Take a photo of a barcode or cover
surelyinthefountain 's review for:
The Dispossessed
by Ursula K. Le Guin
challenging
dark
hopeful
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
The writing is just beautiful. Simple, elegant, but effective. I cannot begin to count the number of times I'd stop and just go aaaarrrrrrr, stunned by the prose. I imagine it might come across as repetitive to some, but I love it; it's super in keeping with the theory that lies at the core of the novel.
I think some parts are a little dated, especially with respect to gender politics. While I recognize that Shevek is a deconstruction of the "great man" in that most of what he accomplishes is only possible with the support of other people and a community of like-minded people around him and he can barely even take care of himself in isolation, let alone do anything meaningful, the story still utilizes a lot of those tropes. I personally think that Le Guin does a great job of showing that this guy might be a brilliant physicist but that he is also an utter dumbass who constantly forgets to eat when he doesn't have a partner around to remind him to do so. He is also something of a gentle giant -- pacifist, vegetarian, gets sick easily, anti-war -- which is as far as you can get from what we'd often consider a powerful man. However, I'm also aware of how easy it can be to read a deconstruction as a trope played straight, and the powerful intellect for a very mathematical field is just fodder for that sort of reading.
That said, most of the book is still surprisingly fresh and relevant. The politics and philosophical ideas remain their value, even with age, and climate change and plastic waste come up in a way that is downright haunting given that this is a novel from the seventies.
Finally, it wouldn't be a review from me unless I brought up queer subtext -- or, in this case, queer text! Unlike Left Hand of Darkness, most of what I would hear about this novel before going in had to do with its politics and its philosophical ideas, not its positive portrayal of queer people, and to be fair, this is not the main focus of Dispossessed. But still, how did I not know going into this that there was going to be a prominent character who is canonically queer and just casually so? Casually as in, it is just mentioned about him a few times, but much of his role in the story has nothing to do with his queerness? Hell, you've even got the main character being canonically something like Kinsey 1 or 2 and (mild spoiler, not detailed)briefly in a queer relationship himself. I knew Le Guin was a luminary, but goddamn, I was not expecting something 50 years old to be nearly so progressive on this front! Maybe I should have, after finishing Left Hand.
Anyway. I loved this to bits. I do have to mention that there's an uncomfortable scene portraying a sexual encounter that begins as consensual but quickly turns...not. It nearly made me stop reading, but I trusted Le Guin enough to continue. It is brief, but honestly, that scene and everything leading up to it that has to do with it kind of put me off. That's the sole reason this book is not 5 stars for me. I dislike how easy it is to read the woman involved in the situation as being "at fault" for leading on a man with different expectations. Le Guin does a good job at showing the nuance in the situation, but...I don't think she does a good enough job with it to justify it and its lead-up as-is. I understand why it is there; I understand that we are meant to contrast it and the circumstances around it to the consensual scenes earlier in the book; I understand we then can make our own conclusions about how consent even can work in a society where women are treated as effectively property. But -- well, I can rationally like something in a thematic way while disliking its execution and inclusion, and that's just the way this shakes out for me.
I think some parts are a little dated, especially with respect to gender politics. While I recognize that Shevek is a deconstruction of the "great man" in that most of what he accomplishes is only possible with the support of other people and a community of like-minded people around him and he can barely even take care of himself in isolation, let alone do anything meaningful, the story still utilizes a lot of those tropes. I personally think that Le Guin does a great job of showing that this guy might be a brilliant physicist but that he is also an utter dumbass who constantly forgets to eat when he doesn't have a partner around to remind him to do so. He is also something of a gentle giant -- pacifist, vegetarian, gets sick easily, anti-war -- which is as far as you can get from what we'd often consider a powerful man. However, I'm also aware of how easy it can be to read a deconstruction as a trope played straight, and the powerful intellect for a very mathematical field is just fodder for that sort of reading.
That said, most of the book is still surprisingly fresh and relevant. The politics and philosophical ideas remain their value, even with age, and climate change and plastic waste come up in a way that is downright haunting given that this is a novel from the seventies.
Finally, it wouldn't be a review from me unless I brought up queer subtext -- or, in this case, queer text! Unlike Left Hand of Darkness, most of what I would hear about this novel before going in had to do with its politics and its philosophical ideas, not its positive portrayal of queer people, and to be fair, this is not the main focus of Dispossessed. But still, how did I not know going into this that there was going to be a prominent character who is canonically queer and just casually so? Casually as in, it is just mentioned about him a few times, but much of his role in the story has nothing to do with his queerness? Hell, you've even got the main character being canonically something like Kinsey 1 or 2 and (mild spoiler, not detailed)
Anyway. I loved this to bits. I do have to mention that there's an uncomfortable scene portraying a sexual encounter that begins as consensual but quickly turns...not. It nearly made me stop reading, but I trusted Le Guin enough to continue. It is brief, but honestly, that scene and everything leading up to it that has to do with it kind of put me off. That's the sole reason this book is not 5 stars for me. I dislike how easy it is to read the woman involved in the situation as being "at fault" for leading on a man with different expectations. Le Guin does a good job at showing the nuance in the situation, but...I don't think she does a good enough job with it to justify it and its lead-up as-is. I understand why it is there; I understand that we are meant to contrast it and the circumstances around it to the consensual scenes earlier in the book; I understand we then can make our own conclusions about how consent even can work in a society where women are treated as effectively property. But -- well, I can rationally like something in a thematic way while disliking its execution and inclusion, and that's just the way this shakes out for me.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Death, Sexual assault, Violence, Police brutality
Minor: Suicidal thoughts, Forced institutionalization, Colonisation