The Pros and Cons of Ursula K. Le Guin's "The Left Hand of Darkness"
The Left Hand of Darkness was the first book I've read this semester that I've had very mixed feelings about. For a number of reasons, I found this book to be successful, but to an equal degree, found it lacking.
One thing that I do adore about this book is the bold exploration of gender and sexuality. Written during a time where anyone not straight and cisgender was likely to be ostracized, The Left Hand of Darkness stands in contrast. To allow even closed minded readers to undestand, Le Guin places you into another planet, as a foreigner. You are a human from Earth, dropped in the middle of a new world and struggle to interact with other beings that are entirely new to you. She does this purposefully, to place you into an entirely new frame of mind and rid you of your preconceptions about what a person is and what their gender and sexuality might be.
In many ways, this was very successful, but in some ways I found this to falter. While I adore that the creatures are asexual and agender save for during kenner, I found it increasingly frustrating that they were always referred to as "he". For awhile, I could understand that perhaps this is the bias of our protagonist, but when it switched to the perspective of a native of the planet, they were still referred to as "he". This doesn't make sense to me, and distracts from the purpose of the book, which is to see them as genderless.
I completely understand that this is a byproduct of the time of this book's publishing, but still can't shake the feeling that perhaps this book doesn't hold up as well for a reader in today's time. I truly had to fight to picture the characters as genderless, when all of them were "he's". I would have loved to see an approach to pronouns like the one seen in Aye and Gomorrah, where a number of characters are introduced and referred to by name instead of by gender, without being annoying or repetitive.
As well, I found that for a book that seemed to be aiming at asexuality, it seemed like differences in sexuality were all they could talk about. While I appreciate their sexual divergence from simply males with females, I felt this also worked against the message of the book. If Le Guin was meaning to show us how sexuality and gender don't define who you are, I am confused as to why it seemed to be so emphasized. If it was a world without gender and sexuality biases, why did it seem that all you could see was that these aliens work this way and humans do not? In reality, humans can be sexually divergent or identify as a different gender than they were born with.
Don't misunderstand, however. I again completely understand that these are probably limitations of the time. I hold no fault to the book for this, but would merely like to note like that I feel I could have connected to this book much more thoroughly if it were allowed to reach it's full potential, and didn't have to fall into a patriarchal trap.
One thing that I do adore about this book is the bold exploration of gender and sexuality. Written during a time where anyone not straight and cisgender was likely to be ostracized, The Left Hand of Darkness stands in contrast. To allow even closed minded readers to undestand, Le Guin places you into another planet, as a foreigner. You are a human from Earth, dropped in the middle of a new world and struggle to interact with other beings that are entirely new to you. She does this purposefully, to place you into an entirely new frame of mind and rid you of your preconceptions about what a person is and what their gender and sexuality might be.
In many ways, this was very successful, but in some ways I found this to falter. While I adore that the creatures are asexual and agender save for during kenner, I found it increasingly frustrating that they were always referred to as "he". For awhile, I could understand that perhaps this is the bias of our protagonist, but when it switched to the perspective of a native of the planet, they were still referred to as "he". This doesn't make sense to me, and distracts from the purpose of the book, which is to see them as genderless.
I completely understand that this is a byproduct of the time of this book's publishing, but still can't shake the feeling that perhaps this book doesn't hold up as well for a reader in today's time. I truly had to fight to picture the characters as genderless, when all of them were "he's". I would have loved to see an approach to pronouns like the one seen in Aye and Gomorrah, where a number of characters are introduced and referred to by name instead of by gender, without being annoying or repetitive.
As well, I found that for a book that seemed to be aiming at asexuality, it seemed like differences in sexuality were all they could talk about. While I appreciate their sexual divergence from simply males with females, I felt this also worked against the message of the book. If Le Guin was meaning to show us how sexuality and gender don't define who you are, I am confused as to why it seemed to be so emphasized. If it was a world without gender and sexuality biases, why did it seem that all you could see was that these aliens work this way and humans do not? In reality, humans can be sexually divergent or identify as a different gender than they were born with.
Don't misunderstand, however. I again completely understand that these are probably limitations of the time. I hold no fault to the book for this, but would merely like to note like that I feel I could have connected to this book much more thoroughly if it were allowed to reach it's full potential, and didn't have to fall into a patriarchal trap.
If I remember correctly, the issue with the pronouns, specifically "he," is addressed in the book. To simplify, Le Guin explains that the proper pronouns the Gethenians use don't have an exact translation in English. That is why he uses the pronoun "he" as it is just simpler. As for the other characters using the English "he," they aren't. To the best of my knowledge, the other characters do not speak English, nor does the protagonist address them in English. In fact, Le Guin talks about the protagonist's trouble speaking the native languages, specifically when he goes to Orgoreyn. What we read as the other characters saying "he," then, is merely a problem with translation. Moreover, the protagonist even addresses why he uses "he" over anything else. Typically, even in our culture today, that is simply the default word, and therefore the most generic. I do not believe this is a factor of single-mindedness or sexism, but just the result of the nature of our language. I also don't personally think one should take offense to this, unless the speakers intent was specifically to insult the other, which i certainly do not think is the case more often than not.
ReplyDeleteAs to your point the book "aiming at asexuality" yet seeming "like differences in sexuality were all they could talk about," I think this is again a logical result of the nature of the protagonist. The asexually of the Gethenians is the dominant difference between them and Ai, and therefore it makes sense that that is what he thinks most about, as it is unlike any other being he has encountered and it is speculated that it has a large impact on their behavior and culture. This also reflects our society's behavior towards those of varying sexuality. It is unfamiliar to many people, and thus it is something, perhaps overly so, emphasized. If this novel was told NOT predominantly by an alien being, I would expect less focus to be placed on their sexuality, but that is not the case. You will also notice that in the chapters not told from Ai's perspective, no word of their sexuality is touched on, other than perhaps the "perversion" of Ai. Again, what is different is that which is interesting, and thus what people naturally think about.
But anyway...sorry for the long response :P
I definitely see your point, but I think you were missing mine a bit. Maybe that was somewhere in my writing, and if so I apologize. But I definitely didn't mean to convey that I was offended in any way by the book, and in no way implied an accusation of sexism or simple-mindedness, which is why I kept repeating that I knew it was a product of the time of the book's publishing, that there was no other way to get around using only "he". I made it clear that I held nothing against the author or the book for that, merely disappointed that the sentiment in the book was held back by the biases of the time of its publishing. "He" is our default, and I felt it would have been much more powerful had she chosen a pronoun that breaks through this default.
DeleteTo address some of the issues you raised, there are a number of chapters which are in Estraven's perspective where he refers to his fellow Genthenians as a "he". While I understand that there is an explanation for the gap in translation, to me, as someone who created the universe within the story, Ursula also created this same gap. I'm only left wondering why. Easily, I feel like, she could have invented a new word, as she did with so many other untranslatable words, that would have removed all of my preconceptions about gender and sexuality and created a much more powerful statement. Or, as I said about Aye and Gomorrah, done her best to avoid pronouns altogether. I have every belief that Ursula would have, had she lived in a different, more progressive time. That's why the purpose of my essay wasn't to show why I didn't like Left Hand, because I did enjoy so many aspects about it, but to show why I felt like it was limited.
As well, their sexuality was touched on, even outside of Ai. The experience of the Weaver and his fortune tellers was even a highly sexual experience. The king finds himself pregnant, and Estraven is in inner and external conflict with his former lover. They ARE a very sexual society, and I'm just wondering why she chose to make them so. I agree that within the universe, most of these issues have explanations and make perfect sense, but that's not the point of my essay, which is concerned with author's choice. If she was aiming to get her audience to see all people as people, why create a world where all they can see in each other is their gender/sexuality? That's the question I pose.
Thanks for reading and replying! I appreciate the commentary. I hope this clears up my perspective.