Le Guin at National Book Awards

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

As the recent catfight proved, publishers take weeks to fulfill an order and if a store runs out of stock on a book they will likely lose the sale.

The is only proved to Amazon fans. Here is a reminder of that the gyrations in Amazon's ship dates, during the Hachette battle, were too large and frequent to be explained by delivery experience:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...&postcount=411

Such orders would normally go to distribution firms (Ingram, Baker & Taylor). So it wouldn't be surprising if Hachette had a slight difficulty fulfilling big orders sent to the wrong place, that place presumably being Hachette's digs on 6th Avenue (or did Amazon send to Paris?). But "not surprising" is miles from proven. And there's no evidence that Hachette did have a problem taking on the wholesaler role, if that's what Amazon asked of them.

AFAIK, Amazon spokespersons didn't claim its ship dates were based on examination of how long it took for an ordered book to arrive at the Amazon warehouse. I think your post is an example of what we used to call being more Catholic than the Pope, or, in this case, the Bezos family.

[Greg Anos]

Ah yes....Le Guin.

Old and cranky because she doesn't sell like she used to. Nevermind that she doesn't write like she used to...

Each generation of SF/F has its theme, and a couple of writers that feelingly expressed that theme.

So was it with Le Guin.

The problem is that the world changes and the theme get stale. As a writer you have to look beyond the generational theme that made you successful. It doesn't matter whether you are talking about the Space Opera (E.E.Smith), The Campbell explosion of the 1940s (Asimov and Heinlein), the juveniles of the 1950s (Heinlein Mark II, Nourse, and others), the "new wave" of the 1960s (Moorcock, Eliison, et. al.), The feminism and modern liberalism of the (mid) 60s throught 70s, or the cyberpunk wave of the 1980s....

Read them all. The writers that succeeded over long time are the ones who changed their themes with the times.

As far as Le Guin and awards, her writing makes a group of literati hearts go pitta pat. Those literati give out lots of awards to their favorites <shrug>. There have been far better writers that her in the SSF/F world. Book for book, story for story, I'd stack Theodore Sturgeon's work superior to hers. But then again, he beat Graham Greene head to head in a British Short Story contest. (Bianca's Hands). I'd stack Thunder and Roses, A Saucer Full of Loneliness, and The Man Who Lost The Sea, against and and all comers, from any genre (or none), in any language. And for those who think the The Left Hand of Darkness, was such a groundbreaking work, I would suggest they read Venus Plus X <published 10 years before> The Left Hand of Darkness.

But I'm a mean Ol' reactionary. Break out your pitchforks....

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I am really disappointed in that list and the "almost" lists. There are at least two or three other female writers that should have made some of those lists. Perhaps the person making the list just hadn't read enough female writers.

Oh, there are dozens of lists out there.
Each different, based on different criteria; none is gospel.

My point about LeGuin isn't that she isn't good but rather that she is far from the top, no matter the criteria. She has her fans but so does pretty much any author who writes a good story or two. Doesn't put her on a pedestal and above criticism when she says something thoroughly... misguided, to be kind (or cluelessly stupid, to be less than polite).

Frankly, she is too much a creature of her milieu--the 60's--and she is unlikely to touch future generations as deeply as her own. Too much of her stories are based on advocacy of causes that won't need advocacy and will seem more like curiosities to most readers.

She had her heydey and she'll have at least a footnote in the history books. But enduring greatness? Nope. Don't see it.

I do agree that the lists (and LeGuin's fans) seem to undervalued a lot of female SF&F authors with better chances at enduring fame. Cherryh, Wilhelm, Triptree, Joan Vinge and Butler all come to mind fairly easily.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

I know. I'm dreading the moment when someone calls her a "special snowflake." It can't be long now.-)

She is what she is. She might not be high up on the most important writers of all time, but she's sold a lot of books in her career, and won more than her fair share of critical acclaim. If you don't like her writing, or don't like her, or whatever, don't read her books. I don't, as they just aren't to my taste. I like my escapism to be as empty and mindless as possible, and that's not what Le Guin writes, so there it is.

But none of that diminishes her very successful career, or reduces the number of loyal fans. And this story is just nothing new from her - she's been saying the same things for years. If it puts you off on her writing, well, odds are you've never been a fan anyway, because her political views are very present in her writing. So nothing lost there, and it's hard to imagine she'll lose any sleep over it.

Neither should any of us.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

The problem is that the world changes and the theme get stale. As a writer you have to look beyond the generational theme that made you successful. It doesn't matter whether you are talking about the Space Opera (E.E.Smith), The Campbell explosion of the 1940s (Asimov and Heinlein), the juveniles of the 1950s (Heinlein Mark II, Nourse, and others), the "new wave" of the 1960s (Moorcock, Eliison, et. al.), The feminism and modern liberalism of the (mid) 60s throught 70s, or the cyberpunk wave of the 1980s....


Read them all. The writers that succeeded over long time are the ones who changed their themes with the times.

Or worked their themes in ways that transcend the times and touch other eras.

It takes a bit of effort to work your way through a century of the genre's evolution to be able to put authors and stories in a broader context. I've been at it for pretty much my entire life. (Give or take five years.) Not ready to judge the 21st century writers but the 20th century crew I feel confident I understand where they fit.

Sturgeon I agree has legs and likely will be treated kindly by history, not just for his place in history but because of the timelessness of his stories. Poul Anderson and Gordon Dickson are two others I think are woefully underated. But then, it took a couple centuries for Jane Austen to become Jane Austen. By contrast, many of her lionized contemporaries are barely remembered.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by taustin

She is what she is. She might not be high up on the most important writers of all time, but she's sold a lot of books in her career, and won more than her fair share of critical acclaim. If you don't like her writing, or don't like her, or whatever, don't read her books. I don't, as they just aren't to my taste. I like my escapism to be as empty and mindless as possible, and that's not what Le Guin writes, so there it is.

But none of that diminishes her very successful career, or reduces the number of loyal fans. And this story is just nothing new from her - she's been saying the same things for years. If it puts you off on her writing, well, odds are you've never been a fan anyway, because her political views are very present in her writing. So nothing lost there, and it's hard to imagine she'll lose any sleep over it.

Neither should any of us.

As with most lists, I guess I'd like to see some of the "pure entertainment" valued and listed more often (whether from male or female writers). So I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by lists or who wins the awards.

[khalleron]

Oh, wow, you found a LIST! that deflates her value! You must be right then!

Sorry for the sarcasm, but you can find just about anything to justify any view on the internet.

You've read her, you don't like her, fine. My earlier post was aimed at the folks who were disparaging her without having read her. I don't care who the author is, doing that is pure s**t.

Why people want to jump into discussions of books they haven't read and movies they haven't seen puzzles me mightily. You don't HAVE to express an opinion about everything - often it's best not to.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by khalleron

Oh, wow, you found a LIST! that deflates her value! You must be right then!

Sorry for the sarcasm, but you can find just about anything to justify any view on the internet.

I could theoretically say the same about your statements in support of her authorship skills...

The list agrees with my personal experiences. FWIW. And it isn't difficult to deflate anyone's value from the pinnacle tompe set, which is apparently a categorical "best ever, and no one can or will match her, no matter what anyone else may think".

You've read her, you don't like her, fine. My earlier post was aimed at the folks who were disparaging her without having read her. I don't care who the author is, doing that is pure s**t.

Why people want to jump into discussions of books they haven't read and movies they haven't seen puzzles me mightily. You don't HAVE to express an opinion about everything - often it's best not to.

Does it count as reading her if I couldn't finish it?

Who here has said "I didn't read her books, and I am making fun of them anyway"?

(Not that I even think they are bad anyway -- just that they aren't to my taste, and apparently a lot of other peoples' as well, in my circles. As I said, tastes change -- and all that means is, clearly she isn't indispensable.)

[murg]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

It doesn't matter whether you are talking about the Space Opera (E.E.Smith), The Campbell explosion of the 1940s (Asimov and Heinlein), the juveniles of the 1950s (Heinlein Mark II, Nourse, and others), the "new wave" of the 1960s (Moorcock, Eliison, et. al.), The feminism and modern liberalism of the (mid) 60s throught 70s, or the cyberpunk wave of the 1980s.....

I would have written that as:

It doesn't matter whether you are talking about the Space Opera (E.E.Smith), The Campbell explosion of the 1940s (Asimov and Heinlein), the juveniles of the 1950s (Heinlein Mark II, Nourse, and others), the "new wave" of the 1960s (Heinlein Mark III, Moorcock, Eliison, et. al.), The feminism and modern liberalism of the (mid) 60s throught 70s, or the cyberpunk wave of the 1980s.....[/

[tompe]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Here:

http://www.mania.com/top-15-greatest...le_112611.html

I think they were generous ranking her at 12 but even there it is clear she is hardly the most famous SF writer. Not even terribly important in the larger context of the history of the genre. Well behind Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke. And Doc Smith, Fritz Leiber, Ray Bradbury, Catherine Moore, Leigh Brackett, Andre Norton, Octavia Butler, and other pioneers.

Here:
http://www.mania.com/top-20-greatest...le_114266.html

The fantasy list speaks for itself.

I am very much aware that many litfic aficionados consider LeGuin one of their own rather than an SF or Fantasy writer.

Given recent developments I'd let them have her.

Yes, and among them I would say that LeGuin is most well known among mainstream readers.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tompe

Yes, and among them I would say that LeGuin is most well known among mainstream readers.

If you define mainstream as litfic fans I would agree.
(Although Lessing had a strong base in those circles.)

But among the unwashed masses Martin, King, Rowling, and Gaiman are much better known. They are today's bestsellers.

Reknown is a function of sales, after all.
Which is what she is decrying, really, when you get down to it.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

If you define mainstream as litfic fans I would agree.
(Although Lessing had a strong base in those circles.)

But among the unwashed masses Martin, King, Rowling, and Gaiman are much better known. They are today's bestsellers.

And what I said was that among the authors that also write outside of the genre she is very well known. Rowling writes in two genres so not outside genre. King seems to me to be a genre in himself. Similar for Gaiman and I do not remember him writing something outside of the fantastic. I have only read fantasy and sf from Martin.

[fjtorres]

The kindest analysis I've seen of her position is from Sarah Hoyt:
http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/11...rth-to-snakes/

Since then, I’ve seen other people go that way. It is a combination, I think, of aging and losing touch with the world, and of being too respected for people to actually have a word with, quietly.

I read and enjoyed the Earth Sea Trilogy. (Fourth book? What fourth book? Let’s be charitable, okay?) and The Left Hand of Darkness was a beautiful if flawed work. I can’t say I’ve liked a lot more that Le Guin has done, but then most science fiction writers didn’t even write four books that I enjoyed.

So what is one to make of such statements as:

Ursula K. Le Guin gave a scorching speech at the National Book Awards on Wednesday, calling out Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and saying of capitalism “its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings.”

Surely a woman praised for her learning knows the difference between a social construct like the divine right of kings and “capitalism” which is simply a name for the barter and trade humans do to survive and which, btw, is not unfettered ANYWHERE in the universe, being hemmed in by governments and regulations everywhere.

And why on Earth she’s calling out Bezos is beyond me. For allowing writers, at long last to make a buck? Who knows?

And what about this:

“We need writers who know the difference between production of a market commodity and production of art,” Le Guin said.

We do, of course. For instance “art” is a subjective term which applies or should apply only to works that enduringly touch the emotions of humanity across the times and changes in society. Shakespeare still touches us, for instance. That’s art.

OTOH, thinking that any government, any entity, any academic can define art is to labor under the same sort of illusion as people who believe tabloids announcing women giving birth to snakes.

Art is proven in enduring. And most art – Shakespeare, Austen – was pretty commercially successful, as well. Art is what you aim for, and hopefully it happens. But there’s no guarantees. Competent and selling is the best you can be sure of.

One could make a comment about her being out of touch and believing too much of what she’s told, but we’re not the side that derides our elders for being old. People as old and older than her have embraced the digital revolution without fear and understand that while capitalism is an awful system, it’s better than any attempts at controlling it.

Instead I choose to believe this is the equivalent of her having cabinets full of baby clothes. I’m sure she still has contributions to make in areas where she doesn’t have blind spots.

Times change, the world moves on, often beyond people's comfort zones.
It can get dangerous for those that refuse to accept those changes.
(In this case, the danger is to her reputation.)

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by murg

I would have written that as:

It doesn't matter whether you are talking about the Space Opera (E.E.Smith), The Campbell explosion of the 1940s (Asimov and Heinlein), the juveniles of the 1950s (Heinlein Mark II, Nourse, and others), the "new wave" of the 1960s (Heinlein Mark III, Moorcock, Eliison, et. al.), The feminism and modern liberalism of the (mid) 60s throught 70s, or the cyberpunk wave of the 1980s.....[/

I've never claimed to be able to spell or write elegantly. (There are plenty of examples on this board...)

Plus I left out Heinlein Mark III deliberately. I didn't consider him part of the "New Wave" group of writers. (That's not a sneer, just a description. Compare, say Moorcock's A Cure For Cancer with anything Heinlein wrote pre-1979. Not the same grouping...)

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I've never claimed to be able to spell or write elegantly. (There are plenty of examples on this board...)

Plus I left out Heinlein Mark III deliberately. I didn't consider him part of the "New Wave" group of writers. (That's not a sneer, just a description. Compare, say Moorcock's A Cure For Cancer with anything Heinlein wrote pre-1979. Not the same grouping...)

A fair decision.
He took advantage of the looser editorial climate but he went in a very different direction than the New Wave authors. Different concerns and interests from them. For him the new rules were more a license to tackle taboo subjects such as religion and race with a contrarian approach more than a rebellion against the status quo. He had no interest in going into Ellison/Moorcock territory, he was just happy to lose the old handcuffs. Of course, the lack of fetters led eventually to NUMBER OF THE BEAST but you gotta take the bad with the good. (GLORY ROAD, for one.)