Talk:The Left Hand of Darkness/Archive 1

Meaning
what is the meaning of "The Left Hand of Darkness"? --213.148.68.2 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 4 June 2004‎ (UTC)


 * As I recall, it's light in this case. Hold on . . . yes, a little online investigation tells me I'm right. The novel deals a lot with themes of duality and opposition, and unity-in-duality. The narrator brings up the yin-yang in one conversation with someone from Winter, saying that the Gethenian embodies the symbol: "Light, dark. Fear, courage. Cold, warmth. Female, male. It is yourself, Therem. Both and one."--4.17.135.10 22:59, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mary Sue Comment
I've removed the following addition:


 * Teresa Nielsen Hayden and Joanna Russ have noted that the novel can be considered a form of Mary Sue fiction.

I don't necessarily disagree with it (though I don't see how they two could say that). The problem is that it's an opaque criticism: The line as included says only that TNH and JR claim this, not why or how they claim this.

If you're going to add this line, please include either a brief exposition of the parallels between LHOD and Mary Sue-ism in fiction, or link to the arguments presented by TNH and JR. Without that, it's really just a meaningless slap at le Guin. JJ 22:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Having read the THN article linked in the Mary Sue article, I'm still not convinced the content should be added, since in THN's blog entry, the entirety of LHOD's mention is:


 * I, considering it, said “Which is not to say that The Left Hand of Darkness is a specimen of Star Trek slash fiction.” Joanna's jaw dropped, and we stared at each other in wild surmise. The patterns not only fitted; they explained some otherwise inexplicable plot twists in that novel."


 * No argument or analysis on why this is so, just an offhand remark that two sci-fi authors once, in conversation, analysed it as such.


 * If that line is going to be added back, I would suggest making some effort to explain how the theory of Mary-sue-ism fits LHOD. Otherwise, it remains an opaque attack on the work. JJ 23:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation?
Several paragraphs of this article are straight copies from the Scifi.com review that it also links to ( http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue116/classic.html ). I think the article (and the book) deserves better than this, although if a review is underway I'm sure it'll be addressed soon. I think more analysis of the concepts and content (and messages?) of the book would be welcome, though I'm terrible at such things myself. --StoneColdCrazy 17:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've verified the copyright violation and removed the material, which was added all in one edit. Justin Johnson 04:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Edited version?"
sorry if this is inappropriate, but I once heard that in the first edition of the book, the chapter "On the Ice" is different - ie they do consummate their relationship - and LeGuin changed it for latter editions for whatever reasons. Which supposedly is why Marion Zimmer Bradley felt obligated to explore a relationship like that in one of her Darkover novels (I think it was The World Wreckers - she explained in the Author's notes there). Does anybody know more about this?


 * She deals with Genthenia sex in a story called Coming of Age in Karhide in the collection The Birthday of the World. She explains how she only gradually got the idea that the people of 'winter' did not have gender.  And that Estraven was always conceived as a rather reserved character.  Note that he has been celibate for years, apparently from regret at past loss.--GwydionM 16:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Politics manque
I think that this is a great novel but I want to point out a peculiar omission. Although it was written after the recent success of the voting-rights revolution, not one Gethenian character shows any conception of democracy (in the sense of choosing one's government and, throught them, one's country's policies); nor does Genly commit on this lack. Estraven is really an aristocrat who acts on a notion of noblesse oblige, like Boildieu in the movie GRAND ILLUSION. Only a few years later the Supreme Court destroyed the right to vote on a crucial issue (abortion); three decades later they annointed a president. Is this prescience? CharlesTheBold 01:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think there are democratic elections in any of Le Guin's novels. Remember, she is an anarchist and would therefore prefer minimal governments.  Elections tend to be associated with strong governments, though there are exceptions, e.g. Switzerland.  --GwydionM 13:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Film version
An earlier version of this page said that a film version was in progress; however some searching seems to show that while plans for a film were announced publicly in late 2004 nothing has been publicly announced since. Additionally, the website of the company that was supposed to be producing it (www.phobosweb.com) no longer works, and there is no reference to a film version anywhere on IMDB. There is also no reference at all to a TLHOD film on Le Guin's website that I can find (http://www.ursulakleguin.com). I think it is safe to say that development of the film version has stalled, and have updated the page to reflect this. Walandablap (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

After further research it appears that the "2008" date on the film comes from confusion with another film, which is *not* based on the Le Guin book, but which is also called TLHOD. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ursula_K._Le_Guin&diff=cur&oldid=143304864

Walandablap (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dodgy logic on the reason Gethen was created
My recollection is that the book says that despite being called Gethen ('winter') the planet was in fact much warmer when it was initially settled by colonists. I am not certain that this was its original name. It would therefore not be correct to say that the genetic modification of the peoples was designed to help surviving the climate. That happened after the collapse of the galactic civilisation which had set up the experiment. I think it aludes directly to the Ekumen view being that this was a deliberate social experiment. The ice, coming later, did indeed affect how the people live - making major war campaigning impractical- but this was not an original part of the scheme. I havn't altered the text on this point, but i think it is wrong. Sandpiper 01:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems unlikely, sandpiper, that a star faring, colonial society would lack the means or the will to predict an imminent ice-age on one of their new worlds. -- Josh D.

My understanding of the novel was that the planet was in an ice age state when the Hain first colonised it with the Gethenians - that the genetic modifications included the genderless state of the people and their abilities to withstand the cold. Treeturtle81 (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If we're talking about the fourth paragraph in Background, that is just what the book says. No one is sure what the ancient Hain people wanted or intended.  --GwydionM (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My recollection, now admittedly even older than when I made the previous post, is that while the planet was glaciated at the time it was colonised (as is the real earth currently), it was considerably warmer than at the time in the book. My recollection is that this is stated somewhere in the book. The book contains a number of speculations about the Hainish, but I don't recalll it saying' The Gethenians might have been made the way they were to maximize reproductive success on the harsh glaciated world of Gethen. I think the explanation theorised about in the book is that the experiment was set up on an out of the way and likely undesireable planet at some point before the collapse of the hainish civilisation. Whether it was anticipated that the planet might become colder, I would guess, would not have affected such a decision. Such changes are somewhat long term, and presumably the Hainish would have anticipated being able to evacuate people if needed. The point, as I understood it was that it was a harsh world, but not as desperatly so as portrayed in the book.
 * This is correct; the speculation that the planet was colonised during a major interglacial is stated explicitly in the book. --7Kim (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Tone of Article
I was once surprised to discover a female friend had been recommended to read the book as a feminist work. From my own POV it screamed 'gay' from the start. It is something of a love story between genly Ai and Therem Hath rem ir Estraven, who at least initially is presented also as a male character. It explores Ai's difficulties coming to terms with Estraven's dual sexuality and attractiveness to him. My friend failed to get into the book, perhaps because she only read the first chapter, which opens as a quite straightforward sf/costume drama setting. It is only later that the reader realises that the assumptions LeGuin sets up at the opening about the particular characters are, in fact, totally wrong. This theme goes right through the book, she sets up a situation and then shows how it plays differently on gethen. But in the end it shows a stunning support for traditional heroic nationalism, expressed in the individual Gethenian way, when the individual, Lord Estraven, sacrifices his life for the good of the people. All this complicated by the fact that the Karhidish king, who has taken a political position totally opposed to Estraven, is nonetheless also somewhat in love with him.

It is certainly not true that 'sexual conflicts play no part on gethenian society'. It is true that sexual differences have been eliminated, but the business of love and jealousy continues just the same and plays an important part in the story.

"Nations exist, and different places have different societies, but they blend at the edges". I'm not sure they do. The difference between karhide and Orgoreyn is rather sharp and is defined exactly at the border. Orgoreyn is presented as a rather more politically centralised country to Karhide, and in a sense is there to show exactly what estraven is opposing. Orgoreyn is something of a communist totalitarian state, contrasted with the feudal kingdom of karhide. This is a conflict of ideologies existing upon gethen, rather than something to do with the climate or genetic tampering. LeGuin is here presenting the similiarities between Gethenian and human societies, despite the physical differences. But into this she places a third example, a greatly unified sense of family and community. Estraven, as expert politican, seeks to mainipulate the opportunities presented by this visitor from space to gain advantage for Karhide.

To return to the title of this subsection, I'm not at all sure the tone of the article as I found it well represents the book. Sandpiper 01:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The sense in which "sexual conflicts play no part on gethenian society" is at the social level--the conflicts you identify (love triangles, jealousy) are at the individual level. Socially, though, there's no division of labour based on sex/gender, nor sexual stereotypes to be fulfilled/overcome, nor an insitutional power imbalance.  The novel is feminist at least in the sense that it's an explicit exploration of a society in which the premise of radical feminism, that gender roles are the fundamental division upon which power is divided in our society, is not applicable.


 * Calling the work 'gay' seems to miss the point: 'heterosexuality' and 'homosexuality' are meaningless terms in Gethenian society.  To the extent that Genly Ai is seen as perverse, it's because he remains fixed in one gender, and not because of the gender he 'chooses'.  I'm not saying that queer identity doesn't play a part in the novel, but I wouldn't identify it as an overarching theme since there's no discussion at all in the book about the role played by a minority sexual orientation.


 * The reason I wrote that nations "blend at the edges" is the passages in which Ai is at the border, and, IIRC, he describes the people there as a comfortable mix of the two nations, with no particular allegiance to either one. The purpose of the centrally directed raiding that occurs is just to keep the borders sharp, to retain at least a little bit of 'those people over there are our enemies'.  Yes, Orgoreyn is an ideologically separate place from Karhide, but that's due to geography and local power politics, where members of other nations are artificially demonized as a means of distinguishing 'them' from 'us'.


 * I'm not saying nationalism is absent, but le Guin's point seems to me to be that it's artificially emphasized for the purposes of local politics; the uglier side of nationalism that leads to war lacks a critical mass in the book just because of the nearly subconscious realization they all have from gender-switching that the differences just aren't that great. Justin Johnson 23:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Re sexual conflicts, I'm not disputing your longer explanation, but that explanation was not in the article, and without it, a reader is liable to misunderstand the wording to mean that conflicts around sex do not exist, and they plainly form a part of the story.


 * The work is gay in the same sense that it is feminist. The premise of the book is sexually equivalent individuals forming relationships, which is what gay relationships are about. All individuals are potential partners, not just one half of them. And in this universe, considerably less than half. Hence gethen really is a gay man's fantasy, and exploration of how this might pan out. Gay relationships do not suffer from this 'them and us' division within the relationship, which is precisely the situation Le Guin is talking about. A gay man's approach to women is not affected by her belonging to the class of potential sexual partners, while all men belong to a class of maybe yes, maybe no, but unknowable from appearances, rather like Gethen. Gay relationships also in practice tend to include more of the casual, open, kemmer house approach to sex. It is also true, though, as you say, that Ai does rather have the tables turned on him as a member of a sexual majority group who now becomes a minority of one. I think the story may have lost some of its punch to shock about sex, as society has changed since it was written. I don't know if Le Guin has commented on this unofficial parallel? And, while I wouldn't necessarily consider wiki as a definitive source, I note our biography of LeGuin describes ''Darkness' as an exploration of sexual identity.


 * Yes, I was thinking about what happened at the borders when I wrote my comment. I think the point made in the book is that the blending you describe is rather more the old way, when Karhide and Orgoreyn were presumably rather more similar. The new order in Orgoreyn is rather determined to stamp out any suggestion that any of its people might be tempted to follow the Karhiders example. Le Guin paints Orgoreyn as a far nastier place than Karhide. If anything, the book reads more like an exhaltation of 'the American way' as embodied by Estraven, over the communist central states of russia, and the traditional aristocratic rulers of Europe. Sandpiper 02:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you were the guy who set up the gethen experiment, and then were writing it up afterwards, I think you would have to say it had failed to decide the issue of whether the people were now not warlike. The climate on Gethen has become such as to make war impossible, rather invalidating any experimental results on this point. But perhaps what you could say, is that now technology has advanced to the point where it is possible to make war, orgoreyn is setting out on a path leading to exactly that. If Legun is saying anything, she is saying that all individuals have


 * You probably want to finish that sentence. In any case, here go my two cents as a LeGuin fan who feels horrified at hearing LHoD called "a gay man's fantasy" and Estraven "an embodiment of the American way": is all the above, however interesting, your own opinion, or is it part of an authoritative study, academic paper or independent professional review? Because if the former is true, this discussion cannot lead anywhere with regards to changing article content. With that in mind, I read LHoD as a good thought experiment on the dissolution of sexual identity. It would've worked the same whatever Ai's gender, and whatever s/he assumed Estraven's gender to be. I think hetero-, bi- and homosexual men and women can read it in their own valid ways and extract different insights, and this may be regardless of LeGuin's own intentions (which is what marks a novel as a great one). As for the "American Way", what you're probably referring to is a set of common traditional values ranging from casual patriotism and common sense to good old mom's apple pie, which are really not exclusive of the American Way, and that actually do not characterize today's American Way. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't know what happened to the sentence, probably something like...the potential for all human responses. The above is in answer to the opinions already included in the article, a fuller explanation of the amendments I made there, and indeed might contemplate adding in the future, and also specifically in response to views expressed here. What i have written here is self evidently correct: it is based upon the facts in the book. As with all such works, it all depends on how you look at it.  It would amaze me if no one has made such comments elsewhere, though I have never thought to look since they were quite self evident. If any such debate occurred when the book came out, it would pre-date the internet.


 * I noticed that on her website LeGuin has a go at the writers of the filmed version of Earthsea, who presumed to comment that LeGuin would agree with how they had faithully included the important aspects of her work. I got the impression she felt they had not the slightest idea what she felt was important in the book (or at least didn't want it in their film). Her books are wonderful fairytales, but extremely insightful. Darkness was written in the middle of a sexual revolution (again according to wiki) 40 years ago, essentially by an experienced anthropologist and sociologist. Wonder what George Bush made of it? But, in fact, i think you are agreeing with me, that to state, in the article, that the book has only one, specific interpretation...is plainly wrong. Which was rather the point I was trying to make. (My style of argument may be a little like LeGuin's, now that I think about it.)


 * Oh, and I think Gethenians have a strong sexual identity, so you can't exactly call this work an exploration of the dissolution of sexual identity, merely a change. Sandpiper 01:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Er, I would suggest that if you're descibing TLHoD as a "gay" work, you are deeply misunderstanding either the novel or the concept of "gay". Given the function of Gethenian sexual physiology, in which the gender expression of each member of a kemmering-pair is pheromonally guided to the opposite of the other member, homosexuality is more or less specifically excluded, except perhaps during the group sex that occurs in kemmer-houses (but kemmer-houses are only mentioned in passing and the possibility of homosexual intercourse in them not at all).  Since gay men rely for their identity as gay on their strong personal identification as male and their sexual partners' strong personal identification as male, Gethen, as a world in which gender distinctions are compartmentalised to the time of kemmer and otherwise nonexistent,  is probably as inimical to the concept of "gay" as any environment could ever be.


 * You may, of course, be confusing "gay" with transgender, but even then the linkage is tenuous at best. --7Kim (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"Challenging Assertion"
Did LeGuin really 'assert' that the lack of war on Gethen was a result of the inhabitant's modified biologies? The way I remember it, she left it very uncertain whether this was so or if the harsh environment was the actual cause. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.67.178.229 (talk) 06:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
 * That bugged me too, I see before and also reading the article just now. It says, . Le Guin's most challenging assertion is that such a world would have no history of war: lacking a deep sense of duality implied by strong gender divisions, Gethenians lack a necessary component of nationalism.  LeGuin may ponder this point to bring it to the readers attention, but I don't think she asserts it. Orgoreyn seems to have quite enough nationalism to be set upon having  a war, somewhat contradicting this statement by the facts of story. Sandpiper (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a passage in the book observing that Orgoreyn had developed the capacity for mobilisation and begun to restructure itself as something like nation-state, and that this was an innovation in Gethenian culture. Orgoreyn doesn't, however, seem set on having a war, and neither does Karhide; the war that they appear to be drifting toward is not a goal so much as the unintended consequence (perhaps the unforeseeable consequence) of nascent nationalism and the use of the Sinoth Valley conflict by factions of both governments for internal political purposes.  But I think you're right:  LeGuin didn't assert the general case that such a world would have no history of war, only the specific case that Gethen did not have any history of war. --7Kim (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that there was lots of local violence, feuds and raids. Just nothing large enough to be called warfare.--GwydionM (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Feminist Science Fiction!?
The word "Feminist" is used at the start of this article, and it's been placed in a Feminist Science Fiction category, but nowhere in the article is it actually explained what makes this novel "feminist".

What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.11.4.230 (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It abolishes gender, I assume that is the point. GwydionM (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Pronouns
It's a bit odd to refer to Estraven in the masculine pronoun, since Estraven is neither male nor female (indeed, the only time Estraven is gendered in the book, it is as female). While Le Guin did use the male pronoun in the novel as the generic male, she later said that she would have done it differently if writing it later, and published alternate versions of the first portion of the book. Regardless of what Le Guin did "in universe", in the real world it's simply not grammatically correct to refer to Estraven or Gethenians as "he". ... And rather than start a war on the matter, I think it's easiest to take one of Le Guin's tacks in writing later fiction set on Gethen: Simply write such that use of the pronoun is not even necessary.

So when I was rewriting to improve the flow and fix noun/pronoun confusion (*), I also rewrote to avoid use of unnecessary pronouns.

(*) The noun/pronoun confusion arose between a lot of the text described relationship and interaction between Genly and Estraven, and when both were referred to as "he" or "him" it was often difficult to parse the sentence. In fact this led to some back-and-forth edits where people in good faith were trying to clarify a problem that was better addressed simply by eliminating the pronouns and using proper names.

So, two birds killed with one stone.

--lquilter 05:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I quite agree - seems someone has reverted your edits? 7daysahead (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

What date?
Hainish Cycle has 4670, from Ian Watson. Actually there are wild inconsistencies in the stories - in the later stories all humans are Hainish settlers and there are no other humanoid intelligences. Death machines exist up to City of Illusions but not thereafter. But if a date is given it should be justified. --GwydionM (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Genly vs Genry
I suggest changing Genly to Genry as Genry is his name and he is only called Genly because the Gethenians can't pronounce r. Seems to be his actual name should be what the Wikipedia article uses. Thmazing (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. Wikipedia should use the name that the sources use, and that's Genly.--RR (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Major unsourced portions
Major sections of this article are unsourced analysis. I'm going to add tags for later chopping. Also the 'Character analysis' section has not a single source, includes little analysis, makes some unsourced interpretations of a very ambiguous novel and is mostly just a retreading of the plot, but grouped by character instead of linearly by time. I can't see any point in keeping much of it. 212.67.168.234 (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Plot Summary
Hello! I would like to address the issue of the plot summary being too long. Much of the excess of the current summary is devoted to points that can be addressed in different sections of the page. Feel free to give feedback. The current summary is also un-referenced.

Drawing from Suzanne Elizabeth Reid's 1997 work, "Presenting Ursula K. Le Guin," and Charlotte Spivack's 1984 book, "Ursula K. Le Guin," I wrote the following summary:

Genly Ai, a Terran native, is sent to represent the Ekumen, the intergalactic coalition of humanoid worlds, on the frozen planet Gethen, also called Winter. After landing in Karhide, a Gethen kkingdom, Genly makes little progress, though he seems to have convinced the Karhiddish Prime Minister, Estraven, of the value of joining the Ekumen. However, the night before his first audience with the king, Ai begins to doubt Estraven's loyalty because of his strange, effeminate ambiguity. The next day, as he prepares to meet the King, Ai learns that Estraven has been accused of treason, and fled to a neighboring country, Orgoreyn. After meeting with the King, who rejects his invitation to join the Ekumen, Ai decides to pursue his mission in Orgoreyn.

Where the people of Karhide's actions were dictated by shifgrethor, an intricate set of unspoken social rules and formal courtesy, Orgorets are technically organized and practically logical. They provide Ai with comfortable habitations and ask direct questions. He presents his invitation to a board of governors, relieved that he has nearly reached success. Yet, Ai senses an unspoken aura of fear, and Estraven warns him not to trust the Orgorets. He ignores both his feeling and the warning, and is once again blindsided. Overnight, Ai is sent to a far-northern work camp to meet his death by cold, labor, and sterilizing drugs.

To Ai's surprise, Estraven-- the person Ai least trusts-- goes to great lengths to save him. After breaking out of the work camp, the pair begin the 80-day trek across the Gobrin Glacier back to Karhide, where Estraven believes they will finally be able to maneuver acceptance of the Ekumen treaty. Only by working together, learning to trust and accept one another's differences, are the pair able to succeed. When they reach Karhide, Estraven is killed, and Genly realizes he has lost a beloved friend. Above all, Estraven was loyal to Ai's mission: the greater good of universal humanity, above the personal or patriotic. Through Estraven and Ai's collaboration, and the powerful political fallout of Estraven's death, the mission of the Ekumen is accomplished. Karhide will join, followed by Orgoreyn.

Naomiwright (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Sex and gender
The distinctive thing is that the planet's people can function as either male or females, may be both fathers and mothers. Actual sex doesn't seem to be distinctive, so I reversed the last change. --GwydionM 17:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, this is not entirely true. There is a tendency, for example, for the ruler of Karhide to always be male when in Kemmer. It is noted in the book that his having a child of his body (something like that) is exceptional. I don't recall if we are told who the father is? Sandpiper (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * When Argraven's pregnancy is held as odd by Gethenians, it is because of age, not kingly status; Gethenians ridicule the idea of bearing a child-of-the-flesh at Argraven's age, not the king giving birth. Since the king's child-in-the-flesh is given priority as heir, it seems very unlikely that kings in general favour male expression in kemmer. I find no indication that Karhidish kings tend to be male in kemmer; though the particular king at the time of the story is described as having sired several offspring (who are not heirs because they are not child-in-the-flesh), this seems to be luck-of-the-draw rather than any relation to social and political status.  --7Kim (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

For a book with such a focus on the challenges and problems introduced in a gender neutral society it is surprising how little the role gender plays is discussed. The sex section speaks in rather broad terms for the role gender plays. I propose that the “Sex” subsection be expanded to include specific examples from the novels of situations that arise due to the role of gender in the novel. Specifically the section could be split into 3 categories. One of the categories being specific instances which Genly becomes confused due to gender on the planet, another from issues arriving from the “kemmering”, and the political conflicts that arise due to gender in the society on Winter. Genly’s confusion at Estraven’s feminine behavior at dinner as being overtly feminine and the inner conflict he deals with separating gender from Estraven’s behavior is one of many instances of gender confusion that could be expanded on. For the political section an explanation of the reaction to the King becoming pregnant and whether it was an issue related to sex or of age could be expanded on. Also collating all the mentions to children and the process by which they are separated from society could possibly be another subsection that relates to sex and gender. This book stands as a landmark science fiction novel for its approach to gender in society and this should be reflected in the Wikipedia article with a thorough examination of the role gender plays in different facets of society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyshortbeard (talk • contribs) 01:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Sequence
In reference to what you call "an extremely silly correction," it is my understanding that that field is for in universe sequence (where "The Dispossessed" comes first" rather than the sequence of writing, where it follows the Left Hand. I am not hung up on this change, but please don't be so quick to dismiss it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, now it makes sense. But "Followed By" for books normally refers to publication order.  --GwydionM (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference formatting changes
Watchers of this page may have noticed that I have been changing the format of the references. This is not a blatant attempt to violate CITEVAR; rather, I intend to rework a lot of this article, and in particular add sources to sections that are woefully under-referenced. The majority of useful sources are books, and so sfn formatting makes much more sense; hence the switch. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Winter's King
The section I've just restored is solidly based on both the stories and on what's said about them in 'The Wind's Twelve Quarters'. --GwydionM (talk) 09:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * GwydionM, unsourced does not mean inaccurate. It was unsourced (unreferenced, if you prefer), in that there was no indication of where the information had come from. I am aware that it is accurate, because I am familiar with Le Guin's work; however, given that most of that section can be sourced to a secondary source (which I have done, in the preceding paragraphs; take a look!) I would prefer to do that. Additionally, there is now significant redundancy; the description of kemmer is now repeated, and the part about pronouns in Winter's king is also mentioned down below. A source is especially needed for those last two sentences, because they involve an analytical claim ("In the interests of equality..." which, per WP:BOOKPLOT, should not be made on the basis of a primary source). I am quite willing to discuss how to present the detail about kemmer, but could you please reinstate the rest of my edit? Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've tried merging the two relevant paragraphs. Is this OK?  --GwydionM (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, thank you. I might throw in an additional reference from Reid, but the text looks fine. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Unclear sentence
The second paragraph in the "Setting" section starts with this sentence:
 * "The novels and other fictional works of the Hainish cycle the efforts to re-establish a galactic civilization, through the use of interstellar travel taking years to travel between stars (although a much shorter period for the traveler, due to relativistic time dilation), and through instantaneous interstellar communication using the ansible."

I think a verb has been left out, but I'm not sure what it would be. Is the word "cycle" part of the expression Hainish cycle, or is it meant to be a verb? The whole sentence itself seems to wander off into interstellar space, and is too long. — Gorthian (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You're quite right, a verb is missing, thank you for catching that. I'm not sure the sentence is too long, but since simpler language is better, I'm willing to change it. I've tweaked it a little, do take a look; hopefully this is clearer. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Much better, though there's still a word left out: "...recount the efforts of to re-establish..." It's been too long since I read these novels for me to accurately fill this in. You've been doing a fabulous job bringing this article up to snuff! — Gorthian (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Lol. My apologies, it's been a long day. Thanks! I've been a fan of this novel for a while, and considering its importance, I figured it would be nice to bring it to GA, if I could. Still needs a little work before I nominate it, but I think it's on track. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on The Left Hand of Darkness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/NomLit77.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.locusmag.com/1998/Books/75alltime.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.locusmag.com/1998/Books/87alltimesf.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Reception
The reception section has been bothering me; these sections are really hard to knead into a narrative flow, and I feel this one is jerky. I split it up into sentences and tried to reassemble it by grouping success/awards in the first paragraph, critical praise in the second, and discussion of influence in the third. The current fifth paragraph, on the feminist debate the book began, is already well-structured and I think doesn't need to be touched.

Here are my three draft paragraphs for the reception section, followed by a couple of comments.

The Left Hand of Darkness received overwhelmingly positive critical responses when it was published. It won both the Nebula Award, given by the Science Fiction Writers of America, and the Hugo Award, determined by science fiction fans. In 1987, Locus ranked it number two among "All-Time Best SF Novels", based on a poll of subscribers. The novel was also a personal milestone for Le Guin, with critics calling it her "first contribution to feminism." It was one of her most popular books for many years after its publication. By 2014, the novel had sold more than a million copies in English alone.

The book has been widely praised by genre commentators, academic critics, and literary reviewers. Fellow science fiction writer Algis Budrys praised the novel as "a narrative so fully realized, so compellingly told, so masterfully executed." He found the book "a novel written by a magnificent writer, a totally compelling tale of human peril and striving under circumstances in which human love, and a number of other human qualities, can be depicted in a fresh context." Darko Suvin, one of the first academics to study science fiction, considered Left Hand the "most memorable novel of the year", and Charlotte Spivak regards the book as having established Le Guin's status as a major science-fiction writer. In 1987 Harold Bloom described The Left Hand of Darkness as Le Guin's "finest work to date", and argued that critics have generally undervalued it; Bloom followed this up by listing the book in his The Western Canon (1994) as one of the books in Bloom's conception of artistic works that have been important and influential in influencing Western culture. In Bloom's opinion, "Le Guin, more than Tolkien, has raised fantasy into high literature, for our time".

Critics have also commented on the broad influence of the book. Writers such as Budrys have cited it as an influence upon their own writing, but more generally it has been asserted that the work has been widely influential in the science fiction field, with the Paris Review claiming that "No single work did more to upend the genre's conventions than The Left Hand of Darkness", and Donna White, in her study of the critical literature on Le Guin, arguing that Left Hand was one of the seminal works of science fiction, as important as Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley, which is often described as the very first science fiction novel.

I dropped one sentence because I didn't think it fit in well anywhere and it didn't seem necessary: the quote from Suzanne Reid. I added a couple of introductory summative sentences at the start of each paragraph to give the read a sense of thematic unity within each paragraph. Any comments? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In general I have no objections, since you've maintained most of my original language. I do think Reid's comment is necessary, because the endrogyny is such a focus of the literary criticism: in the new scheme, I would place it at the bottom of paragraph three. I also think that all the Locus surveys are worth noting, since critics mention them, too. Otherwise, my only issue is with long sentences; I would break up a couple of those. Since I'm more or less in agreement with your suggestions (thanks, by the way: stitching the various bits together is something I've always struggled with) I'm going ahead and implementing them. Let's take it from there. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I also think the comment that it was a focus of scholarly criticism is worth a mention. I've shifted that around. Take a look, and tell me what you think of this version. Vanamonde (talk) 09:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, those are improvements. I've struck my comment at the FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * regarding this edit of yours, I can see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure that's accurate. Having read a very large number of sources discussing this book, reporting it as "received positive reception" or "was praised by reviewers" are both masterful understatements. Additionally, the reception section of other featured articles uses such language: see To_Kill_a_Mockingbird, for example. I'm not wedded to the specific terms, and I recognize that in some cases it seems like hyperbole, but I do believe those words are necessary in this case to accurately summarize the sources. Vanamonde (talk) 08:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Vanamonde93 here. The terms removed ("widely" and "overwhelmingly") are both strictly accurate.  I think this is a matter for editorial judgement, as is usually the case when summarizing sources; I think it would be OK to restore these terms, or something along the same lines. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * but I do believe those words are necessary in this case to accurately summarize the sources.; I sympathise, really! However, if you have read the reviews and have come to a conclusion that these reviews are "overwhelmingly" positive then it's original research almost by definition. If this book is so widely credited then it should be possible to source. That other articles suffer this problem is not a good reason to keep it here IMO :) --Errant (chat!) 18:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I see the argument, and I would certainly agree with your comment on my talk page that a phrase such as "one of the most widely praised books in the history of sf" would require a source. To simply say "widely praised" is less extreme a claim.  I also agree that if we can find a citation we should use it -- no reason not to, after all.  But if we accumulate more and more praise from more and more high quality sources, surely at some point we can stop and use our editorial judgement?  I'll start a list below.  If we find something usable to source "widely praised" I'll stop, otherwise we'll see what we get. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

List of sources praising the book
I won't relist the sources given in the article, of course.
 * James & Mendlesohn, The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction. Includes "The most important book of this sort" (Slonczewski & Levy, 182); "Classic" (Wolfe, 106); "ground-breaking" (Hollinger, 128).
 * SFE3 entry on Le Guin (Nicholls & Clute). Paragraph devoted to the book.
 * Latham, The Oxford Handbook of Science Fiction. Includes "her ... major novel" (Easterbrook, 558).
 * Barron, Anatomy of Wonder. "Serious, meticulous and well written, the book has been much discussed and praised".

Is that last one enough, or should I go on? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Last one looks great! Good find. --Errant (chat!) 19:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That takes care of "widely praised". Do you still feel "overwhelmingly" needs further support?  The paragraph itself lists some of the awards and accolades that would argue the word is justifiable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll let you add the citation, partly because it's complicated. The book is Anatomy of Wonder 4, edited by Neil Barron, 1995; publisher is R.R. Bowker, New Providence, New Jersey. The chapter the citation comes from is "The New Wave, Cyberpunk, and Beyond: 1963-1994", by Michael Levy, pp. 222-238, with a bibliography 238-377. The quote is from the entry for The Left Hand of Darkness in the bibliography. The entries in the bibliography were originally written by Brian Stableford for an earlier edition of the book; some have been revised, but this one is annotated to show it's Stableford's original comments. So the author is Stableford, but I don't know how you'd do the chapter title -- maybe "Le Guin, Ursula K: The Left Hand of Darkness", which would allow you to attribute it solely to Stableford. It's on page 300; ISBN is 0-8352-3288-3. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Mike. I have used your suggestion for the chapter title, but since I'm using the "cite encyclopedia" template even a one-page "chapter" is quite alright. I'll look for a source for the other term (although I should not that the term I had originally used was "hugely", slightly different from the "overwhelmingly" which came in at FAC). Vanamonde (talk) 05:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is a quote that supports what Mike and I have been saying: "Despite these critiques of the texts, the overwhelming majority of sources provide evidence that readers responded positively to Le Guin's two novels and the ideas presented within them. The Left Hand of Darkness and The Dispossessed were considered novels of quality at the time of writing by readers, critics, and academics, and beyond the immediate context both novels have been read and admired by a wide range of people." Blackmore, 2011. While the text here is perfect, it is unfortunately a master's thesis (meaning that I probably came across and rejected it as a source earlier). It is useful, though, for context. Vanamonde (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * just wondering if the sources Mike Christie and I have provided have satisfied you. I'm truly not of a fan of the bland "praised" in that sentence, because virtually every book receives some praise. If you're uncomfortable with "overwhelmingly," then surely "highly praised" should be okay, given the sources here. Vanamonde (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed this; those sources certainly seem suitable for supporting such phrasing. Great work. --Errant (chat!) 10:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

"stymied"
The use of the metaphor "stymied" early in the second paragraph seems unfortunate. Maproom (talk) 08:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * How is it a metaphor? And so what, what would you like done to it? &mdash;Skyllfully (talk &#124; contribs) 08:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am also rather curious as to why it is described as "unfortunate." Vanamonde (talk) 08:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In golf, the word stymie applies to the situation where you want to get your ball into the hole, but can't as there's another ball in the way. I am a literal-minded male, and in the context of the article, this raises unfortunate images in my mind. I think the word "hampered", or "hindered", would serve better. Maproom (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In English, its defined as, “To thwart or stump; to cause to fail or to leave hopelessly puzzled, confused, or stuck.”[1] Hence, I do not believe it was intended to be used metaphorically. &mdash;Skyllfully (talk &#124; contribs) 15:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Some dictionary definitions mentions the thwarting is by means of a (physical?) obstacle; hence when it isn't it may be described as metaphorical. However, in this sense, much of our language use is metaphorical, and I don't think there is anything wrong with the present use of the word. The user having unfortunate images in his head should find another way to deal with those. (Apologies if that choice of words was a little too fresh.)--Nø (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out that the word is older than its use in golf. Knowing this may help me get the unfortunate images out of my head. Maproom (talk) 07:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Genry/Genly Ai; gender
So far as I can tell, Genly Ai's gender is never specified in Left Hand of Darkness, and since the Gethenians have no frame of reference for such a topic, the matter never comes up. Will someone therefore provide a citation for the following "Individuals on Gethen are "ambisexual", with no fixed gender identity, a fact which has a strong influence on the culture of the planet, and creates a large barrier for Ai, a male raised on Earth." — Preceding unsigned comment added by NaomhColmcille (talk • contribs) 16:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ai's gender is really not in question here; all of the scholarly sources implicitly refer to him as male throughout, and Spivack talks explicitly of exploring the Ekumen through male Terran observers (a reference to Davidson, Rokanan, and Ai). If you want further evidence, there are plenty of sources which are not used here which make the same claim very explicitly with respect to Ai; such as this and this. It seems silly to include one of those for something this controversial, but if you feel it to be important, I can do it. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, I had a nagging feeling that his gender is also mentioned in the original text, so I looked it up, and I found I remember correctly; here's a quote from page 34 of the edition cited in the article: "Cultural shock was nothing much compared to the biological shock I suffered as a human male among human beings who were, five-sixths of the time, hermaphroditic neuters." Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm that Ai is indeed male in the book. Apart from the sentence mentioned by Vanamonde93, during the journey at the end of the book, there is the chapter written by Estraven, which contains the following sentence: As I am in kemmer I would find it easier to ignore Ai's presence, but this is difficult in a two-man tent. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 23:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Le Guin wrote three critical essay regarding this topic, one in 1975, and two more in 1985 refuting her own position taken a decade earlier. I was surprised to see them missing from this article. Anyone have access to them who could add them in to the article? Morganfitzp (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless you are referring to some mysterious essays that I have not heard of (which is possible) I think you may have your dates mixed up. Le Guin wrote "Is Gender Necessary" in 1976, and "Is Gender Necessary: Redux" in 1988: both essays are, in fact, mentioned here. Vanamonde (talk) 08:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am referring to those essays, as well as her introduction to the collection containing the redux. I see only one mentioned in the current version of the article, while neither actually appears in the reference section, hence I didn't know the exact publication information. Morganfitzp (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * They're actually both mentioned, but they are not referenced: this is because, with respect to this article, they are not independent sources, and so picking and choosing material from them becomes tricky. Far better to use what other sources have said about those two essays vis-a-vis this book, which is what has been done here. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Homophic? You jest! (sex and gender)
It may be that the article accurately depicts perception of the book. I came here today because a mate asked me to check the publication date, because he was linking it as an important book in an advanced literature class. This was because of its perception as a revolutionary feminist work.

However, I first read it blind from a second hand science fiction bookshop. To me it read as a massively supportive book for gay life. This was because it explored life in an equal same sex partnership and equal society where this was the norm. I was surprised a few years later to discover a friend had been set the work to read at university (she hated it incidentally), because it was a landmark feminist work.

So I remain amazed that no one else has commented on this. Maybe its true, the entire world, including its author, has mistaken it as a feminist novel, and there is no commentary out there which could be linked exploring this other aspect of the book. But I can hardly believe I am the only person to have taken it this way.

I also do not see any comment on the 'trick' opening of the book, where le Guin writes the story (making use of the 'he' pronoun to fool us) as an utterly conventional male VIPs attending a parade. Indeed this was why my friend disliked it, because she only read the first chapter, which is intended to read as any standard gung-ho boys adventure. Then you turn the page and the iconoclasm begins. You are brought to reinterpret the scene. Le Guin could not have pulled this trick had she used 'she' or some invented pronoun.

If the novel had been described and sold as a gay novel rather than feminist one, given the attitudes at the time and the much narrower audience, it might have sunk wthout trace. As, it says in the article, she feared might happen anyway.

As to what leGuin really thought, I see the opening para of 'sex and gender' says she has publicly contradicted herself, saying she was afraid of backlash from being too controversial. Again, if she did say 'Left Hand had presented heterosexuality as the norm on Gethen', it certainly didnt, because in so far as it addressed sex (just 2 days a month in the Gethenian context), it did so as generally changing roles in an equal partnership. All very gay.

The quoted interpretation of the developing relationship between Ai and Estraven as homophopic seems perverse, because the role of Ai is to be the human norm superior male, who is inserted into a society which has an utterly different outlook. His role is to be confused but come to an ultimate realisation that an alternative exists. Jumping straight into bed with Estraven would have completely missed the point of a sinner brought to repentance.

As to 'death is the price that must be paid for forbidden love', Estraven didn't die for love of Genly Ai but for love of his homeland. I would have thought that is clear, because much of the book also explored issues about the meaning of patriotism, which must surely have been a very obvious theme in America at the time of publication, as US sentiment started to question the cold war. Most of what Estraven does is motivated by love of his homeland, a life dedicated to public service after the death/separation from his own true love. He dies for his country to stop a war, in the exact opposite way Tibe starts one, sending others to die fighting a war at his orders. LeGuin attacks american stereotypes of US good, Russia bad, by a mix and match approach, where the aristocratic/centrally controlled rule in Karhide is broadly seen as more benevolent than the notionally democratic Argoreyn. In any event, she was clearly seeking to attack stereotypes of US patriotism as well as address feminism. No doubt LeGuin was also shy to admit writing a book attacking US imperialism.

I see the article says the book was originally written without an introduction. Yet it also quotes the opening paragraph, where Ai says he is reporting what he experienced and discovered, in the form of a story. He says "The soundest fact may fail or prevail in the style of its telling". Well gosh gonzo, isn't that the introduction by LeGuin coming from the mouth of Ai, teling us we are about to hear fundamental truths wrapped up in an adventure? That she is writing about war, feminism, gay rights, all the ills of society, but she isnt going to admit it? The book cuts together passages described as Gethenian fable, which have an important moral for us to see, with descriptions of Ai's experiences. But Ai's narrative is itself also a fable. Sandpiper (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * You are speaking from your own experience, which is admirable in every context but this one, which is Verifiable encyclopedic knowledge. If you can find a Reliable Source which articulates your observations, then fine; if not, it's Original Research. And be aware, also, that Wikipedia talk pages aren't general discussion forums. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * No mate, I'm speaking from my experience pointing out some clear omissions from the page. I didnt write the article. I posted here so that those who did are advised that there is a problem with the page, and as dilligent editors will seek out sources themselvs to redress the balance.
 * Incidentally,do you not see how hostile your response comes across? As a good editor your job is not to chase off people who have politely pointed out difficulties but to say thank you and do something about it. Sandpiper (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What Chiswick Chap said is entirely correct. It's also not remotely hostile: please don't see it as such. Your analysis is actually interesting, and if this were a science fiction forum, I would be happy to discuss it. The material we put in our articles, however, has to be based on reliable sources. This article has been through most of our fairly rigorous peer review processes. In writing it (I wrote most of it, incidentally) I read a very large number of sources about this book and Le Guin's writing: in the years since, I've read many more. I'm unaware of any sources making the same interpretations you have. As such, we cannot add those to the article. If you think there is a problem with the article (and there may be) you need to provide evidence for it, in the form of high-quality sources. If you have such sources, I would be happy to read them and work them into the article. Vanamonde (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, well put: better than my efforts. I repeat, I found Sandpiper's thoughts admirable, but not such as we could use. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Tuesday Smillie
Thanks for digging that up; but I'm wary of adding adaptations that have not been commented upon by secondary sources, just because there's a lot of those. The book was so influential that very many minor works exist that draw from it. Do you know if secondary sourcing is available here? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Just on a rescue mission... the following seem good and genuinely secondary:


 * Nina MacLaughlin in Boston Globe
 * Editorial in ArtNews

All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Added the globe source. Cheers. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)