Talk:Ursula K. Le Guin/Archive 2

Possible date inconsistency in early writing career
"From 1951 to 1961 she wrote five novels, which publishers rejected, because they seemed inaccessible.[11] She also wrote poetry during this time, including Wild Angels (1975)."

Is 1975 a publication date? If so, that should be specified. Otherwise, it doesn't belong to the 1951-1961 period. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Sonata
Le Guin's work has been adapted a very large number of times. Not all of these adaptations are notable, and not all of them should be mentioned here; if they were, this article would be overwhelmed very quickly. For an adaption to be included here, it needs, at the very least, to be verifiable by independent, secondary sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * And who is the arbiter of what constitutes a "notable" adaptation? I am going to add another citation that is "verifiable, independent, and secondary" for the piece. In the meantime, please take a moment to read Le Guin's personal response to the sonata.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fullsterkur (talk • contribs) 18:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's policies are the arbiter. I have read the personal response: it doesn't count for very much. A friend might adapt one of her works into a stage production, for instance, which she might have seen and enjoyed but nobody else paid any attention to. That's why you need an independent secondary source. Please provide such, and stop edit-warring. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

This composer was not a personal friend of Le Guin's, and his work has been performed internationally (including at Carnegie Hall). The sonata in question was premiered (as indicated in the additional reference that I provided) by an international chamber music collective. In short, this is not some amateur theatrical adaptation at a local college. So once again, who gets to determine whether or not this adaptation is "notable"? I maintain that it is. However, if your issue is with the reference to Le Guin's response to the piece, then please feel free to selectively edit that part out. I can't imagine why you would deem that necessary, but I won't challenge it. Obviously, it is not possible to back that up with a secondary reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fullsterkur (talk • contribs) 19:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , it really seems like you're not reading what I'm saying here. If the sonata is as prominent as you say, it should be easy to find independent sources covering it. Please find such sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I did not say that the piece was prominent. "Prominent" and "notable" are not interchangeable. There is not a large audience for contemporary classical composition, but that does not mean that such works are not notable. The fact that the sonata in question is being performed by an internationally acclaimed chamber group makes it worthy of note. Are you now insisting on popularity as the criteria for the inclusion of an adaptation? Please be precise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fullsterkur (talk • contribs) 19:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't split hairs. I have explained already that we cannot cover every adaptation of Le Guin. We can cover those whose significance (or notability, prominence, whatever; in this circumstance, the distinction is immaterial) is attested to by sources independent of its creator. Please find such a source, as I have now asked you to do at least four times, or I'm going to have to remove this again. Please also sign your posts on talk pages. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that I am splitting hairs. I included an independent secondary source, as requested, so it is unclear what would satisfy your criteria. Would additional secondary sources attesting to the bona fides of this composer be helpful? The sonata was officially commissioned, and that can also be referenced independently, if that helps. Also, please clarify the "we" that you are referring to. - Fullsterkur — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fullsterkur (talk • contribs) 20:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "We" refers to Wikipedia in general. The source you included was independent, but not secondary; it's a program announcement. Again, please also sign your posts on talk pages, by typing ~ at the end of your post. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse. I read you as saying that the notability of the sonata would have to be attested to by some internationally recognized classical music expert. Is that correct? Plant's notability as a composer has been attested to, but it seems odd to have to provide citations to this effect. Given what I have already said about the obscurity of contemporary classical music, it seems impossible to satisfy your criteria. (Fullsterkur (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC))
 * Okay, let me be a little more explicit. We don't need to have a source which says "this piece of music was highly significant", or the equivalent; that is indeed difficult to find. We do need a reliable, independent, secondary source which says something about that piece of music, because in general, coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources is how we judge the significance of anything on Wikipedia. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I'll see what I can find, although I truly believe that in the insular universe of contemporary classical composition, the fact that the sonata was commissioned and then premiered by an acclaimed ensemble in a provincial capital, is what makes it notable. (Fullsterkur (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC))

So I have made a couple of inquiries in an effort to find official reviews from when the sonata was premiered in 2017. I'm not especially hopeful that I will find anything, however, for the reasons that I mentioned earlier. In the meantime, I made some edits to the post, and if you feel that they do not meet your requirements, then I won't reverse any changes/deletions that you choose to make. (Fullsterkur (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC))
 * I have undone that edit for two reasons: 1) you marked it as "minor", which was incorrect, and 2) the language reeked with promotion language.--Jorm (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm afraid those sources weren't good enough either. If you do find more stuff, feel free to ping me, and I'll take a look at it. I will be returning to this article in a few days, at which point I'll try to find sources myself. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

They were *minor* changes to my previous post. I will keep looking for reviews, although the references I added established the credentials of the individuals involved, and were thus legitimate. Seriously folks, I've looked over the other adaptations that were accepted on the page and the sonata is at least as worthy of inclusion. Just because a theatrical adaption receives a (very mediocre) review does not make it notable, and Plant is as notable a composer as Stephen Andrew Taylor. The latter's adaptation does *not* include a review of the piece, so please explain why it has not been removed. (Fullsterkur (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC))
 * The opera doesn't have a review here, it's true; but the article Paradises Lost has a review of the opera from the Poetry Foundation, a reliable, independent source, as well as from Oregon Live, also decent, if somewhat local. I'll add those sources by and by. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Pre-FAC review
I'll add notes here; not sure how much I'll have time to do each day, but I will try to peck away at it. I'll review as if this were FAC, except that normally at FAC I would do a fair bit of copyediting myself. That can be time consuming though so I might just point out issues rather than try to fix them; hope that's OK.
 * No problems with you leaving comments, however minor.

-- Stopping there for now, in the "Critical attention" section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * First published in 1959, her literary career spanned nearly sixty years: needs rephrasing -- her literary career wasn't published in 1959.
 * Tweaked.
 * Suggest dropping the quotes on "an author of science fiction"; just saying "science fiction author" is hardly plagiarism and the quotes are a slight interruption to readability.
 * Tweaked.
 * Le Guin said she would prefer to be known as an "American novelist",[2] and has also been called a "major voice in American Letters". Needs restructuring.  These two thoughts aren't parallel enough to be put together like this -- both are about a description of her work, but one is her own and the other is an assessment, so "also" is the wrong connector.
 * Tweaked.
 * and was the subject of intense critical attention: suggest "has been the subject of..."
 * Done.
 * was deemed a Grand Master: I think "deemed" is the wrong word -- it implies "considered" rather than "awarded". Perhaps "honored as a"?  But that conflicts with the end of the sentence.  How about "and in 2003 was only the second woman to be honored as a Grand Master of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America"?
 * I like it better, done.
 * Is it right to say "she began writing full-time in the late 1950s"? Her first story is not published till 1961; she only has one poem that I know of published pre-1960.  Of course she could have been writing for years and not publishing, but I just wanted to check you have a source to that effect.  You say she began writing novels about Orsinia from 1951, so perhaps "late 1950s" is too late?
 * I do actually have sources saying this. It seems as though she was a dilettante writer for quite a while, as she juggled children and other jobs; but gave up being a secretary and whatnot to write full time once the children were grown, in the late 1950s. However, she didn't have much success with getting published until a little later than that.
 * OK, was just checking. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it worth mentioning where "Folksong from the Montayna Province" and "An die Musik" were published?
 * Well they're rather obscure publications, and both are listed in full at the bibliography; in an article topping 8000 words, I felt it to be unnecessary detail. But if you feel strongly, I can easily make the addition.
 * No, that's a perfectly good reason not to mention them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Continuing: -- Now done through "Later writings". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A Wizard of Earthsea and The Left Hand of Darkness were described by critic Harold Bloom as Le Guin's masterpieces: I don't know when Bloom said this, but unless it was more or less contemporary, I'd make it "have been described".
 * Done.
 * Looks like this wasn't done, so I went ahead and made the change myself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh I did it in the lead but missed it in the body. Thanks. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Left Hand of Darkness was also a personal milestone for Le Guin: critics described it as her "first contribution to feminism". I'm not sure "personal milestone" is the best way to say this. If we say it's her first feminist work, the "milestone" is implied, which might be enough.  And I think we don't need to mention critics inline to justify it -- it's not controversial. How about "Her next novel, The Left Hand of Darkness, was a Hainish Universe story exploring themes of gender and sexuality on a fictional planet where humans have no fixed sex.[48] The book was Le Guin's first contribution to feminism, and according to scholar Donna White it 'stunned..."?  Or perhaps "first to address feminist issues"?
 * I like the latter better, done.
 * If we're going to say "most overt political statement" I think we should give the reader a pointer to the political issue the book addressed.
 * Sure. It was anti-war stuff. Added.
 * The fiction of the period 1966 to 1974, which also included the Hugo Award-winning "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" and the Nebula Award-winning "The Day Before the Revolution",[53] has been described by scholar Elizabeth Cummins as Le Guin's best-known body of work. And by just about everyone else, I would think.  If you can find enough overt or implied support in other critical commentary I'd suggest making this just "constitutes Le Guin's best-known body of work"; I don't think this is controversial.  And it might fit more naturally after the sentence about The Dispossessed.
 * Fair enough. I think it's generally recognized; a good two thirds of the critical material is about Left Hand, the Dispossessed, and early Earthsea, which is all from that period.
 * The description of The Wind's Twelve Quarters implies it contains material written in the second half of the 1970s, but in fact the material in it is contemporary with the works discussed in the previous section. I'd move it to that section and clarify that it collects (most of, I think) her short work from that period.
 * Fair enough. I think this leaves the wider exploration section somewhat brief, though; I've added a little detail; I might try to add a little more later (I'm away from my hard copy sources at the moment).
 * The mention of Always Coming Home is slotted in with the children's books -- I'm not sure a reader unfamiliar with the book would realize it was not aimed at younger readers.
 * Hmm. I feel like the unwritten assumption is that books not explicitly children's books are adult books; but I see your point. I've reordered, though I'm not too happy as it upsets the chronology.
 * She also revisited Earthsea, publishing Tehanu in 1992: coming eighteen years after The Farthest Shore, during which Le Guin's views had developed considerably, the book was grimmer in tone than the earlier works in the series, and challenged some ideas presented therein; nonetheless, it received critical praise. I paused when I read this.  I know that "had developed considerably" is a reference to the feminist critiques of Earthsea and Le Guin's response.  Glancing down the page I don't think you expand on this in the article, but it's a significant point; the Clute/Nicholls article on UKL discusses at some length, for example. I think it should be addressed, though perhaps this is not the best place in the article for that discussion.  And is "nonetheless" the right word?  Challenging her earlier ideas doesn't necessarily imply that critics would dislike the book, does it?
 * I did mention it briefly in "themes", though I focused on the Hainish works. I've added a bit more, but in that section; I don't think the chronology is the place to go into it in detail.
 * The quote from SFE3 that I'm thinking of is this: "However, over the next decade a certain backlash against Le Guin became evident from the women's movement. It was alleged that, especially in this trilogy, Le Guin saw men as the actors and doers in the world (magicians are male) while women remain the still centre, the well from which they drink. Le Guin's Feminism certainly altered in nature over the next two decades (as evident in Always Coming Home), and she also made a kind of restitution by writing a fourth novel in the Earthsea series: Tehanu: The Last Book of Earthsea (1990)." Currently the article focuses on the LHOD critiques, but the Earthsea critiques were significant too.  If SFE3 is not enough I can see what I can dig up in the way of scholarly articles, but SFE3 is a respected tertiary source and I think would be fine.  I don't think you need much, but the article makes it sound as though the criticism was solely about LHOD. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, good point. Indeed the criticism is made about The Tombs of Atuan quite explicitly in the scholarly sources, so I think using the encyclopedia to make the broader point is fine; I will work on adding a little. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Added. Vanamonde (Talk)
 * Given Lindow's description, how about a half-sentence explaining what "Coming of Age in Karhide" is about?
 * Added.
 * All of the stories explored freedom and rebellion within a slave society: my memory of these stories is hazy, but is that a true statement? It doesn't apply to "Coming of Age", does it?
 * Your memory seems fine :) I see why you parsed it that way, but the statement was only meant to refer to the last five of the seven stories in that paragraph; I've reworded to avoid making it ambiguous.
 * I suggest giving the title of the Library of America two-volume set inline; it seems a little odd not to mention it.
 * Sure, done.
 * I hadn't heard of the 2018 collection Dreams Must Explain Themselves, and I've been unable to dig up the contents list. Is it an expansion of the 1975 Algol Press collection?  I used to have a copy of that.  Perhaps that was such a small-press release that it doesn't need to be mentioned outside her bibliography -- if I recall correctly it was a tiny print run for the 1975 edition.
 * The title is that of an essay. The 1975 Algol volume included the essay, a speech, a story, and an interview. The same essay was also included in the 2018 volume, where it again supplied the title; but the 2018 volume was a printing of a considerable number of essays, from a much larger publisher. Details are at the bibliography. I don't think the 1975 piece notable enough to be worth mentioning in the bio; I cannot recall a source mentioning it outside of a bibliography, and sometimes not even then. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * and White states that her work is difficult to classify: I think we could just make this “and as a result her work is difficult to classify”, citing White. The quote from Slusser further down could be seen as supporting this. — Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair point, done. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

-- Generally this is FA-quality, with a couple of problems noted above. The coverage and weighting seem right to me. Once these points are addressed I expect to support when you take this to FAC. Congratulations; this is very good work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The society of the Kesh has been identified by scholars as a feminist utopia, in which the story also explores the role of technology: suggest "as a feminist utopia, which also explores the role of technology".
 * But...it's the story doing the exploring, not the utopia?
 * I was thinking of the "literary form" usage of "utopia", rather than the "imaginary place" meaning; I see your point but the sentence reads oddly if you parse it my way, as others may. How about something like "...feminist utopia, which Le Guin uses to explore the role..."?
 * That sounds good, done.
 * The Word for World is Forest the manner in which the structure of society affects the natural environment: looks like a missing word?
 * Indeed. Fixed.
 * Is it Annals of the Western Shore or The Annals...? I made one edit for consistency but I see another form of the title in there so I thought I should check.
 * It's just "Annals"; if I inserted a "the" it was because I wasn't paying close attention.
 * Fixed one instance. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * she has been described as being the "premier writer of both fantasy and science fiction" in the 1970s,[174] the most frequently discussed science fiction writer in the 1970s: for both of these I would guess the intended meaning is that she is premier/most-discussed 1970s writer, but I would expect that to be phrased as "of the 1970s" to avoid the implication that these descriptions were applied in the 1970s, so I think rephrasing would be good.
 * Good point, done.
 * Later in her career, she also received recognition from mainstream literary critics: in an obituary, Jo Walton stated that Le Guin "was so good that the mainstream couldn't dismiss SF any more" I'm not very familiar with Walton, but I believe she's a genre commentator, and since this is an obituary which presumably doesn't give further details, I don't think this is a good source for the claim in the first half of the sentence, though I can see the quote is handy if you can source the claim elsewhere.
 * I will look for better sourcing, but I think it's worth noting that Jo Walton herself is a writer of considerable repute; she has a Nebula and a Hugo to her name. So she's not a lightweight, either; and in some ways a shorter source is a better one for a broad synthesis, because the books focus on details to such an extent.
 * Okay, I have added a citation to White that describes Le Guin's efforts to support mainstream recognition for speculative fiction, and a citation to Cadden supporting her willingness to push the boundaries of genre. I think that should do it.
 * The second mention of White is a long way from the first, so I'd make it "Donna White" at least, if not "scholar Donna White".
 * Done.
 * I think you can normalize the capitalization of "self-Parody"; it's only spelled that way because it's a headword elsewhere in SFE3, and we're allowed to silently correct obvious errors in quotes, which could be stretched to allow this.
 * Done.
 * You might move the NYT link to the first occurrence.
 * Done.
 * Does a quote from Vice belong in the same paragraph as Clute, Zadie Smith, the LA Times, and the NYT? I don't know it but from the article it seems a minor publication, and unless I'm wrong about that it devalues the other comments in that paragraph.
 * I suspect that it's far better known than many genre publications; it has a circulation of 900,000, which is the same reach as the LA Times (admittedly, the latter is a daily, while Vice is monthly; but Vice is only commentary, not news). If you feel strongly about it, I will remove it.
 * I'm not familiar with it but will take your word for it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph of the reception section suffers from the "A said B" problem; it's not going to be easy to fix, but I don't think that's an FA-quality paragraph as it stands.
 * Okay, I've reordered some of the material, and added a sentence; I think it flows better; let me know if you have further ideas.
 * I've stared at it a bit and can't see any way to improve it, so I'll strike the comment. I might come back and have another go. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of the awards and recognition details seem quite minor. What about a List of accolades received by Ursula Le Guin?  That would allow you to hive off some of the details.  For example the number of nominations vs. wins seems like a fairly low-level detail, and (admittedly without evidence) I suspect the Society for Utopian Studies and the Freedom from Religion Foundation of being organizations whose awards are not really as newsworthy as some of the others listed.  And we could probably omit to mention how many women subsequently became Grand Masters.
 * I think a list article is probably viable, but, my few experiences with creating lists, including Le Guin's biography, have convinced me that I'm not cut out for it, so I'm not going to. I believe I have only listed nominations for Hugos, Nebulas, and Mythopoeic awards; of these, Hugo and Nebula nominations I think we can agree are significant; we could potentially drop the Mythopoeic award, though as a named fiction award, I think it's significant, too. The two society awards you mentioned I removed; you're right in that they have little impact. I disagree about the number of women grandmasters; I think the rarity of that event is attested to by enough sources that the fact that there were many more after than before her is worth mentioning (it's also only 8 words).
 * Good enough; the ones you removed are the ones that were bugging me the most. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The notion that names can exert power is also present in Hayao Miyazaki's 2001 film Spirited Away; critics have suggested that that idea originated with Le Guin's Earthsea series: suggest making it clearer that this only refers to the film's use of the idea originating with Earthsea; the idea itself is much older. And why "also present"?  It's not been mentioned to this point.
 * I guess the "Also" referred to the same idea in Le Guin's work, but yes, it's unnecessary. Removed, and clarified.
 * The wording still bothers me a bit; "originated" isn't quite right since the Earthsea books are the source, not the origin. How about "The notion that names can exert power is a theme in the Earthsea series; critics have suggested that this inspired Hayao Miyazaki's use of the idea in his 2001 film Spirited Away."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That flows well, done.
 * A fair bit more "A said B" in the "Legacy and influence" section. The paragraphs are certainly organized thematically; it's just within the paragraphs that there's no flow for the reader to follow.
 * I've tried more reorganization...
 * I copyedited one paragraph; what do you think? For the second paragraph, how about linking the last three sentences, which all talk about the seminal nature of LHOD: perhaps "...as one of the books in his conception of artistic works that have been important and influential in Western culture.  This view was echoed in The Paris Review: "No single work did more to upend the genre's conventions than The Left Hand of Darkness", and Donna White argues that The Left Hand of Darkness was one of the seminal works of science fiction, as important as Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1818)."  The Suzanne Reid sentence could go up after the ansible sentence, which lets you introduce LHOD and then finish with these linked sentences -- as it stands Reid's comment feels like a bit of a non sequitur. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with your copyedits. I like your suggestion also, and implemented something very similar . Let me know if that works, or if it needs further tweaks.
 * screen adaptations of her work till date: "to date"? Or "to that date"?
 * Tweaked.
 * There are an awful lot of "adapt"s and "adaptations" in that paragraph; any way to eliminate a couple?
 * Yeah there were rather a lot. I removed a half dozen; more is difficult.
 * I think you could eliminate at least one more by getting rid of the first sentence, which is summative but not really required -- just start with "The Left Hand of Darkness was adapted for the stage in 1995 by...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, done.
 * Thanks a lot for taking the time to review this, . I've worked through your easier comments; the three trickier ones will take me a little longer, but I'll do my best with them before sending this to FAC. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 00:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Repetition
Do we really need both of these? (See above.)


 * Top section
 * She began writing full-time in the late 1950s and achieved major critical and commercial success with A Wizard of Earthsea (1968) and The Left Hand of Darkness (1969), .[4]


 * §Critical attention
 * A Wizard of Earthsea and The Left Hand of Darkness have been described by critic Harold Bloom as Le Guin's masterpieces.[4]

--Thnidu (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we do. The lead is supposed to be a summary, after all; there shouldn't be substantive content in it which isn't in the body. I supposed we could drop Bloom's name from the lead if we must, but we need the description. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, I have to agree with you there. No need to change at all, then. Thanks. --Thnidu (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Refusal of Nebula for "The Diary of the Rose"
,, re recent edits: I think 1977 is more likely to be the correct date. See here for example. Searching Google Books for ' " diary of the rose" lem nebula' gives me snippets that seem to support the 1977 date too, though I can't really see the sources. Spivak is one of them but I don't think I have a copy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked into this a little more, and I think you're right; it's our featured list that's wrong. The piece seems to have been published in 1976, so 1975 isn't right for certain. There's some awards listed for it in 1976, and some in 1977 . I've self-reverted. I will check Spivack when I return home this evening, or perhaps tomorrow. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didnt reply earlier due to time frame. Currently I am writing the article on "The Diary..." ( because it is associated with Stanislaw Lem; I don't really familiar with Le Guin's work in depth), therefore I noticed this date blunder.   Staszek Lem (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

OK. I am finished creatin The Diary of the Rose (to the extent of bulletproofness against deletionists and to address my sinister intentions:). I invite fans of Le Guin to fill the new article with the essence and to link it wherever it may be mentioned. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

B.T.W. I am unsure how to categorize the novelette. I tentatively put it into the category:Short stories by Ursula K. Le Guin etc., following the example of the 1978 Nebula best novelette The Screwfly Solution. Staszek Lem (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lembit Staan (talk • contribs) 21:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Picture of Gaiman
The picture of Neil Gaiman is in the article to illustrate the influence Le Guin had on her field. It was, till shortly before, a picture of Salman Rushdie, for the same reason. The article has been through FAC, and so the use of the image has received considerable scrutiny. I'm happy to discuss this, but I do resent the repeated insinuation that it's in some way a promotion of Gaiman. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree; Gaiman is well-known and it seems harmlessly decorative to have a picture of a significant writer influence by Le Guin. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, seeing the same pic as is used in internet marketing I've just seen, in association with revered author here, seems very like marketing on Wikipedia to me, and so not harmless. But my deletion of the pic was instantly reverted. The claim, with the reversion, that Gaiman is 'discussed,' when his appearance in the associated text consists only of the bare mention of his last name,does not support the reversion, seems to me. It's a value judgement, but I don't know that Neil Gaiman is so well thought of in his own right that he adds valuable decoration to UK Le Guin. Ursula's article could be filled with pics of those influenced by her, but we can't have that. So choosing one to be so honored should at least avoid the appearance of benefit-seeking. If we are to decorate this section, suggest choosing someone not appearing in current marketing campaigns.Regionrat1234 (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How is it in any way more promotional than including the image of a different author she has influenced? Vanamonde (Talk) 22:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The different author, for example, might have no recent publications, and not be the subject of a current paid internet marketing campaign. Thus that author would not stand to have exposure on Wikipedia add in any degree to sought-after and potentially valuable public awareness. And therefore Wikipedia would not be in the position of being seen to be exploited as a source of such awareness, encouraging more widespread attempts to control its content for that purpose.Regionrat1234 (talk) 05:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We should no more remove a picture because an author might benefit from it than we should add one because they might benefit. The criterion should be whether it's suitable for the article. In any case, I think the benefit to Gaiman, or to any author in any similar situation, is negligible or non-existent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Closure. I jumped to the conclusion that commercial interests were at work when I came here and saw an identical photo to the one I had seen in advertisement mere hours before. But reading further tells me my corresponding editors have a long record of service to these pages, and aren't very likely to be publisher's agents. Research also informs me the Neil Gaiman was truly and fundamentally influenced by Ursula Le Guin. See this YouTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PI1xwT2-74 . So far from objecting to the Gaiman photo, I now wholeheartedly endorse it.Regionrat1234 (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I appreciate the vote of confidence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks from me too. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Polish ancestry
According to the article about LeGuin's mother Theodora Kroeber, "... her parents, Phebe Jane Kracaw (née Johnston) and Charles Emmett Kracaw, were owners of a general store. According to her family, Charles' family were recent Polish migrants ...". This article is well sourced, but it is not clear if the Polish ancestry is specifically supported by any source. Being named Kracaw should perhaps count for something. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Addition to the "American Anarchist" Category
Hello Wikipedians, I'm a new user and I made an edit to this page on May 20 that has since been removed. I added Le Guin to the category of American anarchists. User Vanamonde93 reversed this decision and said, "Le Guin has neither identified explicitly as an anarchist, nor been described as one. This category isn't appropriate." I find this puzzling because Le Guin is regularly critically analyzed as an anarchist writer. On Le Guin's personal website, she republished a critical assessment of her work through postmodern anarchism, and commented that the article "let [her] see aspects of my own older works, especially Left Hand of Darkness, in a new light." Upon Le Guin's death, Crimethinc, a well-known anarchist publication, published an article by Margaret Killjoy called "We Will Remember Freedom: Why It Matters that Ursula K. Le Guin Was an Anarchist" in which Killjoy writes, "To be clear, Ursula Le Guin didn’t, as I understand it, call herself an anarchist. I asked her about this. She told me that she didn’t call herself an anarchist because she didn’t feel that she deserved to—she didn’t do enough. I asked her if it was OK for us to call her one. She said she’d be honored." This exchange is documented in the video recording of their conversation. I think it's safe to say that if Ursula K. Le Guin didn't self-identify as an anarchist, she has been described as one and was willing to accept that label. I'd like her to be added to the list of American anarchists. Preparemyguillotine (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. You make a decent argument. My concern, though, is that in the more mainstream sources I've read (scholarly reviews of her work) she is frequently described as someone who explores anarchism, and was influenced by anarchism; but I don't see her described as an anarchist herself. Anarchism is a frequently misunderstood philosophy (or set of philosophies); anarchist groups tend to be on the fringe of US political discourse, and as a result, have a vested interest in "claiming" a well-known writer as one of their own. For a category such as this, I'd really like to see more independent, highly reliable sources (preferably scholarly sources) using this description. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've found numerous scholarly works that venture further than to say she was influenced by anarchism, and actually claim that she was an anarchist writing intentionally anarchist fiction. I'll link some articles for you to explore:

"True to both her novelistic craft and her anarchist political convictions, Le Guin succeeds in embodying in The Dispossessed an extraordinarily imaginative and sophisticated utopian vision..." — Laurence Davis: “[http://www.jstor.org/stable/20719947. Morris, Wilde, and Le Guin on Art, Work, and Utopia]” in Utopian Studies, vol. 20, no. 2, 2009, pp. 213–248. "The themes of postmodern anarchism are clearly present in her work." — Lewis Call: "Postmodern Anarchism in the Novels of Ursula K. Le Guin" in SubStance, vol. 36, no. 2, 2007, pp. 87–105. "Le Guin has produced a narrative structure, a configuration of voices, consistent with her politics, both feminist and anarchist, befitting her vision of an ideal society." — Jim Jose: "Reflections on the Politics of Le Guin's Narrative Shifts" in Science Fiction Studies, vol. 18, no. 2, 1991, pp. 180–197. The Dispossessed "reveals the author's broad and sympathetic understanding of anarchist theory." — Victor Urbanowicz: "Personal and Political in 'The Disposessed'" in Science Fiction Studies, vol. 5, no. 2, 1978, pp. 110–117. I think it is safe to say that many scholars in peer-reviewed academic journals believe that Le Guin is an anarchist.
 * Fair enough. I've added the category myself. Two unrelated suggestions, since your account history suggests you are new to Wikipedia; first, you should sign your talk page posts; second, while you are entitled to describe yourself how you please on your userpage, the description you have at the moment is likely to lead to some folks accusing you of having some sort of agenda. Just food for thought. Welcome to Wikipedia. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but what academic source describes Le Guin herself as an anarchist? I see examples of sympathism in the Killjoy interview and discussion of anarchist-sympathetic views in the The Dispossessed, which indisputibly has anarchist themes, but does not necessarily reflect Le Guin's ideology categorically. The standard for adding a biographical category is WP:COPDEF, i.e., that it needs to be a defining characteristic commonly and consistently associated with the subject. Usually if it would not warrant mention in the lede, it is probably not "defining". czar  13:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've long since given up on understanding the minutiae of when biographical categories are appropriate. The sources support the notion that Le Guin has considerable sympathy for anarchist views. I don't particularly care whether the category is used, as we've analyzed her writing in considerable detail. The ideal category would be Category:American writers exploring anarchism, or equivalent, but if it exists I don't know of it. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In literary studies I would say she is quite commonly thought of as an anarchist writer, particularly regarding The Disposessed. (Honestly, if you manage to talk about that book without mentioning anarchism, I think you may have missed the point.) I believe that maintaining a hard distinction between "a writer" and "a writer's work" is unhelpfully splitting hairs contrary to typical scholarly practice - to bring in an outside example, you'll see a lot of "Chaucer, the self-insert character in The House of Fame" vs "Chaucer, the writer of The House of Fame", but not so much "Geoffrey Chaucer's ideas" vs "the ideas in The Canterbury Tales". But in addition to this general point, I actually find it quite strange that Le Guin hasn't been described as anarchist in the lede. -- asilvering (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also: I did a sanity check for this on the nearest English literature professor and got a "but she's so anarchist!?" in response. That is an extremely scientific and representativeTM sample of one (1), of course, but nevertheless, I do think that's likely to be the standard response. -- asilvering (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I acknowledged The Dispossessed above but her oeuvre and life is so much wider than that. Something similar could be said of Oscar Wilde and anarchism.
 * I think that's the crux here. It hasn't been mentioned because it ostensibly isn't a defining personal characteristic. She is far better known in relation to feminism and Taoism than anarchism since those themes are more pervasive in her works and have received more coverage. It would be odd to say that anarchism had a strong influence on her work on the basis of The Dispossessed and The Day Before the Revolution alone. czar  02:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think anarchism underlies a lot of her writing (The Eye of the Heron and Always Coming Home are also clear examples - the first one quite explicitly; the second one more implicitly). But I also think she explores anarchism as an attractive but problematic idea, rather than promotes anarchism. (But that, I suppose, is actually true of any serious anarchist.) Where am I going with this? Nowhere in particular - but three things: 1. I don't think it is true to say anarchism is only a theme in a couple of particular works (one of which is generally considered her most important novel). 2. I am not convinced she would belong in an "anarchist" category. 3. I do think "exploring anarchism" is sufficiently central to her ouevre to belong in the leade. Nø (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What reliable sources are there that discuss anarchism as a theme in her work? I think if this discussion is going to end up in changes to the article, we need to start bringing in sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * She has mentioned the inspiration she's drawn from anarchism, particularly for the Dispossessed, in interviews; and analysis of anarchist themes in that book and Eye of the Heron are mentioned in Rochelle 2009 and White 1999, among others. The Lewis Call source cited in the article is entirely about anarchism. For sources not cited in the article, there's this. My concern is about the jump from "writer exploring anarchism" to "anarchist". Le Guin's exploration of gender is widely attested to, but we don't call her a feminist, either. I'm undecided as yet about the category, but I would oppose introducing the descriptor in the lead. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nø I'm with you on all counts. Re: #2, I'm not convinced she wouldn't belong there either; as far as I can tell, the argument comes down to "how does Wikipedia define the category", which is something I don't care all that much about (whereas I care quite a lot about "is Wikipedia starting a citogenesis incident" and "could this cause harm", neither of which I think are true here). I do care rather more about #3, and think this is a strange omission in this article. I don't think it needs much more in the lede, but the brief mention in She explored alternative political structures in many stories... downplays it, imo. -- asilvering (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That sentence currently reads "She explored alternative political structures in many stories, such as in the philosophical short story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" (1973) and the anarchist utopian novel The Dispossessed (1974)." How about adding mention of "The Day Before the Revolution" to that sentence -- e.g. "and in the novel The Dispossessed (1974) and the short story "The Day Before the Revolution" (1974), both of which were set in an anarchist utopia"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This still seems to me like sidestepping the point to me. The effect is to "quarantine" it into particular works, in the same way you might say that a novel was "inspired by a true story" or whatever. Meanwhile feminism, Jung, etc are presented broadly as "a strong influence", without any particular works mentioned. I think that difference in framing matters. -- asilvering (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The framing is intentional. The examples of political structures in her writing are given to flesh it out, not to quarantine it. The sources make it abundantly clear that Jung, and feminist critiques, were large outside influences in her work. Anarchism is not described this way; sources analyze her description of political structures in detail, but overt mentions of anarchist influence are few and far between. Her exploration of political structure is far wider than just anarchism; Omelas is not described as an anarchist story, for instance, but it's probably the best known work on political structures after the Dispossessed. At the moment, this gets more detail in the lead than any other single influence or theme: I disagree that more is needed. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure the framing is intentional. I can disagree with it, and disagree with the idea that this "fleshes it out" instead of "quarantining" it, whether the framing is intentional or not. -- asilvering (talk) 11:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

My take is that if the current, nonspecific framing is most representative of the sources, then it would indicate that Wikipedia is not describing Le Guin as "an anarchist" as a defining trait. If the article needs to include more depth on her politics, that is the discussion and editing that should happen first. (E.g., that anarchism was a major theme of her work and personal politics beyond isolated works.) If that happens, only then we would discuss whether that coverage requires greater mention in the lede—which should aways reflect the current article—and, accordingly, the category. But as of now, it's a leap of logic. czar 16:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth from me; from the one interview i read regarding this, (before this I always assumed her to be an anarchist, she wrote anarchist fiction, she does not say she is not an anarchist, but says, 'I am a bourgeois housewife, I don’t practise anarchism'. Now one could replace 'anarchism' here with 'feminism' but I do not think one would say she was not a feminist. As far as it goes also she writes anarchist fiction, her most well known work is an anarchist work, and anecdotally, before this conversation i always had her catagorized internally as an anarchist and the people i asked around me understand her as this too. I for all these reasons would put her in the catagory as self-identification is always not the important thing, as it is not with say; adding a person to WP:Anarchsim or adding an author to theanarchistlibrary.org, we would find that more often than not people who would perhaps not Also I think it does not matter that much because catagories are dumb and only really exist to sate some peoples desires towards creating lists and ordering things as an activity. so yea. either way i guess but this was my perception. SP00KY talk  23:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * It's less about quoting how she personally identified and more about summarizing how reliable, secondary sources discuss the traits that typically define her. In all the volumes of material written about Le Guin, we need sources that show anarchism to be a major theme of her oeuvre or life. If the connection is that obvious, based on the anecdotes above, it shouldn't be hard to show. czar  15:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, my copy of 'The Word for World is Forest' says in the front of it  It brings into sharp focus several of it's author's enduring concerns, and draws on teh same intellectual resources that illuminate her wider work: notably anthropology, anarchism'', feminism and taoism'. SP00KY  talk  18:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is actually a perfect example of why we shouldn't include the category. We don't describe her as a feminist, or an anthropologist, or a Taoist, in the text, and I see no argument for doing so. I see an "American Taoists" category, that should probably go for similar reasons; we have a "feminist writers" category, but that's rather different than saying "Feminist", IMHO. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This argument feels bizarre to me. It seems like if we found that text in a reliable source, we could easily use it to describe her as all those things in the text. Loki (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't follow. My point is we have sources describing her as a writer influenced by feminism, or by anarchism; not as a feminist, or anarchist. You're saying we could use those terms if we had sources, but that's besides the point; we don't. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Whatever dude. have your ridiculous definition mongering. it is not that important and this all is more than a little bit pathetic.. SP00KY  talk  15:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on this point. But that's exactly why I find it odd that the lede says Cultural anthropology, Taoism, feminism, and the writings of Carl Jung all had a strong influence on Le Guin's work, and doesn't mention anarchism until She explored alternative political structures in many stories[...]. -- asilvering (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the english language 'Sci-Fi MasterWorks' edition by the way. It is probably the most common edition in english as it is the one you will find in the book stores. SP00KY  talk  15:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Jumping in here to add that I also think that anarchism is a pretty obviously defining characteristic of her and her work, though I don't have any new sources about that. Loki (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Update: while it's not a literary source, Jacobin is green at WP:RSP and this article describes the blend of anarchism, Taoism, and feminism that permeates Le Guin’s worldview. Loki (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)