
Ursula K. Le Guin, “the emissary from Orsinia,” challenges expectations - lermontov
https://www.loa.org/news-and-views/1180-ursula-k-le-guin-the-emissary-from-orsinia-crosses-borders-and-challenges-expectations
======
bmer
For someone who was/is excited by reading the Orsinia tales: can you share
_why_ , besides just telling me repeatedly that you were excited by it?

I am someone who has been often disappointed by vaunted authors of the past
(Vonnegut, Clarke, etc.), because their work suffers from the "it's not novel
(anymore)" feeling one often has when watching old movies. I get that these
were ground breaking when they first came out, but they don't seem to shine
anymore, because _I_ was first exposed to works that have iterated upon
them...no nostalgia factor to sweeten the deal for me.

Put another way: I totally get that muskets were ground-breaking for the time,
but gosh-darnit, I have seen nuclear submarines.

When reading the linked article, I felt a lot of the same: a lot of the
"amazing" things I have come across in other novels, and they feel like par
for the course for a good book.

Also the whole spiel about Ursula wanting to change the world, and needing a
lever and a place to stand...well, she _didn 't_ change the world, in
hindsight. Did she?

\------------------

A really bothersome quote from the article: "By speaking from Orsinia, as its
only authorized emissary, Le Guin reminds us of everything we take for granted
and everything we have neglected."

What the heck does that sentence mean? I can't imagine everything I have taken
for granted and neglected as a single meaningful thought or concept. In fact,
if I tried to imagine everything I have taken for granted and neglected, it
becomes a thought stretched so thin, that it loses all meaning. It becomes
nothing because its too many things.

So am I fair in discounting this sentence (and most of the article) as fan
gibberish?

~~~
billjings
My experience with old works is that, while they may at first appear to suffer
from the "it's not novel (anymore)" feeling, over time I find that the real
issue is that they are far more different from contemporary literature than
any contemporary literature. They're _too_ novel.

We can go all the way back and talk about Homer as the best example. The way
that _The Iliad_ tells a story, conveys the experience of war, illustrates a
character, even the way the language works as you read is completely different
from a modern novel. It takes work to adapt to it.

I would say that, in general, that's the joy I find in all older literature,
whether it's Joyce, or Dickens, or Philip K. Dick, or Jack Vance: in finding
out how it wants to talk to you, and letting yourself fall into some strange
mode of communication.

In my mind, every author brings something uniquely their own to the table, and
the older you get, the more strange and unfamiliar that thing is.

Anyway — YMMV, of course, and you may be more right than I am. But your take
on this made me think a bit, and I thought I'd talk about it.

~~~
daxfohl
Aside: I've read the first 100-200 pages of Ulysses seemingly once every year
for the last fifteen years trying to "get it" and always end up giving up.
(Same for Proust and Pynchon). If you can provide any guidance about what
Joyce communicates to you, please do.

(Gabriel Garcia Marquez was also in that group for a number of years/readings,
but I finally got over the hump and _love_ that style now. To the point that
he may be my favorite author. I think Günter Grass was my stepping stone
there.)

~~~
soufron
These books are not easy to read. They ask some work on the part of the
reader. It's not entertainment. They bring much more than their story to the
table, but they're way harder to read than non-fiction.

What you need is time. Lots of time. I've read the complete in search of lost
time novels when I was around 15. I found it easy to read because I had
nothing else to do. And I am plenty sure it changed a lot of things for me.

I've been reading the Magic Mountain and Ulysses for 10 years, unable to
finish them yet, but I don't feel it's a problem. Just as you, if I try again
time after time, it's probably because I know it's worth it somewhere.

Incidentally, it's not limited to old books. I had the same trouble with
Quicksilver from Neal Stephenson until something cracked and I was able to
read the whole baroque cycle in less than 3 months.

------
Animats
"The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" is perhaps her most biting short story.
It's not one of the Orsinian tales, although it could have been set in that
world.

Anyone who writes fantasy should read her essays in "The Language of the
Night". (Also Poul Anderson's "On Thud and Blunder".)

~~~
thom
While Omelas deserves to stand the test of time, it is also an excruciatingly
bad piece of writing. Every few years when I revisit the story, I'm stunned by
how clumsy the narrative device is.

~~~
lsiebert
Is it? I don't know what other device she could use that would draw people in
as easily. Remember that before it became the story we talk about, it had to
be the story we read. And it's not a story you want to read. If you told it
with characters more clearly drawn, it would be about their reaction to the
central premise. If you told it less poetically, it wouldn't have the mythic
magical realism that keeps you from thinking about the logic, instead of the
question.

------
jcoffland
One of my favorite authors. _The Dispossessed_ is also a fantastic read which
goes far beyond the simple classification of SiFi.

~~~
cjslep
I still need to read that one. _The Left Hand of Darkness_ has been my
favorite so far.

~~~
tjl
I love The Left Hand of Darkness. That said, I'm not really a big fan of her
Earthsea books.

~~~
dllthomas
I very much enjoyed Earthsea, but they are astoundingly different from the
Hainish stuff.

