Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
I think that's probably because, ultimately, I agree with you. I think the language of the novel is reinforcing of the status quo, but at the same time I agree with Bookpossum, that the intention was to try an unite gender in the Gethenians as if yin-and-yang was applicable. I see these as two sides of the same argument.
In the 1988 redux of her essay "Is Gender Necessary?", Le Guin admits "If I had realized how the pronouns I used shaped, directed, controlled my own thinking, I might have been “cleverer”". But the pronouns are almost the least of it, there are the "sons" references, the "like a man" and "like a woman" references, and the entire idea of yin-and-yang as a representation for the two genders I think is divisive. Sure, it says the two sides are part of the whole, but it still says there are two sides; I don't think that's true even here, but on Gethen it definitely is not true.
I do like what Le Guin did with Gethen and its single gender, I think it is instructive, it's just a shame it was let down by the language. She may not have gotten it all right, but her own tentative explorations made a starting point, a discussion point for others. And that's a good thing.
|
Thanks for the reference to the Le Guin essay,
gmw. I hadn't come across it and it was interesting to read, especially in the light of our discussions.
And yes, we should appreciate the book for its trail-blazing qualities, rather than simply find fault with it because it was written 50 years ago, and would have been done differently now.