You have made an excellent exposition to counter the false contemporary claim that SF has never addressed the issues of patriarchy and gender. Bravo, Steve!
Great video as ever. I remember bering absolutely blown away by both The Dispossessed and LHOD when I first read them (and they are certainly overdue for a re-read). A small note about the pronunciation of Le Guin, however (and I only bring this up because I know you’re particular about getting the details right). To quote Le Guin herself: "Le Guin is not a French name at all; it's Breton. It's pronounced, to the best of my knowledge, just like its Welsh cognate gwyn - white, blond, fair."
Very heady subject, OB, I'm a diehard Le Guin fan, because I feel she never prosteletized about feminism. It was just there, in the background in much of her work. She didn't feel the need, I suppose, to stuff it down people's throats. For some reason I put her in the same class as Du Maurier. BTW I just re-read your introduction in your "100 Must-Read Science Fiction Novels" book and I'm still struck by its density of ideas/perspective, and the breadth of your knowledge. So glad to see your comments below, you are steadfast in your opinions and not afraid to state them. As always, thanks for another gem, Stephen! Cheers.
Thanks Rick. Yes, she understood the power of understatement and balance, so her work will endure. Fundamentally, she saw people as people first, which is her strength, I feel. Glad you're enjoying the book. It's now 17 years old and my theoretical thinking has developed a lot since then, so I don't feel it's entirely representative of where I am now- I don't disagree with any of it- though there are some points about Fantasy that Nick, my co-author was insistent about (one paragraph in the introduction is his, the rest mine as signed). For a fuller version, ensure you watch my 'Elements of SF' playlist in sequence, as this outs an even more solid framework on how SF novels are structured, I feel. Great to hear from you as ever.
Terrific! It's my intention to read _The Hainish Cycle_ in the order which was recommended by le Guin. Which makes _The Left Hand of Darkness_ the fifth entry in the series. Now you tell me that it's worth taking a time-out to read _Hard To Be A God_ before continuing with _The Dispossessed_ (for which I offer sincere thanks). Perhaps I should read _Roadside Picnic_ Also, I just downloaded _Queen of the States_ Doubtless also at some point I shall read _The Female Man_ Work, work, work!
I think these writers and their books from the 60s and 70s are one of the high points in SF history. Still exploring their works. ‘The Left Hand of Darkness’ is a towering achievement. Perhaps achievement isn’t the right word. It is a cultural touchstone and a cracking good yarn. I absolutely love it.
Yes, I love novelists from the '70s: they have an economy and concision rarely seen today. They could blow your socks off in 250 pages or less. Now, 500 is the norm... I very much believe this is precisely because writers back then cut their teeth on short stories _way_ before they became novelists, thus that discipline of story and character focus was already instilled in them before they wrote novels.
Yes, these are examples of 'Modern Classics' that are just that- they've stood the test of time, were popular and acclaimed by all sorts of people before they became the kind of narratives that are now 'identity politics fashionable'. I talk to young customers where I work about 'Left Hand', discussing it in a transexual framework and they can't believe it's such an 'old' book, which shows how the idea that the current 'narrative' is new. 'The Left Hand of Darkness' succeeds not because of some trendy 'virtue signalling', but because it is a book that oozes humanity- it doesn't really matter what gender or race the characters are, what matters is that they are profoundly believable as people. Russ, while not forgotten, remains too challenging for most contemporary readers- and it's interesting how many men like her work. She'd have found a pleasing irony in this. Cheers Richard!
@@paulcampbell6003 I think you have a valid observation regarding writing short stories before becoming novelists. It is a discipline of focus. I want to think more about this.
In order, starting with my favourite, from the '60s/'70s it would have to be Alice B. Sheldon, Kate Wilhelm, Ursula K. Le Guin and Joanna Russ. As I mentioned recently in a comment on Richard's channel, I prefer Russ's short stories: for me her novels are fantastic - in parts - but don't cohere as novels. And Sheldon... well, _no one_ wrote like Sheldon! 🤗
Yeah, I do blow hot and cold about Sheldon- again, I prefer her stories to her novels and she faltered sometimes, but at her best she was incredible- "The Girl Who Was Plugged In" is so ahead of the curve.
my first exposure to Le Guin was a PBS (?) TV production of short story "The Lathe of Heaven". Loved it. I'm ashamed to say I've never read another work by her. Will have to get to LHOG at very least. Saw a documentary on her life which was very watchable.
Yes, I have that on DVD, it's pretty good. 'Lathe' is a good book, but in its tribute to PKD, reveals her inability to match his genius- or follow his madness, if you like. She did amazing work until the early 80s, I think. A very wise woman.
As usual informative .My first and fave LeGuin is The Lathe Of Heven . Need to reread Russ, i was too much or a young Young back then .Her The Zanzaibar Cat is my fave . Back when i first started reading i grabed any and every thing i could lay hands/ eyes on . I recently read Wyndhams Consider Her ways . Interesting . Thanks for the video . Bye
hey Sylvan, good to hear from you my friend. Yes, 'Consider..' is an interesting one in this frame, agreed. I first read it as a very young lad, loved it, as I do most of JW's work. He was popular with female readers of course, selling many stories to 'Women's magazines' and foregrounded women in 'Trouble With Lichen', which always makes me think of Muriel Spark. I think he made a great plea for tolerance in this one.
Another wonderful video. Thanks! Always curious why you don't seem to like Handmaid's Tale very much. Joanna Russ is tough to find around my parts but I'm always on the lookout.
I've read HT twice and find it very crude in conception, I find her prose undistinguished - a controversial view, I know- and the getout clause at the end is a little forced to say the least. You have to remember the context: Atwood became very successful in the mid 1980s in Britain, when the kind of writers listed in the 1983 Granta Best of Young British Novelists had a massive surge in popularity and contemporary literature became cool - the book by John Walsh about the British book industry in the 1980s is a good read on this. The 'new' Feminist writing of the time was fashionable, and as the truth is that few of the Feminist dystopias of the 1960s and 1970s were read by the newly literary chattering classes (who are always fixated on the now and not the then), they went ignored- hype became a massive thing in the 1980s in the book trade and many, many writers who would have faded by now have retained their 'Modern Classic' status as the world of marketing and comms is so much bigger than it was before the 1980s. I've read other things by her, don't get me wrong and sometimes found the messaging a bit bald. I'll also admit that I really dislike the manner in which she dissed SF but has been happy to use it.
@outlawbookselleroriginal Thanks for some more insight on why you feel that way about the work. I have always found her comments about SF, and the various interpretations surrounding them as they have morphed over the years, to be fascinating. I don't feel too strongly in either direction with that topic, but I do know there are those who do - in either direction! I am admittedly a little biased as a Canadian who has enjoyed several of her books (including HM and the Oryx and Crake series)
Re: *Atwood.* As I commented on Richard's channel... I have been reading her for 30 years and, yeah, _The Handmaid's Tale_ is 'worthy' but - honestly - it's not even in my Top Ten Atwoods. My top three are the novels _Cat's Eye_ (1988), _The Robber Bride_ (1993) and the short story collection _Wilderness Tips_ (1991). ... The sad thing is, in 50 years time _Tale_ will be the only one of her novels in print and that's a shame, because it is atypical of her work. Atwood is funny, full of zest and energy... none of which is in _Tale,_ deliberately so. It's a dry book. It has none of that lust for life in her other work. And, again, for that reason it's depressing that of all her work _Tale_ is the only one that will be in print after she's gone...
I agree. This relates to what I've said in another post here is that something people don't think about re the 'fame' of books is that you have to account for the sheer amount- and number of venues/avenues/media- for books to be hyped and marketed in and talked up in in the last forty years to the previous 400 years. There are so many books that will endure now because they are canonised too readily and even academia bows to popular pressure: if you look at Cambridge University's website on the page that speaks of 'Classic' literature, for SF it identifies nothing that the I-read-bestsellers-only-SF-reader would not know (for example, 'Dune' is on the list- a popular book, but also a stylistically dreadful one). When you look at what is being taught for English A Level now- novels by Ian McEwan and the like, when Chaucer is absent- you can see how popularity of certain books will easily last. It's sad, really.
I get why you call out The Handmaid’s Tale for sucking up all the oxygen in the public discourse on feminism in SF, but do you think it’s actually a mediocre work?
I do, if I'm honest. I find its concepts crude and workmanlike and I don't like her prose; I've read other stuff by her as well and never took to her- she sometimes underlines her messages too hard, I find. Sorry.
UKL did it first and did it best. Suis generis. In my humble opinion. Compared to her, most of today's feminists are just re-treading the same cowpaths, acting as if they're pioneers. I don't even think of her as a feminist writer, just a great writer. Period. Too bad her no-talent son has taken it upon himself to shit all over her work.
You have made an excellent exposition to counter the false contemporary claim that SF has never addressed the issues of patriarchy and gender. Bravo, Steve!
Great video as ever. I remember bering absolutely blown away by both The Dispossessed and LHOD when I first read them (and they are certainly overdue for a re-read). A small note about the pronunciation of Le Guin, however (and I only bring this up because I know you’re particular about getting the details right). To quote Le Guin herself: "Le Guin is not a French name at all; it's Breton. It's pronounced, to the best of my knowledge, just like its Welsh cognate gwyn - white, blond, fair."
I refer to this in an upcoming video.
Sci fi books have the b st covers and titles, I’d love to get a poster with old sci fi covers
Very heady subject, OB, I'm a diehard Le Guin fan, because I feel she never prosteletized about feminism. It was just there, in the background in much of her work. She didn't feel the need, I suppose, to stuff it down people's throats. For some reason I put her in the same class as Du Maurier. BTW I just re-read your introduction in your "100 Must-Read Science Fiction Novels" book and I'm still struck by its density of ideas/perspective, and the breadth of your knowledge. So glad to see your comments below, you are steadfast in your opinions and not afraid to state them. As always, thanks for another gem, Stephen! Cheers.
Thanks Rick. Yes, she understood the power of understatement and balance, so her work will endure. Fundamentally, she saw people as people first, which is her strength, I feel. Glad you're enjoying the book. It's now 17 years old and my theoretical thinking has developed a lot since then, so I don't feel it's entirely representative of where I am now- I don't disagree with any of it- though there are some points about Fantasy that Nick, my co-author was insistent about (one paragraph in the introduction is his, the rest mine as signed). For a fuller version, ensure you watch my 'Elements of SF' playlist in sequence, as this outs an even more solid framework on how SF novels are structured, I feel. Great to hear from you as ever.
Bravo Steve, top notch overview. I have a few of the Women's Press books, i think they look rather smart. 👍
Yes, they are classy volumes!
Terrific!
It's my intention to read _The Hainish Cycle_ in the order which was recommended by le Guin. Which makes _The Left Hand of Darkness_ the fifth entry in the series. Now you tell me that it's worth taking a time-out to read _Hard To Be A God_ before continuing with _The Dispossessed_ (for which I offer sincere thanks). Perhaps I should read _Roadside Picnic_
Also, I just downloaded _Queen of the States_
Doubtless also at some point I shall read _The Female Man_
Work, work, work!
Yeah, she set out a chronology later. As you say- work, work work!
I think these writers and their books from the 60s and 70s are one of the high points in SF history. Still exploring their works. ‘The Left Hand of Darkness’ is a towering achievement. Perhaps achievement isn’t the right word. It is a cultural touchstone and a cracking good yarn. I absolutely love it.
Oh, almost forgot to mention, I really enjoy this series. Great to see the playlist growing!
Yes, I love novelists from the '70s: they have an economy and concision rarely seen today. They could blow your socks off in 250 pages or less. Now, 500 is the norm... I very much believe this is precisely because writers back then cut their teeth on short stories _way_ before they became novelists, thus that discipline of story and character focus was already instilled in them before they wrote novels.
Yes, these are examples of 'Modern Classics' that are just that- they've stood the test of time, were popular and acclaimed by all sorts of people before they became the kind of narratives that are now 'identity politics fashionable'. I talk to young customers where I work about 'Left Hand', discussing it in a transexual framework and they can't believe it's such an 'old' book, which shows how the idea that the current 'narrative' is new. 'The Left Hand of Darkness' succeeds not because of some trendy 'virtue signalling', but because it is a book that oozes humanity- it doesn't really matter what gender or race the characters are, what matters is that they are profoundly believable as people.
Russ, while not forgotten, remains too challenging for most contemporary readers- and it's interesting how many men like her work. She'd have found a pleasing irony in this.
Cheers Richard!
@@paulcampbell6003 I think you have a valid observation regarding writing short stories before becoming novelists. It is a discipline of focus. I want to think more about this.
In order, starting with my favourite, from the '60s/'70s it would have to be Alice B. Sheldon, Kate Wilhelm, Ursula K. Le Guin and Joanna Russ. As I mentioned recently in a comment on Richard's channel, I prefer Russ's short stories: for me her novels are fantastic - in parts - but don't cohere as novels. And Sheldon... well, _no one_ wrote like Sheldon! 🤗
Yeah, I do blow hot and cold about Sheldon- again, I prefer her stories to her novels and she faltered sometimes, but at her best she was incredible- "The Girl Who Was Plugged In" is so ahead of the curve.
my first exposure to Le Guin was a PBS (?) TV production of short story "The Lathe of Heaven". Loved it. I'm ashamed to say I've never read another work by her. Will have to get to LHOG at very least. Saw a documentary on her life which was very watchable.
Yes, I have that on DVD, it's pretty good. 'Lathe' is a good book, but in its tribute to PKD, reveals her inability to match his genius- or follow his madness, if you like. She did amazing work until the early 80s, I think. A very wise woman.
As usual informative .My first and fave LeGuin is The Lathe Of Heven . Need to reread Russ, i was too much or a young Young back then .Her The Zanzaibar Cat is my fave . Back when i first started reading i grabed any and every thing i could lay hands/ eyes on . I recently read Wyndhams Consider Her ways . Interesting . Thanks for the video . Bye
hey Sylvan, good to hear from you my friend. Yes, 'Consider..' is an interesting one in this frame, agreed. I first read it as a very young lad, loved it, as I do most of JW's work. He was popular with female readers of course, selling many stories to 'Women's magazines' and foregrounded women in 'Trouble With Lichen', which always makes me think of Muriel Spark. I think he made a great plea for tolerance in this one.
Another wonderful video. Thanks! Always curious why you don't seem to like Handmaid's Tale very much. Joanna Russ is tough to find around my parts but I'm always on the lookout.
I've read HT twice and find it very crude in conception, I find her prose undistinguished - a controversial view, I know- and the getout clause at the end is a little forced to say the least. You have to remember the context: Atwood became very successful in the mid 1980s in Britain, when the kind of writers listed in the 1983 Granta Best of Young British Novelists had a massive surge in popularity and contemporary literature became cool - the book by John Walsh about the British book industry in the 1980s is a good read on this. The 'new' Feminist writing of the time was fashionable, and as the truth is that few of the Feminist dystopias of the 1960s and 1970s were read by the newly literary chattering classes (who are always fixated on the now and not the then), they went ignored- hype became a massive thing in the 1980s in the book trade and many, many writers who would have faded by now have retained their 'Modern Classic' status as the world of marketing and comms is so much bigger than it was before the 1980s. I've read other things by her, don't get me wrong and sometimes found the messaging a bit bald. I'll also admit that I really dislike the manner in which she dissed SF but has been happy to use it.
@outlawbookselleroriginal Thanks for some more insight on why you feel that way about the work. I have always found her comments about SF, and the various interpretations surrounding them as they have morphed over the years, to be fascinating. I don't feel too strongly in either direction with that topic, but I do know there are those who do - in either direction! I am admittedly a little biased as a Canadian who has enjoyed several of her books (including HM and the Oryx and Crake series)
More succinct space\time capsule analysis. Great.
Re: *Atwood.* As I commented on Richard's channel...
I have been reading her for 30 years and, yeah, _The Handmaid's Tale_ is 'worthy' but - honestly - it's not even in my Top Ten Atwoods. My top three are the novels _Cat's Eye_ (1988), _The Robber Bride_ (1993) and the short story collection _Wilderness Tips_ (1991).
... The sad thing is, in 50 years time _Tale_ will be the only one of her novels in print and that's a shame, because it is atypical of her work. Atwood is funny, full of zest and energy... none of which is in _Tale,_ deliberately so. It's a dry book. It has none of that lust for life in her other work. And, again, for that reason it's depressing that of all her work _Tale_ is the only one that will be in print after she's gone...
I agree. This relates to what I've said in another post here is that something people don't think about re the 'fame' of books is that you have to account for the sheer amount- and number of venues/avenues/media- for books to be hyped and marketed in and talked up in in the last forty years to the previous 400 years. There are so many books that will endure now because they are canonised too readily and even academia bows to popular pressure: if you look at Cambridge University's website on the page that speaks of 'Classic' literature, for SF it identifies nothing that the I-read-bestsellers-only-SF-reader would not know (for example, 'Dune' is on the list- a popular book, but also a stylistically dreadful one). When you look at what is being taught for English A Level now- novels by Ian McEwan and the like, when Chaucer is absent- you can see how popularity of certain books will easily last. It's sad, really.
I get why you call out The Handmaid’s Tale for sucking up all the oxygen in the public discourse on feminism in SF, but do you think it’s actually a mediocre work?
I do, if I'm honest. I find its concepts crude and workmanlike and I don't like her prose; I've read other stuff by her as well and never took to her- she sometimes underlines her messages too hard, I find. Sorry.
UKL did it first and did it best. Suis generis. In my humble opinion. Compared to her, most of today's feminists are just re-treading the same cowpaths, acting as if they're pioneers. I don't even think of her as a feminist writer, just a great writer. Period. Too bad her no-talent son has taken it upon himself to shit all over her work.
Agreed.