For me, the important things about Le Guin were her focus on the many possible ways of being human; her clear, effortless style; and the interiority of her stories.
You?
Originally shared by Standout Books
Great authors find, and inspire, a kind of sympathy for their protagonists.
Find out more with ‘3 Ways Ursula K. Le Guin Can Help You Improve Your Writing’.
For me it’s her characters and their struggles with morality and misperceptions of their universes.
For me it’s her characters and their struggles with morality and misperceptions of their universes.
For me it’s her characters and their struggles with morality and misperceptions of their universes.
For me it’s her characters and their struggles with morality and misperceptions of their universes.
For me it’s her characters and their struggles with morality and misperceptions of their universes.
She doesn’t push messages or agendas: definitely agree she portrayed a wide range of characters as flawed equals, but the thing that elevated that further is that there isn’t a whiff of selling anything; no feeling that, for example, Ged’s ethnicity or sexuality are more significant than the story.
She doesn’t push messages or agendas: definitely agree she portrayed a wide range of characters as flawed equals, but the thing that elevated that further is that there isn’t a whiff of selling anything; no feeling that, for example, Ged’s ethnicity or sexuality are more significant than the story.
She doesn’t push messages or agendas: definitely agree she portrayed a wide range of characters as flawed equals, but the thing that elevated that further is that there isn’t a whiff of selling anything; no feeling that, for example, Ged’s ethnicity or sexuality are more significant than the story.
She doesn’t push messages or agendas: definitely agree she portrayed a wide range of characters as flawed equals, but the thing that elevated that further is that there isn’t a whiff of selling anything; no feeling that, for example, Ged’s ethnicity or sexuality are more significant than the story.
She doesn’t push messages or agendas: definitely agree she portrayed a wide range of characters as flawed equals, but the thing that elevated that further is that there isn’t a whiff of selling anything; no feeling that, for example, Ged’s ethnicity or sexuality are more significant than the story.
In her best work, yes, Dave Higgins, but if you read enough of her you do strike veins of message and agenda. One of the Earthsea books is clearly by someone who has just discovered feminism and is Mad As Hell at the Damn Patriarchy. (Which everyone should be, but it takes over the story a bit.) And there’s one of the short story collections that gets a little preachy.
But she didn’t do it all the time, or even most of the time (unlike, say, Sherri S. Tepper, who even her fans agree became tiresome with the preaching).
In her best work, yes, Dave Higgins, but if you read enough of her you do strike veins of message and agenda. One of the Earthsea books is clearly by someone who has just discovered feminism and is Mad As Hell at the Damn Patriarchy. (Which everyone should be, but it takes over the story a bit.) And there’s one of the short story collections that gets a little preachy.
But she didn’t do it all the time, or even most of the time (unlike, say, Sherri S. Tepper, who even her fans agree became tiresome with the preaching).
In her best work, yes, Dave Higgins, but if you read enough of her you do strike veins of message and agenda. One of the Earthsea books is clearly by someone who has just discovered feminism and is Mad As Hell at the Damn Patriarchy. (Which everyone should be, but it takes over the story a bit.) And there’s one of the short story collections that gets a little preachy.
But she didn’t do it all the time, or even most of the time (unlike, say, Sherri S. Tepper, who even her fans agree became tiresome with the preaching).
In her best work, yes, Dave Higgins, but if you read enough of her you do strike veins of message and agenda. One of the Earthsea books is clearly by someone who has just discovered feminism and is Mad As Hell at the Damn Patriarchy. (Which everyone should be, but it takes over the story a bit.) And there’s one of the short story collections that gets a little preachy.
But she didn’t do it all the time, or even most of the time (unlike, say, Sherri S. Tepper, who even her fans agree became tiresome with the preaching).
In her best work, yes, Dave Higgins, but if you read enough of her you do strike veins of message and agenda. One of the Earthsea books is clearly by someone who has just discovered feminism and is Mad As Hell at the Damn Patriarchy. (Which everyone should be, but it takes over the story a bit.) And there’s one of the short story collections that gets a little preachy.
But she didn’t do it all the time, or even most of the time (unlike, say, Sherri S. Tepper, who even her fans agree became tiresome with the preaching).
Derrick Sanders, she reminds me a bit of Oliver Sacks in the way she can show you the life of someone who thinks very differently and have it be engaging rather than alienating.
Derrick Sanders, she reminds me a bit of Oliver Sacks in the way she can show you the life of someone who thinks very differently and have it be engaging rather than alienating.
Derrick Sanders, she reminds me a bit of Oliver Sacks in the way she can show you the life of someone who thinks very differently and have it be engaging rather than alienating.
Derrick Sanders, she reminds me a bit of Oliver Sacks in the way she can show you the life of someone who thinks very differently and have it be engaging rather than alienating.
Derrick Sanders, she reminds me a bit of Oliver Sacks in the way she can show you the life of someone who thinks very differently and have it be engaging rather than alienating.
Mike Reeves-McMillan Tepper was also a TERF.
Mike Reeves-McMillan Tepper was also a TERF.
Mike Reeves-McMillan Tepper was also a TERF.
Mike Reeves-McMillan Tepper was also a TERF.
Mike Reeves-McMillan Tepper was also a TERF.
I’d also like to add that seeing ‘overt’ or ‘preachy’ political messages in literature is going to be as much about our own relationships to the status quo as it is any contextual part of the writing.
or as my Joyce professor said ‘a subtext without a context is usually a pretext…’
I’d also like to add that seeing ‘overt’ or ‘preachy’ political messages in literature is going to be as much about our own relationships to the status quo as it is any contextual part of the writing.
or as my Joyce professor said ‘a subtext without a context is usually a pretext…’
I’d also like to add that seeing ‘overt’ or ‘preachy’ political messages in literature is going to be as much about our own relationships to the status quo as it is any contextual part of the writing.
or as my Joyce professor said ‘a subtext without a context is usually a pretext…’
I’d also like to add that seeing ‘overt’ or ‘preachy’ political messages in literature is going to be as much about our own relationships to the status quo as it is any contextual part of the writing.
or as my Joyce professor said ‘a subtext without a context is usually a pretext…’
I’d also like to add that seeing ‘overt’ or ‘preachy’ political messages in literature is going to be as much about our own relationships to the status quo as it is any contextual part of the writing.
or as my Joyce professor said ‘a subtext without a context is usually a pretext…’
Often, but not inevitably.
I’ve stopped watching Supergirl, for example, because while I’m personally politically aligned with most of the messages it’s shoving awkwardly into every episode, it’s shoving them awkwardly into every episode, and I consider that poor craft.
That’s me, though. I think about writing craft a lot (as a writer and a reviewer), and I’m also not a tribalist; I’m not automatically on the side of everyone who flies a particular flag, even if it’s a flag often flown by people whose agenda I mostly agree with.
So I can look at a piece of writing and say, “I agree with what this is conveying, but it’s doing so badly enough that I’m not entertained by it.”
Often, but not inevitably.
I’ve stopped watching Supergirl, for example, because while I’m personally politically aligned with most of the messages it’s shoving awkwardly into every episode, it’s shoving them awkwardly into every episode, and I consider that poor craft.
That’s me, though. I think about writing craft a lot (as a writer and a reviewer), and I’m also not a tribalist; I’m not automatically on the side of everyone who flies a particular flag, even if it’s a flag often flown by people whose agenda I mostly agree with.
So I can look at a piece of writing and say, “I agree with what this is conveying, but it’s doing so badly enough that I’m not entertained by it.”
Often, but not inevitably.
I’ve stopped watching Supergirl, for example, because while I’m personally politically aligned with most of the messages it’s shoving awkwardly into every episode, it’s shoving them awkwardly into every episode, and I consider that poor craft.
That’s me, though. I think about writing craft a lot (as a writer and a reviewer), and I’m also not a tribalist; I’m not automatically on the side of everyone who flies a particular flag, even if it’s a flag often flown by people whose agenda I mostly agree with.
So I can look at a piece of writing and say, “I agree with what this is conveying, but it’s doing so badly enough that I’m not entertained by it.”
Often, but not inevitably.
I’ve stopped watching Supergirl, for example, because while I’m personally politically aligned with most of the messages it’s shoving awkwardly into every episode, it’s shoving them awkwardly into every episode, and I consider that poor craft.
That’s me, though. I think about writing craft a lot (as a writer and a reviewer), and I’m also not a tribalist; I’m not automatically on the side of everyone who flies a particular flag, even if it’s a flag often flown by people whose agenda I mostly agree with.
So I can look at a piece of writing and say, “I agree with what this is conveying, but it’s doing so badly enough that I’m not entertained by it.”
Often, but not inevitably.
I’ve stopped watching Supergirl, for example, because while I’m personally politically aligned with most of the messages it’s shoving awkwardly into every episode, it’s shoving them awkwardly into every episode, and I consider that poor craft.
That’s me, though. I think about writing craft a lot (as a writer and a reviewer), and I’m also not a tribalist; I’m not automatically on the side of everyone who flies a particular flag, even if it’s a flag often flown by people whose agenda I mostly agree with.
So I can look at a piece of writing and say, “I agree with what this is conveying, but it’s doing so badly enough that I’m not entertained by it.”
I haven’t read everything she created, Mike Reeves-McMillan, so might not have intersected with her most polemic work.
As Derrick Sanders says, the line also varies by person. From what I recall of my two readings of Earthsea the fury against social ills seemed to be about in-world issues that echoed ours rather than a veneer of fiction over a political statement.
Maybe it comes back to the creating sympathetic characters across a broad spectrum; because they are all a bundle of strengths, weaknesses, and so forth, any issues that might be seen as a metaphor for our own seem like only part of the characters rather than something put in there deliberately that is separate from them living their lives.
I haven’t read everything she created, Mike Reeves-McMillan, so might not have intersected with her most polemic work.
As Derrick Sanders says, the line also varies by person. From what I recall of my two readings of Earthsea the fury against social ills seemed to be about in-world issues that echoed ours rather than a veneer of fiction over a political statement.
Maybe it comes back to the creating sympathetic characters across a broad spectrum; because they are all a bundle of strengths, weaknesses, and so forth, any issues that might be seen as a metaphor for our own seem like only part of the characters rather than something put in there deliberately that is separate from them living their lives.
I haven’t read everything she created, Mike Reeves-McMillan, so might not have intersected with her most polemic work.
As Derrick Sanders says, the line also varies by person. From what I recall of my two readings of Earthsea the fury against social ills seemed to be about in-world issues that echoed ours rather than a veneer of fiction over a political statement.
Maybe it comes back to the creating sympathetic characters across a broad spectrum; because they are all a bundle of strengths, weaknesses, and so forth, any issues that might be seen as a metaphor for our own seem like only part of the characters rather than something put in there deliberately that is separate from them living their lives.
I haven’t read everything she created, Mike Reeves-McMillan, so might not have intersected with her most polemic work.
As Derrick Sanders says, the line also varies by person. From what I recall of my two readings of Earthsea the fury against social ills seemed to be about in-world issues that echoed ours rather than a veneer of fiction over a political statement.
Maybe it comes back to the creating sympathetic characters across a broad spectrum; because they are all a bundle of strengths, weaknesses, and so forth, any issues that might be seen as a metaphor for our own seem like only part of the characters rather than something put in there deliberately that is separate from them living their lives.
I haven’t read everything she created, Mike Reeves-McMillan, so might not have intersected with her most polemic work.
As Derrick Sanders says, the line also varies by person. From what I recall of my two readings of Earthsea the fury against social ills seemed to be about in-world issues that echoed ours rather than a veneer of fiction over a political statement.
Maybe it comes back to the creating sympathetic characters across a broad spectrum; because they are all a bundle of strengths, weaknesses, and so forth, any issues that might be seen as a metaphor for our own seem like only part of the characters rather than something put in there deliberately that is separate from them living their lives.
(basically all I’m trying to say is that 3 English speaking White Dudes, are probably not the best judges of what political proselytizing should/shouldn’t be)
(basically all I’m trying to say is that 3 English speaking White Dudes, are probably not the best judges of what political proselytizing should/shouldn’t be)
(basically all I’m trying to say is that 3 English speaking White Dudes, are probably not the best judges of what political proselytizing should/shouldn’t be)
(basically all I’m trying to say is that 3 English speaking White Dudes, are probably not the best judges of what political proselytizing should/shouldn’t be)
(basically all I’m trying to say is that 3 English speaking White Dudes, are probably not the best judges of what political proselytizing should/shouldn’t be)
Leave a Reply