![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bloodyrosemccoy) wrote2008-11-19 02:49 pm
Review From The Linguist
So I finished Ursula K. LeGuin’s The Left Hand Of Darkness yesterday, and hey—let’s hear it for thoughtful science fiction!
I was most impressed at the way she incorporated her worldbuilding into the story—she had a good focus on a smallish area on one planet, and explored it in great depth. I liked the detail, the believability, the different psychology (often “different culture” has people still thinking the same, with material differences—basically the author puts a funny hat on a character and says, “Different culture!”), and the feeling that this was a whole world we were seeing was good. She does get pompous about it at times—I’m always suspicious of a book that treats itself as such SRS BZNS.
Her design principles for this world seemed, to me, mostly subtractive, like she was taking away more than adding. The building seems minimalist in a way. Consider:
- Small inhabitable area makes for less of a spread of humanity, thus more communication.
- The removal of differing genders, while it does add a few things to the culture we don’t have, seems to mostly be about removing an extra layer of cultural meaning—she postulates that sex taboos wouldn’t exist, notes that rape is sort of impossible with their particular biological setup, sexism doesn’t exist (see? Subtraction isn’t always bad!), and even goes out on a limb and suggests that war on this planet doesn’t exist on a large scale because they lack a concept of duality.
- Technology is overall about 20th-Century level, with a few things taken away (TV, flight)
- Fewer species on the planet to inspire stories and culture—off the top of my head I remember there being no large herd animals, no birds (or anything that flies—which the main character figures is why they’ve never invented airplanes), no insects.
On the one hand, I understand that it’s sort of ridiculous to say that more stuff = more culture, like saying Americans have “more” culture than the !Kung. But the portrait we get in this book seems cumulatively subtractive, even with the concepts she does add (shifgrethor, Foretelling, the ins and outs of mating, the psychology). The stark environment around them bleeds into the starkness of the cultures themselves—but then, that might be partially because it’s impossible to really paint the nuances of a culture.
I also give her props for her language-building for two reasons:
- She’s actually given it some thought, has differences in the two languages we see in the story, and has sound systems that I’m not sure about but looks at least sorta cohesive.
- This is hands-down the ugliest language system I have ever seen.
She even beat out Tolkien* and Láadan in that latter category, far and away. It’s spectacularly ugly, cumulatively ugly, ugly piled on ugly. The words were so awful—so nasty—that I gave serious thought to stopping the book just to get the hell away from having to read names and words like “Therem Harth rem ir Estraven,” “Gethen,” “kemmer,” “shifgrethor” (pardon me, I just gagged), “Harhahad,” “Ockre,”*** “Handdara,” “nusuth,” “Ehrenrang,” “kyorremy,” “Karhide.” Was she trying for ugly as the hind-end of a dog? Or is this just one of my own aesthetic sensibilities?
Despite the language, though, I kept going, and I’m glad I did. At least now I can say I've read it.
*You can all kill me now. If it makes you feel better, I am only comparing these two on the plane of sheer ugliness—Láadan can't touch Tolkien's language families in any other way.**
**And for those of you who may possibly like Láadan, let me just state that everybody has their own opinion, and yours is wrong.
***This one worries me. Why is there a “ck” blend—how is it different from “c” or “k”? I’m much less suspicious of the double letters, and she may be able to make a case for her haphazard-looking use of “y,” but “ck”? Really?
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
A "ck" cluster is possible if they represent different sounds. Like if "c" is palatal and "k" is velar. I'd think there'd be a strong tendency towards assimilation either way though.
EDITOR HAT ON: You're missing the double asterisk in the body text (I assume it's meant to come after "Láadan"). Also, I think you meant "for that matter", not "latter".
Also, you forgot to link Planet of Hats. >;D
no subject
Another of hers I enjoyed was The Lathe of Heaven. Turtle aliens!
...and now I'm off on a tangent and am wondering why I didn't bring Lilith's Brood (Octavia Butler, and it's three books in one, and tentacle babies!) and my other Spec Fic books along to school, because some of them were really good reading and I kind of want them right now... And I want my Cherryh, dammit. I didn't realized I'd want to read hard sci fi. I thought I'd want fluff, like Pratchett and my very large collection of J Fantasy. But no, I want to watch fluff movies and read hard sci fi.
no subject
Yes, I realize that may be the difference in c and k, but I don't KNOW, and that troubles me!
Now I'm curious: What do you think of those names?
*confiscates your editor's hat*
"For that latter" is awkward, I admit, but it refers to the latter of the two reasons I gave. I will put the word "reason" in there if it helps.
Also, the double asterisk is right there at the end of the first footnote. THAT'S RIGHT, BITCH, MY FOOTNOTES HAVE FOOTNOTES.
no subject
no subject
You might be a bit put off by the simplicity of it, especially the first one. I found they gained in interest and power substantially as I kept reading (books three and four were my favorites).
no subject
She's not too-entirely-deep-n-serious in person though. She's a pretty cool lady! Oddly enough, for someone who manages to show so much philosophy/message in her books, she really doesn't like the Academic drive to find THE message in a story.
I really highly recommend Changing Planes, which was written in the last five years (I think), and is...well, not short stories, but a group of slightly-tied-together vignettes of very different worlds. It's got the deep ideas and a lovely touch of lightness and occasional humor.
no subject
>“shifgrethor” (pardon me, I just gagged)
Somehow, my weird half-dyslexia always tried to parse that as "shitfucker".
Given the nature of Gethenian politics, that might not be too far off the mark.
no subject
Skellington1 is right, there's a lot less of it in Earthsea. It mainly shows up in people's True Names, which are usually kept secret because otherwise people can have power over you.
Enjoyed the first one. Couldn't make it through the second. Didn't try the third. Didn't know there was a fourth.
Argh, missed those asterisks!
no subject
no subject
I can give you the name of the professor who taught the class, though. She may be able to help you with that.
no subject
On an only slightly related note, I can't for the life of me read the last Chanur book, because I absolutely can't stand Hilfy. I just want to deck her whenever she shows up. Curses!
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject