Scan barcode
A review by mav_ka
The Dispossessed by Ursula K. Le Guin
2.0
Hi, I'm that rare unicorn of a person who didn't like this book. I know. So weird. Everyone talks about this book like a classic, and I see why, but I also see so painfully clearly why I just did not get into it.
It's been a few months since I've read it at this point, and it actually took a minute for me to remember what the name of the book was. Seems like I am slowly erasing it from my memory.
First, I'll get into the good and neutral things. I will warn you when the rant is incoming so you can jump off the ship if you don't like that sort of thing. I see and appreciate all the people who loved this book and wrote so many good things about it, I just also need a space to shout my frustrations into the void. But don't worry, that time and space is not now. Not yet.
Good and neutral things! So. The last three chapters were actually lowkey amazing. Highkey amazing. The way two different timelines tied together was very neat, and I am a huge fan of that. I can't even think of any plot holes that remained at that point, it was just so neatly cleaned up. I can tell the author thought long and hard about the plot. (or maybe not at all and it's just a natural talent, who knows!) Either way, it was very cool. I'm into that sort of thing so it's double cool in my eyes.
Now, the rant. I know that I just said one good thing, I just couldn't remember anything else. Proceed with caution if you enjoyed the book.
It is my time to rant! Oh my gosh. Those last three chapters were amazing, sure, but getting to them was just so not worth it. It's not a character-driven book, it's not a plot-driven book, it's an idea-driven book. And I just felt so indifferent toward that idea.
The book was exploring different challenges of two different types of societies (and pardon if I butcher any terminology; if it was directly addressed in the book, I already erased it from my memory): one type of society is very communist-like, surviving in harsh conditions, but caring for each other and completely erasing the sense of self. There is no "I" or "my" or "mine", it's all "ours". It's all to be shared and re-distributed amongst the community. And then there is the second community: very capitalist-like, where possession of anything and everything is the exact point, because if you don't hold the rights to an idea then what is the actual point. You naturally have the top 1% ultra-rich or privileged who enjoy all the pleasures of life, then you have the majority of the poor and middle class, and then you have various societal issues that arise from inequality like gender discrimination (no scientist from that community could imagine working with a woman, out of all things).
And then you have the main character. The protagonist. The anarchist in a communist society, the one who does not belong anywhere because he wants absolute freedom to do whatever he wants, because even in his perfect everyone-shares-everything society, a hierarchy naturally establishes itself, and if you find yourself on the wrong side of the hierarchy, then you will have a tough time doing what you actually want and he wants to fight against that.
What a noble cause, right. Wow, even I got excited writing about the description of the book like that. Like, that would be such a cool book, right?
I don't know what happened, but it just felt so... not there. It felt like a philosophical essay disguised as a story, where the characters and the plot really didn't matter, what mattered was the author's ideas and musings. But I could not get behind that, I did not want ideas shoved down my throat, I wanted to be presented with subtle questions that arose from situations the characters found themselves in and find answers to them myself. Instead, I got word dumps of philosophical musings on multiple pages, where the questions and the answers are presented to you right away.
And the story and characters did not help at all. If I cared about at least one of those elements, I could have enjoyed it. I could have gotten behind the idea the author was trying to communicate. I could have warmed up to thinking through what the character was thinking, like, really committing to thinking about it. But no. The main character feels bland. The interactions between the characters are so unrealistic. There was a moment I remember vividly that occurred between the main character and this woman (who will later become the mother of his child), and it went something like this (artistic interpretation from a person who read the book a few months ago, not an actual quote):
Him: 'so all this time, you...?'
Her: 'yes, I did. and you did too'
Him: 'but why didn't you tell me?'
Her: 'because you already knew'
Him: and that's when he realized that yes, he did, he knew
Can't tell what they are talking about? Me neither!! But they basically just agreed to start a family together because they both were crushing on each other for a while or something because they felt they had similarities and wanted the same thing (aka having a family, in this society that actually discourages that bc of the risk of making the child "yours" and not just "community's kid aka everyone's kid"), and I guess that makes sense in the grand context of the general idea, but it makes no sense from the perspective of just two people talking to each other. You can't just know what the other person is thinking, you talk about it! That's what the medium of words is for, you wankers! And that really got to me. If you can't tell. It is very dramatic. And I am normally all for dramatic, I love dramatic, but as I explained, I did not find any personality traits that I liked in the main character, so I just was not feeling it the entire time.
To sum it up, I just did nooot like this book. The first half was the worst. Second half was slightly better. The last three chapters were mind-blowing, but because I feel so salty about the other 6 to 8 hours I had to waste slogging through stuff I did not like, I'm giving this book a 2/5. It would have been a 1 if it wasn't for the last three chapters that saved it.
This book will definitely be better on a re-read, but am I putting myself through that ordeal again? Absolutely not.
Now, what should you take away from this review? Well, for starters, look at the rating and at how many people are praising it. There is a high chance that you will actually like it, especially if you open yourself to a more classic-feeling kind of book, where it's really all about the idea and not so much about the execution (which did get better, especially in the last three chapters, but like I said already, the rest of it just did not sit well with me). It is, at this point, considered somewhat of a classic if I'm not mistaken? I don't know. But I know a lot of the book club people were super hyped about it.
I personally was not hyped because I do not go into books with high expectations just as a general rule. And it still failed me. So yeah, this is a genuine 2/5 stars. Which I am lowkey proud of. The first book that I legitimately didn't like! I typically love every book I read, or I am at least mildly entertained, so finding something different is actually nice now that I think about it. Like, even though I hated some parts, this was the first time I hated them, and for that, I lowkey love this book? Like, thanks for making me feel all these new things! Towards a piece of literature! Like, this is my first dislike towards a book, and such a highly-liked book as well.
Weird ending, right? But it just feels like a right of passage for a typical reader, you know. I talk to so many people who read so many books, a lot more than I've read in my lifetime, and all of them have books they absolutely loathe and hate. And I did not have that because I managed to find something entertaining about every book I read, even some of the worst ones. But this one? This is my first legit disliked book. And that makes it just a little special.
tl;dr: Even though I gave this book a 2/5, I am most likely an outlier, you might still enjoy this book, and if you don't, you can just join me down below here where we can really rant about it so it'll be a win-win :3
It's been a few months since I've read it at this point, and it actually took a minute for me to remember what the name of the book was. Seems like I am slowly erasing it from my memory.
First, I'll get into the good and neutral things. I will warn you when the rant is incoming so you can jump off the ship if you don't like that sort of thing. I see and appreciate all the people who loved this book and wrote so many good things about it, I just also need a space to shout my frustrations into the void. But don't worry, that time and space is not now. Not yet.
Good and neutral things! So. The last three chapters were actually lowkey amazing. Highkey amazing. The way two different timelines tied together was very neat, and I am a huge fan of that. I can't even think of any plot holes that remained at that point, it was just so neatly cleaned up. I can tell the author thought long and hard about the plot. (or maybe not at all and it's just a natural talent, who knows!) Either way, it was very cool. I'm into that sort of thing so it's double cool in my eyes.
Now, the rant. I know that I just said one good thing, I just couldn't remember anything else. Proceed with caution if you enjoyed the book.
It is my time to rant! Oh my gosh. Those last three chapters were amazing, sure, but getting to them was just so not worth it. It's not a character-driven book, it's not a plot-driven book, it's an idea-driven book. And I just felt so indifferent toward that idea.
The book was exploring different challenges of two different types of societies (and pardon if I butcher any terminology; if it was directly addressed in the book, I already erased it from my memory): one type of society is very communist-like, surviving in harsh conditions, but caring for each other and completely erasing the sense of self. There is no "I" or "my" or "mine", it's all "ours". It's all to be shared and re-distributed amongst the community. And then there is the second community: very capitalist-like, where possession of anything and everything is the exact point, because if you don't hold the rights to an idea then what is the actual point. You naturally have the top 1% ultra-rich or privileged who enjoy all the pleasures of life, then you have the majority of the poor and middle class, and then you have various societal issues that arise from inequality like gender discrimination (no scientist from that community could imagine working with a woman, out of all things).
And then you have the main character. The protagonist. The anarchist in a communist society, the one who does not belong anywhere because he wants absolute freedom to do whatever he wants, because even in his perfect everyone-shares-everything society, a hierarchy naturally establishes itself, and if you find yourself on the wrong side of the hierarchy, then you will have a tough time doing what you actually want and he wants to fight against that.
What a noble cause, right. Wow, even I got excited writing about the description of the book like that. Like, that would be such a cool book, right?
I don't know what happened, but it just felt so... not there. It felt like a philosophical essay disguised as a story, where the characters and the plot really didn't matter, what mattered was the author's ideas and musings. But I could not get behind that, I did not want ideas shoved down my throat, I wanted to be presented with subtle questions that arose from situations the characters found themselves in and find answers to them myself. Instead, I got word dumps of philosophical musings on multiple pages, where the questions and the answers are presented to you right away.
And the story and characters did not help at all. If I cared about at least one of those elements, I could have enjoyed it. I could have gotten behind the idea the author was trying to communicate. I could have warmed up to thinking through what the character was thinking, like, really committing to thinking about it. But no. The main character feels bland. The interactions between the characters are so unrealistic. There was a moment I remember vividly that occurred between the main character and this woman (who will later become the mother of his child), and it went something like this (artistic interpretation from a person who read the book a few months ago, not an actual quote):
Him: 'so all this time, you...?'
Her: 'yes, I did. and you did too'
Him: 'but why didn't you tell me?'
Her: 'because you already knew'
Him: and that's when he realized that yes, he did, he knew
Can't tell what they are talking about? Me neither!! But they basically just agreed to start a family together because they both were crushing on each other for a while or something because they felt they had similarities and wanted the same thing (aka having a family, in this society that actually discourages that bc of the risk of making the child "yours" and not just "community's kid aka everyone's kid"), and I guess that makes sense in the grand context of the general idea, but it makes no sense from the perspective of just two people talking to each other. You can't just know what the other person is thinking, you talk about it! That's what the medium of words is for, you wankers! And that really got to me. If you can't tell. It is very dramatic. And I am normally all for dramatic, I love dramatic, but as I explained, I did not find any personality traits that I liked in the main character, so I just was not feeling it the entire time.
To sum it up, I just did nooot like this book. The first half was the worst. Second half was slightly better. The last three chapters were mind-blowing, but because I feel so salty about the other 6 to 8 hours I had to waste slogging through stuff I did not like, I'm giving this book a 2/5. It would have been a 1 if it wasn't for the last three chapters that saved it.
This book will definitely be better on a re-read, but am I putting myself through that ordeal again? Absolutely not.
Now, what should you take away from this review? Well, for starters, look at the rating and at how many people are praising it. There is a high chance that you will actually like it, especially if you open yourself to a more classic-feeling kind of book, where it's really all about the idea and not so much about the execution (which did get better, especially in the last three chapters, but like I said already, the rest of it just did not sit well with me). It is, at this point, considered somewhat of a classic if I'm not mistaken? I don't know. But I know a lot of the book club people were super hyped about it.
I personally was not hyped because I do not go into books with high expectations just as a general rule. And it still failed me. So yeah, this is a genuine 2/5 stars. Which I am lowkey proud of. The first book that I legitimately didn't like! I typically love every book I read, or I am at least mildly entertained, so finding something different is actually nice now that I think about it. Like, even though I hated some parts, this was the first time I hated them, and for that, I lowkey love this book? Like, thanks for making me feel all these new things! Towards a piece of literature! Like, this is my first dislike towards a book, and such a highly-liked book as well.
Weird ending, right? But it just feels like a right of passage for a typical reader, you know. I talk to so many people who read so many books, a lot more than I've read in my lifetime, and all of them have books they absolutely loathe and hate. And I did not have that because I managed to find something entertaining about every book I read, even some of the worst ones. But this one? This is my first legit disliked book. And that makes it just a little special.
tl;dr: Even though I gave this book a 2/5, I am most likely an outlier, you might still enjoy this book, and if you don't, you can just join me down below here where we can really rant about it so it'll be a win-win :3