I’m trying to understand the overarching philosophy that Shevek starts to really develop in Chapter 2, starting with the reference to how you can never step into the same river twice. If I’m understanding Shevek’s argument, it’s that all individual things change, but the relationship between them remains (or can remain) constant. He might change, and the waters of the river certainly change, but the way he relates to the river does not. “Home is a place you’ve never been” means that home is the relationship between you and another person, place, or thing. I think there’s also something here connecting to his dream where his parents showed him the “primal number” that represents both unity and plurality. You need distinct individuals in order to form a relationship (or to make up a collective), and neither have meaning without the other.
At the end of Chapter 2, Shevek argues that “brotherhood is shared suffering,” and I think what he means by this is that true brotherhood is recognizing that when one individual suffers, all suffer, because all individuals are ultimately one. Shared suffering doesn’t mean hurting yourself in solidarity when you see someone else hurting. It means seeing that the inescapable, shared suffering of existence is proof of our ultimate unity or oneness, which is experienced as relationship.
So, if relationship between individuals itself is prime (as opposed to specific arrangements of individuals in hierarchical or anarchist societies), then it’s immoral to maintain a divide between Urras and Anarres, and to villainize other people as both worlds have done to one another. Shevek is motivated to seek universal connection, relationship, or brotherhood, because prioritizing the material wellbeing of only individuals (Anarres) or of the collective (Urras) neglects the fundamental primacy of connection and relationship at all levels of and across societies.
Kirsten, I reread your note three times to make sure I understand the full import of your argument; which, I believe, has fundamental and far-reaching implications. It is far too often that we get trapped in abstract philosophical or political debates about Capitalism, Communism, Anarchism, Liberalism, and so on and so forth that we end up losing sight of what is ultimately the most important---the quality of the relationship between individuals in a community; be it family, neighborhood, state, country, or the world. In that light, it'll be interesting to compare and contrast the quality of various types of relationships on Anarres and Urras.
Well said! So far I think Le Guin is doing a good job of showing how even a society that's founded on sharing and individual freedom sometimes has unique ways of inhibiting authentic, open relationships (e.g. social pressure and conformity can suppress authentic expression and connection as much as legal or economic pressure does). Maybe part of her point is that failures of human connection inevitably come down to human nature, and not a particular political system? I'm also curious to see how these themes develop as Shevek spends time on Urras.
"Initiative" as a concept (and its relationship with desire and necessity) is what is sticking out for me the most on this read. I can't count how many times I've read this book, but in previous readings the political formations of the two worlds (obviously) and the romance (somewhat less obviously) are what really stood out for me.
I initially thought of initiative as a kind of authentic desire, constrained by necessity, but as I read further I began to think of initiative as more of a natural function of a "healthy" human society and the individuals those societies produce — initiative as something more akin to the way a bee gathers honey and builds hives, albeit with a conceptual element.
I think initiative is a really important concept for our time. I think a lot of people are struggling and are unhappy, but the feeling that we have the power of initiative is lacking. Or that is at least how I feel, especially when imagining a post-growth society. How do we get there? How do we start? What can be done as an individual?
Can someone clarify the following questions for me?
First, does "The Dispossessed" have an official subtitle? My copy doesn't have one. Several people, including Jared in an earlier post, cited "An Ambiguous Utopia" as the subtitle. Is it an official subtitle intended by Le Quin herself, or is it only a tagline inserted by the publisher?
Second, does anyone know from other sources of information whether Le Quin actually equates "anarchist" with "utopian"? In other words, is the depiction of Anarres in the story intended by the author to be a description of an "utopian" society, ambiguous or otherwise, or is it simply intended to be a depiction of an alternative society?
Third, I know Le Quin also believes in Taoism. Has anyone detected any traces of Taoism in the story so far?
Clearly "The Dispossessed" raises a multitude of important philosophical and political questions; nevertheless, it is a novel. Therefore, I think we should discuss whether it succeeds as a work of literature as well as examine the philosophical issues it contains.
I will look into the subtitle question. But about the utopian connection: Le Guin says she set out to explore what an anarchist utopia would look like in the documentary made about her a few years before her death.
To answer your first question, Le Guin said the following in an interview:
I told the publisher to use that description as a subtitle. They were a little afraid of it, because “ambiguous” is a big word, for one thing. And Utopia does suggest to most of us—eeeuuuuuw—you know, dull stories. With morals. And so—one of the publishers used it, one didn’t. One of them used it in the blurb for the jacket, or something like that. And I think the English publisher printed it as a subtitle. I just sort of said, if you want to use this as a subtitle, do. Yes, I do think the book is an ambiguous Utopia—in all senses.
To your third question, I wondered if the conversation on suffering in chapter 2 was related to Taoism. I am more familiar with Buddhism than Taoism, but I felt there was some connection to Eastern philosophies and teachings on suffering.
I find it interesting that, even as he was taking Pae (maybe it was a diff character) to task for his honorific-laced language, he was asking to visit Odo’s grave and the fort where she was imprisoned. An indication that even at the level of where our attention is placed a hierarchy of a kind is attendant.
I didn't even think about this! That is a very good observation!!! But maybe it is more admiration than hierarchy? The same way that expertise and centralized systems can still exist in an anarchy without necessitating power.
Perhaps in Jared’s response this evinces a kind of hierarchy of power, which of course this kind of society would be particularly concerned with. But I think my observation was a bit more general and pointing towards a hierarchy of attention or even value. Something being more admirable than another would fall into that category as well. Thanks for your thoughtful response.
Father Andrew, I think you've brought up a question of fundamental importance. Does power, or hierarchy of power, only manifest itself in the political realm? Or is it also imbedded in other spheres of active and contemplative life (to borrow Hannah Arendt's terminology)? Many influential recent philosophers have made these questions unavoidable, as long as we want to understand the full complexity of modern society. Examples abound. Foucault has argued that all forms of discourse, including seemingly objective scientific or technical ones, are structured by power relations. I believe Foucault has fundamentally transformed the way we usually think about power by demonstrating that it is constitutive as well as repressive. Nietzsche famously argues that all values are driven by our will to power. Perhaps more relevant for our current reading is Harold Bloom's life-long investigation of the inescapability of influence, especially in the literary sphere, and the anxiety it inevitable engenders.
To generalize a bit, let me raise the following questions:
1. What is the difference between power and influence? Can we ever escape the power or influence of the tradition and culture into which we are born?
2. What is the definition of "power"? Are all hierarchies of power equally "evil"? Or is the real issue justice rather than power?
3. What does freedom mean in an "anarchist utopia"? Does it mean, for instance, the "freedom" to copulate with anyone, anywhere, at anytime we want? Or is "freedom" a capacity that distinguishes us humans from other living organisms? (Arendt is still very much on my mind.)
4. Is there room for a spiritual dimension in an "anarchist utopia"? What would this dimension consist of?
At the end of my reading of "The Dispossessed," the bottom-line question that I would ask myself is this: do I want to live in this "utopian" society?
Thanks Raymond. I think in addition to your comments, and in an attempt to further my own I would add:
- Given that hierarchy is unavoidable at the most basic level of our experience of consciousness itself, not all hierarchy need pertain to or be indicative of power.
- In fact, to see the concept of hierarchy primarily in such terms is reductive.
It seems to me that it is precisely this that those that would advocate for a utopia along the lines such as those discussed in the book are either unaware of or can’t give an account for (excuse the poor grammar :)
I think it leads to the kinds of discontinuities i pointed out in my original post - not because of some kind of moral failure but because they are simply unavoidable at the paradigmatic level.
I have been thinking about Anarchism for a while now. I realized that although I have known for a long time what it is, I have never actually educated myself on how people theorize what it would look like in practice. I always just assumed it was not practically possible.
As a philosophy student, interested in critical theory, anarchy has become very appealing to me. It seems to be a viable option for a post growth society. I am careful to not glorify it though and spend time on thinking and learning about what a real anarchist society would look like.
This is why this reading has come at the perfect time. I appreciate the balanced view of both Urras and Annares, focussing on the pro's and con's of both. I think, however, that the anarchist society will never be able to be fully analyzed in the context of annares, because of the shortage of raw materials. I am curious to see how she continues to highlight the faults of both planets and systems.
I also love the way she highlights the importance of language in the Odonian society. The effect of language on society is also a very interesting topic to me and I would love to learn more about it.
She seems to lean towards the debunked sapir whorf hypothesis, but it could just be an emphasis of degree not of kind. I think a weak version of the hypothesis holds.
I don't think she needs the strong version for anything in the book, except maybe in the more mystical speculation later, so I read her as favoring the weak version.
I don't know about Le Guin but when Pravic was created those Odonians either believed language would have a significant effect on the beliefs and perceptions of future generations of Anarresti or they modified and/or created the language for ceremonial (there's probably a better word) reasons. In either case, baby Shevek had already learned the word "mine" so the idea of possession isn't lost on them. It seems they just believe and teach that it's bad.
I've been focusing on Anarres and Shevek, but Chap 3 gives a good opening glimpse at Urras and Pae. Shevek is getting the full tour and VIP treatment, but tour and VIP treatment appear designed to keep him from conversing with the average Urassti Joe. Elsewhere it says he will teach at the university? How long can they expect to keep him separated from the larger society? And what are they hiding? Questions to keep in mind.
Pae's smile is beginning to look plastic to me. Kind of like a politician's, very practiced. He also betrays his prejudices. The more time you spend with someone, the harder it is to hide the true you. He and Shevek are complete opposites, I think. Each a product of his culture. Beliefs taught at a very early age tend to stay with you without inspection or reflection. Axioms of life. Until someone or some event forces you to examine them.
What a great suggestion for a book, thanks @jaredhenderson for the selection for the read along! Here is a quick list of some of the themes and Ideas I had during the first couple chapters thus far.
Chapter 1:
- The Wall Analogy
-Death/Rebirth/Reincarnation
-Mind/Body Problem
Chapter 2: (This one is a doozy!)
- First, we have the "baby turf war" (or so I have dubbed it with my wife when I was trying to tell her about the book so far, we have gotten many good laughs over this one!)
> The geometry of the shape of the Square being a boundary of sorts or a boarder
> I got big time Allegory of the Cave vibes with this one as well. "Mine Sun" making the shape the babies were working to dominate and own.
>This ties into his feelings on pg. 30 - "he had perfected it waiting for his turn, waiting to share, wait for a share"
-Then, we have several metaphors alluding to time, space, perception, visualization
> Rock and the Tree metaphor - Time & Space
>pg. 51: The River Flowing, changing, leading him home. - We will never be standing in the same "place" along those banks
>Perception of Time Signatures via Bars of music and the Orchestra resonating throughout the halls. This Rhythm puts his mind and ease after being intimidated by the size of his teacher and his authority. The "Patterns" in his mind.
IDEA: I feel like there was references to the "Magic Square". With "5" being at the center.
- 1/5 Bars of music
- Music Box?
- Clam Patterns??
We then have the Aggression, Fear, and Authority convo:
- The teacher toward over him and threw him out of the class because he was just info dumping on the class and rambling like all divergent folks have a tendency to do from time to time!
- Later in the chapter he gets his butt kicked for being a "profiteer" (aka. a know it all jerk? aka. profiting on the "pains" of another mans labor??)
-His "surly aggressive behavior" - Once again over possession (ie. Baby Turf wars!) of their names sounding very close and adding confusion and frustration to their days. Sensory overload.
Then there is the whole Mutal Sex thing... and use of Possessive (ehem... Baby Turf Wars!!) language & Gender inequality conversation just thrown in there! (Sheesh! - Powerful stuff!)
Pg 54) "Patching the holes in his thinking" Akin to breaking down "the wall" "geometrical designs"(aka. Squares... aka Baby turf wars) and " important boundaries" and Patterns of thought (Spacial recognition and growth)
Pg56) I loved the scene of Savek prognosticating with his college buddies!
-Spacial Representation of rhythm
-Numerical Harmonies
-Temporal Physics
(All the same casual stuff we talk about after a night partying, am I right?!)
And then, as if that was enough: "The Human Condition - Suffering & Isolation
- But then Shavek is posed the antithesis of this: "The reality of life is in love, in solidarity" - Shared pain and experience.
Shared pain. Where it beings, Isolation / Despair. Where does it end then?
"I don't know, I don't know yet" (WOW)
So, if this rant doesn't already make it obvious.... THIS CHAPTER BLEW MY MIND!!! Le Guinn is so master class already! I can't wait to see what comes!!
The beginning of this book felt a bit stark, I felt that if it were an opening scene to a movie there would be some eerie melodic music playing to the opening description of the wall. Le Guin portrays both sides of the wall very ambiguously and leads me to believe that the people of Urras are the more barbaric until we come to find later that it is indeed the opposite. This effect struck me as being a great way to engage me in a mystery off of the first page.
A few small parts that I enjoyed was Le Guin's use of third person in speech which totally slowed me down from time to time. Along with the concept that the people of Urras as well as Shevek and his friends lack the concept of prisons also stood out as something so unthinkable for our modern human experience. It was an effective way to point out the differences between our society and Urras.
Looking forward to pushing on to the next chapters.
The scene where Shevek and the other kids simulate imprisonment was an especially strange experience to read. I’m curious to see how Shevek’s interpretations of confinement and freedom change over time. Already we see some examples of that potential ambiguity, like how he is outraged at his locked cabin door in the freighter but then is unbothered by being told to quarantine in his university dorm for three days. I’m interested to see how this book explores the theme of cognitive dissonance when it comes to actual versus perceived freedom. All in all, I’m loving it so far and excited to read and discuss more!
While talking to the Engineer at the Space Works ( near the ruin of the prison where Odo was held) Shevek is told Urras and even Terra expects his completed physics to crack the faster than light travel puzzle. And I believe Shevek sees that he, like Odo, is to be taken prisoner by the propertiers for the sake of mere material advancement.
This might be a little off topic but I've either missed something or can't find a solid answer either way. Are we reading Pravic and Iotic or are they being "translated" to English for the reader? My assumption is that Iotic is basically, or *is* English while Pravic is English with some words/ideas removed. But does Le Guin make that clear anywhere? I'm wondering if there's a possibility that in Shevek's reality Iotic and Pravic are actually more different than we realize.
I think they are very different and they are both translated into english in the book. In the book she makes it clear that it costs week to learn how to read in iotic
In these first couple of chapters everything about Shevek screams melancholy to me. So strong I can imagine it seeping into the surroundings. I get the feeling he last smiled when he was a child, and I'm not sure he did then.
Something I need to keep in mind is the subtitle: An Ambiguous Utopia.
A prison camp or a reeducation camp?
The kids questioning what they're told was interesting. I felt some of them -- most? -- feared asking questions that questioned the status quo. Perhaps they are taught to think a certain way about certain things, which is why I suggested a reeducation camp above.
I'm thinking of the Puritans and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Not about anarchism, but about a group of people leaving home to create their own version of nirvana. It didn't work, in part, because their children didn't drink the Kool-Aid. I wonder what the Odonians do to keep their kids in line? Has no one yet asked to leave?
Yes, and, for many such communities, the loss of their charismatic leader was another devastating blow. Looks like Odo has been immortalized. Still, the kids question some of the sayings attributed to her.
I’m trying to understand the overarching philosophy that Shevek starts to really develop in Chapter 2, starting with the reference to how you can never step into the same river twice. If I’m understanding Shevek’s argument, it’s that all individual things change, but the relationship between them remains (or can remain) constant. He might change, and the waters of the river certainly change, but the way he relates to the river does not. “Home is a place you’ve never been” means that home is the relationship between you and another person, place, or thing. I think there’s also something here connecting to his dream where his parents showed him the “primal number” that represents both unity and plurality. You need distinct individuals in order to form a relationship (or to make up a collective), and neither have meaning without the other.
At the end of Chapter 2, Shevek argues that “brotherhood is shared suffering,” and I think what he means by this is that true brotherhood is recognizing that when one individual suffers, all suffer, because all individuals are ultimately one. Shared suffering doesn’t mean hurting yourself in solidarity when you see someone else hurting. It means seeing that the inescapable, shared suffering of existence is proof of our ultimate unity or oneness, which is experienced as relationship.
So, if relationship between individuals itself is prime (as opposed to specific arrangements of individuals in hierarchical or anarchist societies), then it’s immoral to maintain a divide between Urras and Anarres, and to villainize other people as both worlds have done to one another. Shevek is motivated to seek universal connection, relationship, or brotherhood, because prioritizing the material wellbeing of only individuals (Anarres) or of the collective (Urras) neglects the fundamental primacy of connection and relationship at all levels of and across societies.
Kirsten, I reread your note three times to make sure I understand the full import of your argument; which, I believe, has fundamental and far-reaching implications. It is far too often that we get trapped in abstract philosophical or political debates about Capitalism, Communism, Anarchism, Liberalism, and so on and so forth that we end up losing sight of what is ultimately the most important---the quality of the relationship between individuals in a community; be it family, neighborhood, state, country, or the world. In that light, it'll be interesting to compare and contrast the quality of various types of relationships on Anarres and Urras.
Well said! So far I think Le Guin is doing a good job of showing how even a society that's founded on sharing and individual freedom sometimes has unique ways of inhibiting authentic, open relationships (e.g. social pressure and conformity can suppress authentic expression and connection as much as legal or economic pressure does). Maybe part of her point is that failures of human connection inevitably come down to human nature, and not a particular political system? I'm also curious to see how these themes develop as Shevek spends time on Urras.
"Initiative" as a concept (and its relationship with desire and necessity) is what is sticking out for me the most on this read. I can't count how many times I've read this book, but in previous readings the political formations of the two worlds (obviously) and the romance (somewhat less obviously) are what really stood out for me.
I initially thought of initiative as a kind of authentic desire, constrained by necessity, but as I read further I began to think of initiative as more of a natural function of a "healthy" human society and the individuals those societies produce — initiative as something more akin to the way a bee gathers honey and builds hives, albeit with a conceptual element.
I think initiative is a really important concept for our time. I think a lot of people are struggling and are unhappy, but the feeling that we have the power of initiative is lacking. Or that is at least how I feel, especially when imagining a post-growth society. How do we get there? How do we start? What can be done as an individual?
Can someone clarify the following questions for me?
First, does "The Dispossessed" have an official subtitle? My copy doesn't have one. Several people, including Jared in an earlier post, cited "An Ambiguous Utopia" as the subtitle. Is it an official subtitle intended by Le Quin herself, or is it only a tagline inserted by the publisher?
Second, does anyone know from other sources of information whether Le Quin actually equates "anarchist" with "utopian"? In other words, is the depiction of Anarres in the story intended by the author to be a description of an "utopian" society, ambiguous or otherwise, or is it simply intended to be a depiction of an alternative society?
Third, I know Le Quin also believes in Taoism. Has anyone detected any traces of Taoism in the story so far?
Clearly "The Dispossessed" raises a multitude of important philosophical and political questions; nevertheless, it is a novel. Therefore, I think we should discuss whether it succeeds as a work of literature as well as examine the philosophical issues it contains.
I will look into the subtitle question. But about the utopian connection: Le Guin says she set out to explore what an anarchist utopia would look like in the documentary made about her a few years before her death.
To answer your first question, Le Guin said the following in an interview:
I told the publisher to use that description as a subtitle. They were a little afraid of it, because “ambiguous” is a big word, for one thing. And Utopia does suggest to most of us—eeeuuuuuw—you know, dull stories. With morals. And so—one of the publishers used it, one didn’t. One of them used it in the blurb for the jacket, or something like that. And I think the English publisher printed it as a subtitle. I just sort of said, if you want to use this as a subtitle, do. Yes, I do think the book is an ambiguous Utopia—in all senses.
Your reply is very helpful. Thanks.
To your third question, I wondered if the conversation on suffering in chapter 2 was related to Taoism. I am more familiar with Buddhism than Taoism, but I felt there was some connection to Eastern philosophies and teachings on suffering.
I find it interesting that, even as he was taking Pae (maybe it was a diff character) to task for his honorific-laced language, he was asking to visit Odo’s grave and the fort where she was imprisoned. An indication that even at the level of where our attention is placed a hierarchy of a kind is attendant.
This comes up, too, in the way that Odo’s ideas are treated as authoritative in Shevek’s discussions with his friends.
I didn't even think about this! That is a very good observation!!! But maybe it is more admiration than hierarchy? The same way that expertise and centralized systems can still exist in an anarchy without necessitating power.
Perhaps in Jared’s response this evinces a kind of hierarchy of power, which of course this kind of society would be particularly concerned with. But I think my observation was a bit more general and pointing towards a hierarchy of attention or even value. Something being more admirable than another would fall into that category as well. Thanks for your thoughtful response.
Father Andrew, I think you've brought up a question of fundamental importance. Does power, or hierarchy of power, only manifest itself in the political realm? Or is it also imbedded in other spheres of active and contemplative life (to borrow Hannah Arendt's terminology)? Many influential recent philosophers have made these questions unavoidable, as long as we want to understand the full complexity of modern society. Examples abound. Foucault has argued that all forms of discourse, including seemingly objective scientific or technical ones, are structured by power relations. I believe Foucault has fundamentally transformed the way we usually think about power by demonstrating that it is constitutive as well as repressive. Nietzsche famously argues that all values are driven by our will to power. Perhaps more relevant for our current reading is Harold Bloom's life-long investigation of the inescapability of influence, especially in the literary sphere, and the anxiety it inevitable engenders.
To generalize a bit, let me raise the following questions:
1. What is the difference between power and influence? Can we ever escape the power or influence of the tradition and culture into which we are born?
2. What is the definition of "power"? Are all hierarchies of power equally "evil"? Or is the real issue justice rather than power?
3. What does freedom mean in an "anarchist utopia"? Does it mean, for instance, the "freedom" to copulate with anyone, anywhere, at anytime we want? Or is "freedom" a capacity that distinguishes us humans from other living organisms? (Arendt is still very much on my mind.)
4. Is there room for a spiritual dimension in an "anarchist utopia"? What would this dimension consist of?
At the end of my reading of "The Dispossessed," the bottom-line question that I would ask myself is this: do I want to live in this "utopian" society?
Thanks Raymond. I think in addition to your comments, and in an attempt to further my own I would add:
- Given that hierarchy is unavoidable at the most basic level of our experience of consciousness itself, not all hierarchy need pertain to or be indicative of power.
- In fact, to see the concept of hierarchy primarily in such terms is reductive.
It seems to me that it is precisely this that those that would advocate for a utopia along the lines such as those discussed in the book are either unaware of or can’t give an account for (excuse the poor grammar :)
I think it leads to the kinds of discontinuities i pointed out in my original post - not because of some kind of moral failure but because they are simply unavoidable at the paradigmatic level.
I have been thinking about Anarchism for a while now. I realized that although I have known for a long time what it is, I have never actually educated myself on how people theorize what it would look like in practice. I always just assumed it was not practically possible.
As a philosophy student, interested in critical theory, anarchy has become very appealing to me. It seems to be a viable option for a post growth society. I am careful to not glorify it though and spend time on thinking and learning about what a real anarchist society would look like.
This is why this reading has come at the perfect time. I appreciate the balanced view of both Urras and Annares, focussing on the pro's and con's of both. I think, however, that the anarchist society will never be able to be fully analyzed in the context of annares, because of the shortage of raw materials. I am curious to see how she continues to highlight the faults of both planets and systems.
I also love the way she highlights the importance of language in the Odonian society. The effect of language on society is also a very interesting topic to me and I would love to learn more about it.
She seems to lean towards the debunked sapir whorf hypothesis, but it could just be an emphasis of degree not of kind. I think a weak version of the hypothesis holds.
The strong version is debunked, but a weaker version that says our language guides our experience of the world is true, in my view.
So, in your opinion, does she support a weak view in the book or the strong version?
I don't think she needs the strong version for anything in the book, except maybe in the more mystical speculation later, so I read her as favoring the weak version.
I don't know about Le Guin but when Pravic was created those Odonians either believed language would have a significant effect on the beliefs and perceptions of future generations of Anarresti or they modified and/or created the language for ceremonial (there's probably a better word) reasons. In either case, baby Shevek had already learned the word "mine" so the idea of possession isn't lost on them. It seems they just believe and teach that it's bad.
I've been focusing on Anarres and Shevek, but Chap 3 gives a good opening glimpse at Urras and Pae. Shevek is getting the full tour and VIP treatment, but tour and VIP treatment appear designed to keep him from conversing with the average Urassti Joe. Elsewhere it says he will teach at the university? How long can they expect to keep him separated from the larger society? And what are they hiding? Questions to keep in mind.
Pae's smile is beginning to look plastic to me. Kind of like a politician's, very practiced. He also betrays his prejudices. The more time you spend with someone, the harder it is to hide the true you. He and Shevek are complete opposites, I think. Each a product of his culture. Beliefs taught at a very early age tend to stay with you without inspection or reflection. Axioms of life. Until someone or some event forces you to examine them.
What a great suggestion for a book, thanks @jaredhenderson for the selection for the read along! Here is a quick list of some of the themes and Ideas I had during the first couple chapters thus far.
Chapter 1:
- The Wall Analogy
-Death/Rebirth/Reincarnation
-Mind/Body Problem
Chapter 2: (This one is a doozy!)
- First, we have the "baby turf war" (or so I have dubbed it with my wife when I was trying to tell her about the book so far, we have gotten many good laughs over this one!)
> The geometry of the shape of the Square being a boundary of sorts or a boarder
> I got big time Allegory of the Cave vibes with this one as well. "Mine Sun" making the shape the babies were working to dominate and own.
>This ties into his feelings on pg. 30 - "he had perfected it waiting for his turn, waiting to share, wait for a share"
-Then, we have several metaphors alluding to time, space, perception, visualization
> Rock and the Tree metaphor - Time & Space
>pg. 51: The River Flowing, changing, leading him home. - We will never be standing in the same "place" along those banks
>Perception of Time Signatures via Bars of music and the Orchestra resonating throughout the halls. This Rhythm puts his mind and ease after being intimidated by the size of his teacher and his authority. The "Patterns" in his mind.
IDEA: I feel like there was references to the "Magic Square". With "5" being at the center.
- 1/5 Bars of music
- Music Box?
- Clam Patterns??
We then have the Aggression, Fear, and Authority convo:
- The teacher toward over him and threw him out of the class because he was just info dumping on the class and rambling like all divergent folks have a tendency to do from time to time!
- Later in the chapter he gets his butt kicked for being a "profiteer" (aka. a know it all jerk? aka. profiting on the "pains" of another mans labor??)
-His "surly aggressive behavior" - Once again over possession (ie. Baby Turf wars!) of their names sounding very close and adding confusion and frustration to their days. Sensory overload.
Then there is the whole Mutal Sex thing... and use of Possessive (ehem... Baby Turf Wars!!) language & Gender inequality conversation just thrown in there! (Sheesh! - Powerful stuff!)
Pg 54) "Patching the holes in his thinking" Akin to breaking down "the wall" "geometrical designs"(aka. Squares... aka Baby turf wars) and " important boundaries" and Patterns of thought (Spacial recognition and growth)
Pg56) I loved the scene of Savek prognosticating with his college buddies!
-Spacial Representation of rhythm
-Numerical Harmonies
-Temporal Physics
(All the same casual stuff we talk about after a night partying, am I right?!)
And then, as if that was enough: "The Human Condition - Suffering & Isolation
- But then Shavek is posed the antithesis of this: "The reality of life is in love, in solidarity" - Shared pain and experience.
Shared pain. Where it beings, Isolation / Despair. Where does it end then?
"I don't know, I don't know yet" (WOW)
So, if this rant doesn't already make it obvious.... THIS CHAPTER BLEW MY MIND!!! Le Guinn is so master class already! I can't wait to see what comes!!
The beginning of this book felt a bit stark, I felt that if it were an opening scene to a movie there would be some eerie melodic music playing to the opening description of the wall. Le Guin portrays both sides of the wall very ambiguously and leads me to believe that the people of Urras are the more barbaric until we come to find later that it is indeed the opposite. This effect struck me as being a great way to engage me in a mystery off of the first page.
A few small parts that I enjoyed was Le Guin's use of third person in speech which totally slowed me down from time to time. Along with the concept that the people of Urras as well as Shevek and his friends lack the concept of prisons also stood out as something so unthinkable for our modern human experience. It was an effective way to point out the differences between our society and Urras.
Looking forward to pushing on to the next chapters.
The scene where Shevek and the other kids simulate imprisonment was an especially strange experience to read. I’m curious to see how Shevek’s interpretations of confinement and freedom change over time. Already we see some examples of that potential ambiguity, like how he is outraged at his locked cabin door in the freighter but then is unbothered by being told to quarantine in his university dorm for three days. I’m interested to see how this book explores the theme of cognitive dissonance when it comes to actual versus perceived freedom. All in all, I’m loving it so far and excited to read and discuss more!
While talking to the Engineer at the Space Works ( near the ruin of the prison where Odo was held) Shevek is told Urras and even Terra expects his completed physics to crack the faster than light travel puzzle. And I believe Shevek sees that he, like Odo, is to be taken prisoner by the propertiers for the sake of mere material advancement.
This might be a little off topic but I've either missed something or can't find a solid answer either way. Are we reading Pravic and Iotic or are they being "translated" to English for the reader? My assumption is that Iotic is basically, or *is* English while Pravic is English with some words/ideas removed. But does Le Guin make that clear anywhere? I'm wondering if there's a possibility that in Shevek's reality Iotic and Pravic are actually more different than we realize.
It’s basically that we’re reading a translation, but that Iotic closely mirrors our own linguistic assumptions. Pravic is more alien to English.
I think they are very different and they are both translated into english in the book. In the book she makes it clear that it costs week to learn how to read in iotic
In these first couple of chapters everything about Shevek screams melancholy to me. So strong I can imagine it seeping into the surroundings. I get the feeling he last smiled when he was a child, and I'm not sure he did then.
Something I need to keep in mind is the subtitle: An Ambiguous Utopia.
A prison camp or a reeducation camp?
The kids questioning what they're told was interesting. I felt some of them -- most? -- feared asking questions that questioned the status quo. Perhaps they are taught to think a certain way about certain things, which is why I suggested a reeducation camp above.
I'm thinking of the Puritans and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Not about anarchism, but about a group of people leaving home to create their own version of nirvana. It didn't work, in part, because their children didn't drink the Kool-Aid. I wonder what the Odonians do to keep their kids in line? Has no one yet asked to leave?
Many utopian communities that were attempted in the US struggled with the problem of what the second generation comes to believe
Does chapter 2 explore this problem with the sunlight scene？And perhaps demonstrate how they've attempted to solve it?
Yes, and, for many such communities, the loss of their charismatic leader was another devastating blow. Looks like Odo has been immortalized. Still, the kids question some of the sayings attributed to her.