The article gives a reading of Ursula Le Guin that falls from one merely political way to see the world (conquest) into another (global warming and human hubris) - plus a heavy dose of corresponding judgementality.
To me Ursula Le Guin's books are different still: I see them mostly as prompts for my emotion and as people living their life. One's life is only loosely tied to the political thought or environment around us. We are allowed to make our life one and the same in a political militant fashion but that is an option, a choice. We don't have to. In the books, we are presented worlds (often through the character growing up in it) and then we are presented the characters trajectories through them. Many sci-fi writers want to present political ideas through created worlds, of course. That is not Ursula Le Guin's dominion. And her worlds are certainly not reaching for "free from harm"! Where in the world does that one come from?!
What I read them for:
1) I love that many of her characters are paying attention. They are not simply surviving passively in the sense of always reacting and living past the current hardship. They are also not just as mindlessly choosing militant action or conquest.
2) I love above all the writing style. Immensely calm. And the language: poetic, smooth and emotion-prompting. Ursula Le Guin stands out for me in that direction. Perfect tone is rare, instilling emotion in me to this degree is very rare.
Just as The Magicians is written in a style that perfectly matches teen angst (as opposed to Harry Potter.)
And I note that Ursula Le Guin's teens usually don't have much angst - unrealistically so - and I'm fine with that - the rest makes up for it.
I highly recommend these books - but certainly not as the one major source of political creativity.
And that's just one book . That one book did find its audience, that's for sure! No contest there! That makes it tempting to judge her entire work through that lens. And that one book is as prominent as The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress: one title that comes up again and again to illustrate political thought / utopias / distopias. By contrast, the Earthsea cycle ended up with 6 books and a few short stories. And Always Coming Home was a massive project.
To me Ursula Le Guin's books are different still: I see them mostly as prompts for my emotion and as people living their life. One's life is only loosely tied to the political thought or environment around us. We are allowed to make our life one and the same in a political militant fashion but that is an option, a choice. We don't have to. In the books, we are presented worlds (often through the character growing up in it) and then we are presented the characters trajectories through them. Many sci-fi writers want to present political ideas through created worlds, of course. That is not Ursula Le Guin's dominion. And her worlds are certainly not reaching for "free from harm"! Where in the world does that one come from?!
What I read them for:
1) I love that many of her characters are paying attention. They are not simply surviving passively in the sense of always reacting and living past the current hardship. They are also not just as mindlessly choosing militant action or conquest.
2) I love above all the writing style. Immensely calm. And the language: poetic, smooth and emotion-prompting. Ursula Le Guin stands out for me in that direction. Perfect tone is rare, instilling emotion in me to this degree is very rare.
Just as The Magicians is written in a style that perfectly matches teen angst (as opposed to Harry Potter.)
And I note that Ursula Le Guin's teens usually don't have much angst - unrealistically so - and I'm fine with that - the rest makes up for it.
I highly recommend these books - but certainly not as the one major source of political creativity.