge, science for science’s sake: there was no use learning anything if it was of no use.” Is this hardwired? If you were able to bring Haber back after the last chapter, wouldn't it have broadened his appreciation of knowledge (allowing him to “learn this by learning”)? Is Chuang Tse reaching for a premature closure of our attempts to understand the merely difficult?

Is Shaw right ("the reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.") and we need Haber?

David wrote: "Haber seems unable to value knowledge without application: “He was not interested in detached knowledge, science for science’s sake: there was no use learning anything if it was of no use.” Is this..."
Is Shaw right... and we need Haber?

What an interesting thought...
I don't think it is such a simple black/white dichotomy. Reasonable in those terms is more subservient and cooperative (as in not argumentative), and unreasonable as self interested and forceful. Is it a matter of "knowing the rules, then breaking them" to force innovation? Can an "unreasonable man" also be altruistic (unlike Haber)?

I love this on page 127... I think le Guin really contrasts the characters through Orr's eyes.

"That's why she's [Lelache's] not here, he thought. She could not have been born gray...
Her anger, timidity, brashness, gentleness, all were elements of her mixed being...
She could not exist in the gray people's world. She had not been born.

He [Orr] had, though. He could be born into any world. He had no character. He was a lump of clay, a block of uncarved wood...

And Dr Haber: he had been born. Nothing could prevent him. He only got bigger at every reincarnation."

Michelle wrote: "Can an 'unreasonable man' also be altruistic (unlike Haber)?"

Isn’t this a fairly standard literary device: allowing the readers to reach a conclusion before the protagonist? When Orr’s behavior starts feeling like Learned Helplessness, we want him to be more assertive. He becomes more aggressive as the novel develops, but if he were to assert himself earlier and more strongly, he would be behaving like Haber and not Orr.

Reasoning can take different people different places. A lot of people think altruism is unreasonable, so they foster the belief that it doesn’t exist: that we just haven’t examined the “altruists” motives deeply enough.

David wrote: "Is Chuang Tse reaching for a premature closure of our attempts to understand the merely difficult?"

I think this echoes my question. There is a balance to be sought here between a) attempting the impossible and becoming frustrated and miserable, and b) striving for the "merely difficult" and uncovering wonders heretofore unknown. I don't know how you can really know which is which ahead of time. Many mathematicians died never solving Fermat's last theorem, but it turns out it was worth solving. Yet it could have been insolvable, and then what does the effort get them?

Michelle wrote: "I love this on page 127... "

< like >

Michelle wrote: "Reasonable in those terms is more subservient and cooperative (as in not argumentative), and unreasonable as self interested and forceful."

I'm not sure. I was thinking of "reasonable" here as "logical" or "rote". It takes an imaginative leap to think you can change the world, I think. But then I went down the road to contrarian, which is like what you said (argumentative) so I'm not sure. It all boils down to what definition we start with. It also depends on what you mean by altruistic. I mean, Haber was trying to get rid of war and racism and hunger, isn't that altruistic? But he was asking everyone else to make sacrifices, not himself, which is not altruistic, at least by my definition.

And wasn't Shaw kind of tongue-in-cheek here, trying to show the parallel between innovation and insanity? It's like a similar irony in Lathe, the one who wants the power is the one who loses it. That's still the most fascinating part to me, how the pursuit of power can be seen as weakness.

Michael wrote: "Michelle wrote: "Reasonable in those terms is more subservient and cooperative (as in not argumentative), and unreasonable as self interested and forceful."

I'm not sure. I was thinking of "reaso..."

I don't know how to quote a specific part of your sentence, Michael, but I'm very interested in the comment you made about altruism. He does try to get rid of war, racism, and hunger, but I don't know if I would call it altruistic because he's doing it in a way that matches his perceptions and desires.

And wouldn't the same thing happen to all of us? Doing things the way that WE want them seems a recipe for disaster.

We all have a personal conception of the good, and pursue it with the resources at our disposal and to the best of our ability. Haber’s conception of the good includes world peace, the elimination of hunger, the end of racism, and a nice corner office. If he just provided peace, plenty, and racial harmony, no one would complain. But he also provides himself with greater power (not just the corner office).

Society allows some individuals to have a much larger pile of goods to pursue their vision and so it’s not a level playing field (this is why so many ancient Greeks wanted to ostracize Pericles, and why we are suspicious of the powerful). We want a level playing field in the interest of a kind of Pareto Optimality: if we’re not Pericles, then we want everyone to compete with similar resources so that we have an equal opportunity (and if we are Pericles, then we’ll kick ass anyway).

A highly stratified society appears to be party of evolutionary makeup, though. So yes, we want everyone to have the same resources, except we want ourselves to have a bit more. Which is pretty much what happened to Haber, and what I think would happen to most anybody.

When you look at race as an example of his 'altruism' he may have erased the prejudice, but he also took away the beauty of our skin color. Although I don't particularly care what color I am, many people would feel deprived of something beautiful if it was taken away. Our society would lose so much of its diversity and beauty. So, while Haber feels better, this does not seem altruistic. To me, at least, but here I am, projecting my opinions on what is right.

Also, wouldn't a lack of races cause some anthropological confusion? His changes are retroactive, would it change DNA? Would we lose a huge chunk of where we came from? Would it matter? This is my own personal curiosity tangent.

Sarah wrote: "He does try to get rid of war, racism, and hunger, but I don't know if I would call it altruistic because he's doing it in a way that matches his perceptions and desires. "

(I click "reply", and then overwrite what is between the quotes with a copy and paste of the text I want to reply to. It's a curious thing, because I could copy and paste from another person's post and it would look official but would be horribly wrong - another example of why we need to use power responsibly!)

Yeah, that's where the definition of altruism gets hazy for me. I mean, we have to use our own perceptions and desires, those are the only ones we have. But I do see that he could at least ask people what they wanted instead of just giving it to them. The skin color thing is a good example; although unexpected, Haber is satisfied with the results, but Orr isn't - (can't even picture Lelache being born here, for example) - and other folks might have complained - if they could remember!

So I guess I'm not totally sure what a practical example of altruism is, but I still think it is interesting to contrast Haber's desire to make things better, not just for himself, but the world at large, with a) his corner office, and b) the sacrifices he requires of others.

A poignant example, I think, is the killing of off billions of people. I mean, you could argue that they never existed, but that seems circular; either he is affecting reality or he is not. And sure, you could argue that with limited resources, it is better to have a small population living well than a large population barely surviving - but is that what the people involved would argue? If you ask me if it's okay to erase half my family so that we can have more resources, what am I going to say? And Haber never asks, and he never takes anything away from himself that he cares about. He just makes other people do it.

Which makes the memory thing interesting. What would have happened if people could have remembered all the changes?

That's paternalism. In the absence of consensus, you simply state that those affected are incapable of knowing their own best interests. Haber wants things more than he wants consensus.

Arthur Morgan (TVA) had an interesting case of paternalism; he wanted consensus, but believed that any rational consensus would echo his own opinions. When that didn't happen with Lilienthal, he tried to get rid of him.

I finished this over the weekend, and after fastidiously avoiding opening up this thread, finally did so today. This is certainly one of the more engaging discussions we have had, with many thought-provoking comments and observations.

This book grabbed me hard at the start, partly as I wasn’t sure what was going on with the relationship between Orr and Haber and where Haber was heading exactly. I also found it fascinating how each dream reality shift created ripples that kept expanding into each new shift. The book gradually lost me and the thing that bothered me the most I think was the gradually progressive surrealism and the psychedelic feel that it took on as these dream shifts progressed. The story began to become more confusing, “dream-fugue-like” as someone observed, reminiscent in some ways of Carlos Castenada. I wonder if some this arose from the era in which it was written, just coming out of the 60’s and all.

I think the comments regarding paternalism and playing God are germane. One message I took away from the story was a word of caution. Sometimes our efforts to “improve” the world, even when well-intentioned, are tainted, tainted by our own hubris and desires, reflected in Haber’s ego and greed, and tainted by our own inadequacies. We are not God, and as such, are unable to fully foresee all of the consequence of our choices and actions. Perhaps we should be a little more careful as we try to “improve” the status quo.

Where things really fell apart for me was Orr’s seeming gradual acceptance of these flaws. Things happen, our dreams are what they are, and the world enfolds as it does. And the turtle aliens are all good with this. It all came across a little too Zen-like and contrite for my taste.

Great comments, Edwin; yes, this book provokes a lot of thought.

You said what I think I was trying to say about the vagueness of the ending; psychedelic is a good analogy. I also think I was looking for a pivotal moment or mindf*ck, like the movie Inception, but that wasn't where LeGuin was going with this one.

Did we ever figure out if Orr is cured at the end. I haven't done an ending reread to try to figure it out yet...

Michael wrote: "Did we ever figure out if Orr is cured at the end. I haven't done an ending reread to try to figure it out yet..."

Yeah, things got a little loose at the end, and I was not sure of this either. My sense is no, not "cured" as he seemingly cleaned up the mess that Haber created, but I couldn't tell if he just came to accept his talent as it was or if he finally learned to control it.

I just finished this book for a second time. It is definitely one of those books that gets better the second time with a new perspective. I wouldn't say it is my favorite book, but it stirs my brain enough to be in the favorites pile.

David wrote: "We all have a personal conception of the good, and pursue it with the resources at our disposal and to the best of our ability."

You know, that's a pretty standard take on human nature (or nature in general?) and one I probably agree with, but I don't think it's how The Lathe of Heaven is supposed to work. The issue with Haber as I read it is that he tries to do stuff, like make the world better. The point of making Orr the main character is that he doesn't try to do anything. He just is, and the universe acts through him, or some such thing that maybe can't be expressed logically. I expect my reading and discussion of the Dao De Jing and Zhuangzi in college is bleeding into my reading of this, for better or for worse.

Edwin wrote: "the thing that bothered me the most I think was the gradually progressive surrealism and the psychedelic feel that it took on as these dream shifts progressed" I dislike that too. I don't blame it on the sixties connection since this kind of thing happens in so many other books including some Le Guin.

David wrote: "if he were to assert himself earlier and more strongly, he would be behaving like Haber and not Orr. "

Yes - this is exactly how I read it.

It remind me on old (German) fairy-tale about golden fish. Doctor Haber want more and more and more... and was punished for his greed at last (alike greedy fisherman´s wife).

At first, the changes of world was cruel and terrible, but good for new mankind (and nature). Less people in the world and end of all wars. But it should be ending ofall changes.
I understand, that power is alike drug and doctor Haber became additive. Poor mad creature...

First great change (post Apocalypse in April 1998) was real good and bliss (gift) of Heaven. I believe that George Orr was the Choosen for Saving of the World.
And at last, he took his reward for his pain - his beloved job and life with his beloved wife. Also little sweet happy end. :o)

I read one old manga (by Hagio Moto) about world who is only dreamed by one man because real world was destroyed.I mean that manga was inspired by this book.

I don't know if I've ever read a sci-fi novel that delves into the surreal the same way this one does. It's a fine contrast of subjective realities. It's also fitting that the one character in the story who is considered least able to handle the power of dreams, turns out to be the best qualified to do so.

The only thing I had a hard time with was the author's voice. I don't know if she intentionally wrote to invoke conflicting and disjointed imagery. In other books, I would say this would lower the quality of the story, but it fits brilliantly with this one. I plan to read more of her stories.

This sort of novel inevitably ends up blurring the boundaries between SF and fantasy.

Mary wrote: "This sort of novel inevitably ends up blurring the boundaries between SF and fantasy."

Ha! Only if you don't believe in effective dreams! I'm sure quantum tunneling was used somehow...

I noticed the title of this thread earlier but forgot to comment on it. Isn't Kim playing on "discuss all the things" from Hyperbole and a Half: Unfortunate Situations, Flawed Coping Mechanisms, Mayhem, and Other Things That Happened? Has it become part of our cultural language now?

That meme has been around for about 3 years now.

Good to know I'm up to date!!

I'm starting this next week! I know there were some other folks who were interested in reading Lathe of Heaven or who've finished it recently, so hopefully you'll join me for discussion.

Kaa wrote: "I'm starting this next week! I know there were some other folks who were interested in reading Lathe of Heaven or who've finished it recently, so hopefully you'll join me for discussion."

Yay! I will... probably not be ready to start then. But I'm looking forward to it!

Good to know, I'll join.

I started a few days ago and keep forgetting to post here... I'm up to about 80% now. I'm finding it a lot more memorable and striking now than the first time I read it. The sole recollection I have from that first reading was about how strange it was to see this constantly changing Portland. This time the story and philosophical conversation is coming through a lot more clearly.

In chapter 9, (view spoiler)[I was struck by Orr and Haber's discussion of the value of change vs stillness. Especially given the significant role that change plays in the Earthseed books, which I am also in the middle of reading. In general, I think there are some really interesting parallels and contrasts between Lathe of Heaven and Earthseed in terms of themes like change and the potential collapse of American society as we know it. They are also both deeply grounded in geographic place, specifically the West Coast of the U.S. (hide spoiler)]

I reread Lathe of Heaven for the 3rd time last year, so it’s pretty clear in my mind.

I love all the Taoism references to balance.

I started this yesterday. I've read it before, but it was probably more than a decade ago.
A few weeks ago, I was mentioning Le Guin in conversation and a family member, who isn't usually a big SFF reader, started gushing about The Lathe of Heaven and what an impression it made in her when she was younger. I remember liking it, but not much more than that, so it made me excited to read it again.
(view spoiler)[The first chapter from the doctor's perspective makes me think a lot of The Word for World is Forest and Captain Davidson, in terms of the arrogance, misplaced self-assurance, and scorn for men who don't conform to their own macho idea of masculinity. (hide spoiler)] (very mild spoilers for characters at the very beginning of both books).