The Language of the Night: Essays on Fantasy and Science Fiction
by Ursula K. Le Guin
On This Page
Description
"Le Guin's sharp and witty voice is on full display in this collection of twenty-four essays, revised by the author a decade after its initial publication in 1979. The collection covers a wide range of topics and Le Guin's origins as a writer, her advocacy for science fiction and fantasy as mediums for true literary exploration, the writing of her own major works such as A wizard of Earthsea and The left hand of darkness, and her role as a public intellectual and educator. The book and each show more thematic section are brilliantly introduced and contextualized by Susan Wood, a professor at the University of British Columbia and a literary editor and feminist activist during the 1960s and '70s. A fascinating, intimate look into the exceptional mind of Le Guin, whose insights remain as relevant and resonant today as when they were first published."-- show lessTags
Recommendations
Member Recommendations
aulsmith Another subtle book about the joys and trials of writing
Member Reviews
These are some good essays, and an interesting look at the SFF landscape as it was some 50+ years ago. Le Guin is insightful and articulate, but never condescending. She's primarily concerned with how the canvases of fantasy and sci-fi relate to the human mind; how we might be influenced to conjure up ideas through experience, why we might fear or embrace certain concepts, and how a writer goes about seeking and probing for "truth." She also argues that fantasy and sci-fi are just as deserving of respect as other literature is, and I fully agree. Even in our modern day, I still notice that some readers and writers scoff at or avoid SFF because "it's all escapist junk" or something like that. Well, some of it is, but there's also a great show more deal of rich, thoughtful books full of life that make us look more deeply at ourselves and the world around us.
In some ways, I've always agreed with that sentiment despite previously going to some books for escapist purposes. Books meant to lull or placate can be nice for a while, but on the whole are unfulfilling, or, as Le Guin puts it, "hollow." It's always been the books that reflect, question and scrutinize; the books that don't pretend to have all the answers, that have stuck with me most. Le Guin aspires for authenticity, and she implores us to do the same.
That quote is from Le Guin's "From Elfland to Poughkeepsie" essay, one of my favorites from this collection. You can read it here. It's primarily about writing style and how to spot the authenticity of one vs. another. Not only is the essay pretty funny at times, but it's clear and persuasive. It's probably the best essay of hers to read here if you're looking for a pure dive into the idea of genre and why a writer might choose one genre (in this case, fantasy) over another. The essay will also give you a general idea of the quality of Le Guin's writing found here.
Le Guin also argues against the discrimination of "the other" in SFF:
I'd like to add that it's very easy to adopt such ways of thinking without even realizing it, especially when we're younger and more impressionable. It sure has taken me quite a while to dislodge most of the regressive and damaging sorts of views I haplessly absorbed while reading all kinds of fantasy and sci-fi. "It's fine if certain people are treated this way" or "gender must only be this way" eventually leads to a dead end.
Sadly, this can be a very lucrative dead end for some authors. But Le Guin calls them out for it, and says that we shouldn't sacrifice our Art for popularity. An often used defense for shoddy writing is that "it's only entertainment," something that Le Guin takes umbrage with. "I totally oppose the notion that you can put Art over here on a pedestal, and Entertainment down here in a clown suit. Art and Entertainment are the same thing, in that the more deeply and genuinely entertaining a work is, the better art it is. To imply that Art is something heavy and solemn and dull, and Entertainment is modest but jolly and popular, is neo-Victorian idiocy at its worst."
She ends the book on a positive note, talking about how she'd like to see writers be more introspective and mature. Here's a final quote to end the review:
In some ways, I've always agreed with that sentiment despite previously going to some books for escapist purposes. Books meant to lull or placate can be nice for a while, but on the whole are unfulfilling, or, as Le Guin puts it, "hollow." It's always been the books that reflect, question and scrutinize; the books that don't pretend to have all the answers, that have stuck with me most. Le Guin aspires for authenticity, and she implores us to do the same.
"I believe that the reader has a responsibility; if we love the stuff we read, we have a duty toward it. That duty is to refuse to be fooled; to refuse to permit commercial exploitation of the holy ground of Myth; to reject shoddy work, and to save our praise for the real thing. Because when fantasy is the real thing, nothing, after all, is realer."
That quote is from Le Guin's "From Elfland to Poughkeepsie" essay, one of my favorites from this collection. You can read it here. It's primarily about writing style and how to spot the authenticity of one vs. another. Not only is the essay pretty funny at times, but it's clear and persuasive. It's probably the best essay of hers to read here if you're looking for a pure dive into the idea of genre and why a writer might choose one genre (in this case, fantasy) over another. The essay will also give you a general idea of the quality of Le Guin's writing found here.
Le Guin also argues against the discrimination of "the other" in SFF:
"If you deny any affinity with another person or kind of person, if you declare it to be wholly different from yourself—as men have done to women, and class has done to class, and nation has done to nation—you may hate it or deify it; but in either case you have denied its spiritual equality and its human reality. You have made it into a thing, to which the only possible relationship is a power relationship. And thus you have fatally impoverished your own reality. You have, in fact, alienated yourself."
I'd like to add that it's very easy to adopt such ways of thinking without even realizing it, especially when we're younger and more impressionable. It sure has taken me quite a while to dislodge most of the regressive and damaging sorts of views I haplessly absorbed while reading all kinds of fantasy and sci-fi. "It's fine if certain people are treated this way" or "gender must only be this way" eventually leads to a dead end.
Sadly, this can be a very lucrative dead end for some authors. But Le Guin calls them out for it, and says that we shouldn't sacrifice our Art for popularity. An often used defense for shoddy writing is that "it's only entertainment," something that Le Guin takes umbrage with. "I totally oppose the notion that you can put Art over here on a pedestal, and Entertainment down here in a clown suit. Art and Entertainment are the same thing, in that the more deeply and genuinely entertaining a work is, the better art it is. To imply that Art is something heavy and solemn and dull, and Entertainment is modest but jolly and popular, is neo-Victorian idiocy at its worst."
She ends the book on a positive note, talking about how she'd like to see writers be more introspective and mature. Here's a final quote to end the review:
"When I say I’d like SF to be self-critical, I don’t mean pedantic or destructively perfectionist; I mean I’d like to see more SF readers judging soundly, dismissing the failures quietly, in order to praise the successes joyfully—and to go on from them, to build upon them. That is maturity, isn’t it?—a just assessment of your capacities, and the will to fulfill them. We have plenty to praise, you know. I do think SF during the past ten years has produced some books and stories that will last, that will be meaningful and beautiful many years from now."show less
Probably the best compliment one can pay a book and its author is to say that it made you pick up another book by that author. And while I was reading this, I found Le Guin's Unlocking the Air and Other Stories at a book sale and grabbed it. But this book gets an even bigger compliment. It may just have broadened my reading horizons into science fiction.
These "essays" include introductions to books (her own and others), critical essays on science fiction and on writing, as well as speeches made by Le Guin on various occasions.
The very first essay describes Le Guin's introduction to Lord Dunsany, who made her realize that "people were still making up myths." This immediately got me on her side because I like his work very much (though I show more don't share her enthusiasm for Tolkien).
She addresses such questions as "Can a science fiction writer write a novel? (And, not so incidentally, Is it advisable that this should come to pass?", the importance of the imagination, how Elfland differs from Poughkeepsie and much more. And as a writer talking about process, she is also willing to go back and criticize her own early work, to recognize wherein she may have failed, where she wore blinders.
There are so many things I could quote from this book - I could be writing forever. But a few follow.
"I believe that maturity is not an outgrowing, but a growing up: that an adult is not a dead child, but a child who survived. I believe that all the best faculties of a mature human being exist in the child, and that if these faculties are encouraged in youth they will act well and wisely in the adult, but if they are repressed and denied in the child they will stunt and cripple the adult personality. And finally, I believe that one of the most deeply human, and humane, of these faculties is the power of the imagination . . .
"A fantasy is a journey. It is a journey into the subconscious mind, just as psychoanalysis is. Like psychoanalysis, it can be dangerous; and it will change you. The general assumption is that, if there are dragons or hippogriffs in a book, or if it takes place in a vaguely Keltic or Near Eastern medieval setting, or if magic is done in it, then it's a fantasy. This is a mistake."
"We've got to stop skulking around playing by ourselves, like the kid everybody picks on. When an SF book is reviewed, in a fanzine or a literary review, it should be compared with the rest of current literature like any other book and placed among the rest on its own individual merits. When an SF book is criticized, in print or in a class, it should be criticized as hard as any other book, demandingly, with the same expectations of literacy, solidity, complexity, craftsmanship. When an SF book is read, it should be read as a novel or a short story -- that is, a work in the traditions also employed by Dickens and Chekhov -- not as an artifact from the Pulp Factory."
She's also funny:
"For me the telephone is for making appointments with the doctor with and canceling appointments with the dentist with. It is not a medium of human communication. I can't stand there in the hall with the child and the cat both circling my legs frisking and purring and demanding cookies and catfood, and explain to a disembodied voice in my ear that the Jungian spectrum of introvert/extravert can usefully be applied not only to human beings, but also to authors." show less
These "essays" include introductions to books (her own and others), critical essays on science fiction and on writing, as well as speeches made by Le Guin on various occasions.
The very first essay describes Le Guin's introduction to Lord Dunsany, who made her realize that "people were still making up myths." This immediately got me on her side because I like his work very much (though I show more don't share her enthusiasm for Tolkien).
She addresses such questions as "Can a science fiction writer write a novel? (And, not so incidentally, Is it advisable that this should come to pass?", the importance of the imagination, how Elfland differs from Poughkeepsie and much more. And as a writer talking about process, she is also willing to go back and criticize her own early work, to recognize wherein she may have failed, where she wore blinders.
There are so many things I could quote from this book - I could be writing forever. But a few follow.
"I believe that maturity is not an outgrowing, but a growing up: that an adult is not a dead child, but a child who survived. I believe that all the best faculties of a mature human being exist in the child, and that if these faculties are encouraged in youth they will act well and wisely in the adult, but if they are repressed and denied in the child they will stunt and cripple the adult personality. And finally, I believe that one of the most deeply human, and humane, of these faculties is the power of the imagination . . .
"A fantasy is a journey. It is a journey into the subconscious mind, just as psychoanalysis is. Like psychoanalysis, it can be dangerous; and it will change you. The general assumption is that, if there are dragons or hippogriffs in a book, or if it takes place in a vaguely Keltic or Near Eastern medieval setting, or if magic is done in it, then it's a fantasy. This is a mistake."
"We've got to stop skulking around playing by ourselves, like the kid everybody picks on. When an SF book is reviewed, in a fanzine or a literary review, it should be compared with the rest of current literature like any other book and placed among the rest on its own individual merits. When an SF book is criticized, in print or in a class, it should be criticized as hard as any other book, demandingly, with the same expectations of literacy, solidity, complexity, craftsmanship. When an SF book is read, it should be read as a novel or a short story -- that is, a work in the traditions also employed by Dickens and Chekhov -- not as an artifact from the Pulp Factory."
She's also funny:
"For me the telephone is for making appointments with the doctor with and canceling appointments with the dentist with. It is not a medium of human communication. I can't stand there in the hall with the child and the cat both circling my legs frisking and purring and demanding cookies and catfood, and explain to a disembodied voice in my ear that the Jungian spectrum of introvert/extravert can usefully be applied not only to human beings, but also to authors." show less
The Language of the Night is a collection of essays, speaking notes, critical writings and book introductions written by Ursula K. Le Guin during the 1970s. From her position as a prominent writer—moreover, one of the few women writers in the field at that time—she surveyed the landscape of what came before, where it stood then, where she hoped it would go someday, and why it all mattered. It's a survey over a lot of geography:
· what it is that makes good fantasy and its modern child, science fiction;
· why children "get" it and should have it, and why some adults cannot;
· that fantasy and science fiction ought to accept the same metric as any other creative endeavor: the Best is the standard;
· why Katherine Kurtz and similar show more authors do not really write fantasy;
· her feminist anger and why, sometimes, it has been useful and, other times, overshadowed;
· on Alice Sheldon and James Tiptree, Jr.;
· why thinking about Carl Jung can bring a whole new perspective on Tolkien;
· …and on; I've touched only the surface.
She is articulate. She is opinionated. She's candid. She's proud though occasionally humble. She's funny. If you have cared about any creation from Lirazel to Nobusuke Tagomi to Samwise Gamgee…not even mentioning anything from Ged to Estraven…I think you'll find something to laugh at, or rail against, or say "Exactly!" about in this collection. show less
· what it is that makes good fantasy and its modern child, science fiction;
· why children "get" it and should have it, and why some adults cannot;
· that fantasy and science fiction ought to accept the same metric as any other creative endeavor: the Best is the standard;
· why Katherine Kurtz and similar show more authors do not really write fantasy;
· her feminist anger and why, sometimes, it has been useful and, other times, overshadowed;
· on Alice Sheldon and James Tiptree, Jr.;
· why thinking about Carl Jung can bring a whole new perspective on Tolkien;
· …and on; I've touched only the surface.
She is articulate. She is opinionated. She's candid. She's proud though occasionally humble. She's funny. If you have cared about any creation from Lirazel to Nobusuke Tagomi to Samwise Gamgee…not even mentioning anything from Ged to Estraven…I think you'll find something to laugh at, or rail against, or say "Exactly!" about in this collection. show less
(Original Review, 1981-04-01)
My understanding of close reading was what I described in another review gleaning from Empson, and I never intended to dismiss the idea of finding archetypes in literary characters. As far as that goes, I might put myself much closer to the other extreme and be tempted to say: every story contains archetypes because we have nothing else to tell stories about; even non-fiction stories are told primarily if not exclusively about real people who embody archetypes.
I’m now reading a collection of essays by Ursula K. Le Guin, “Language of the Night,” and she offers an interesting take on many of these issues from the writer’s point of view. She acknowledges the appearance of archetypes in her stories, but, show more with what she considers her best work, the story comes from within her and only after it is written does she recognize the archetype that inspired it:
“The writer who draws not upon the works and thoughts of others, but upon his own thoughts and his own deep being, will inevitably hit upon common material. The more original his work, the more imperiously recognizable it will be.”
Here she is on symbols and meaning in literature:
“In many college English courses the words “myth” and “symbol” are given a tremendous charge of significance. You just ain’t no good unless you can see a symbol hiding, like a scared gerbil, under every page. And in many creative writing courses the little beasts multiply, the place swarms with them. What does this Mean? What does this Symbolize? What is the Underlying Mythos? Kids come lurching out of such courses with a brain full of gerbils. And they sit down and write a lot of empty pomposity, under the impression that that’s how Melville did it.
Even when they begin to realize that art is not something for critics, but for other human beings, some of them retain the overintellectualizing bent. They still do not realize that a symbol is not a sign of something known, but an indicator of something not known and not expressible otherwise than symbolically. They mistake symbol (living meaning) for allegory (dead equivalence).”
SF (Speculative Fiction) was the realm where nerdish white boys went to dream of swords and D-cups. (Yes, that is very unfair. I must be slandering at least 1 1/2% of my fellow geeks.) Now it's no longer just boys & men but also girls & women who have discovered how much fun you can have in these genres. So give it some time and the whole community, from the bottom up, will change. Some dinosaurs won't - no: don't - like it and they will complain about the newcomers trying to take their swords and D-cups away. We already see that in the world of gaming and comics. One word of advice to the dinosaurs: comet. No, I think it is unlikely a cabal of females will come to your house and slit your throats with magic swords or strangle you with their bras*. You will just become more and more irrelevant. A group of moaning old-timers who are Fantasy & SF's equivalent of the Creation Museum. I don’t care about the gender of the writer; what I care about is the quality of what they write. If it’s crap, I’ll give them hell as I usually do [2018 EDIT: I’m still doing it… there has been no shortage in the last decades of absolutely brilliant women writing SF. There has, however, been a noticeable increase in the number of titles unambiguously written by women. This increase deserves examination. While there are still very good women writing science-fiction and fantasy, I do think that the number of poorly written books being published seems to be increasing. I think the market has expanded, and publishers are less likely to devote resources for editing. The recent surge of women writing means that women are disproportionately affected by that lack of editing. This is particularly true in Fantasy, as opposed to Science-Fiction, as Fantasy allows more discretion over the rules of the Universe (one can always resolve a plot issue through magic, “deus ex deus”, if you will). Science-Fiction requires a higher degree of internal consistency (“Deus-ex-machina” requires a machina, after all). Again, poorer editorship then has a disproportionate effect on the incoming women writers of Fantasy. To be clear, poor editorship effects both genders and both genres, but hits disproportionately against women writing in Fantasy].
NB: (*) Which might actually come as a disappointment to many a hardcore nerd: sorry (Nah. Not really).
NB: Both quotes from the essay “Myth and Archetype in Science Fiction”.
[2018 EDIT: I'm still slightly in shock. Ursula Le Guin was simply one of my favourite writers; a constant companion throughout my reading life. Everything she wrote is worth reading. However perhaps it's worth going beyond these same things that everyone recommends (excellent though they are) to work that people don't read enough or underrate. You could read the Hainish novels. “The Left Hand of Darkness” and “The Dispossessed” aren't the first of these. City of Illusions (1967) is perhaps the most Taoist of them all, and does provide a kind of underpinning for many of the others. For my money, the novella, “The Word for World is Forest” (1976), is also one of the best: a brilliant anti-colonial eco-political fable. Then there are her short stories. And don’t get me started on Earthsea…] show less
My understanding of close reading was what I described in another review gleaning from Empson, and I never intended to dismiss the idea of finding archetypes in literary characters. As far as that goes, I might put myself much closer to the other extreme and be tempted to say: every story contains archetypes because we have nothing else to tell stories about; even non-fiction stories are told primarily if not exclusively about real people who embody archetypes.
I’m now reading a collection of essays by Ursula K. Le Guin, “Language of the Night,” and she offers an interesting take on many of these issues from the writer’s point of view. She acknowledges the appearance of archetypes in her stories, but, show more with what she considers her best work, the story comes from within her and only after it is written does she recognize the archetype that inspired it:
“The writer who draws not upon the works and thoughts of others, but upon his own thoughts and his own deep being, will inevitably hit upon common material. The more original his work, the more imperiously recognizable it will be.”
Here she is on symbols and meaning in literature:
“In many college English courses the words “myth” and “symbol” are given a tremendous charge of significance. You just ain’t no good unless you can see a symbol hiding, like a scared gerbil, under every page. And in many creative writing courses the little beasts multiply, the place swarms with them. What does this Mean? What does this Symbolize? What is the Underlying Mythos? Kids come lurching out of such courses with a brain full of gerbils. And they sit down and write a lot of empty pomposity, under the impression that that’s how Melville did it.
Even when they begin to realize that art is not something for critics, but for other human beings, some of them retain the overintellectualizing bent. They still do not realize that a symbol is not a sign of something known, but an indicator of something not known and not expressible otherwise than symbolically. They mistake symbol (living meaning) for allegory (dead equivalence).”
SF (Speculative Fiction) was the realm where nerdish white boys went to dream of swords and D-cups. (Yes, that is very unfair. I must be slandering at least 1 1/2% of my fellow geeks.) Now it's no longer just boys & men but also girls & women who have discovered how much fun you can have in these genres. So give it some time and the whole community, from the bottom up, will change. Some dinosaurs won't - no: don't - like it and they will complain about the newcomers trying to take their swords and D-cups away. We already see that in the world of gaming and comics. One word of advice to the dinosaurs: comet. No, I think it is unlikely a cabal of females will come to your house and slit your throats with magic swords or strangle you with their bras*. You will just become more and more irrelevant. A group of moaning old-timers who are Fantasy & SF's equivalent of the Creation Museum. I don’t care about the gender of the writer; what I care about is the quality of what they write. If it’s crap, I’ll give them hell as I usually do [2018 EDIT: I’m still doing it… there has been no shortage in the last decades of absolutely brilliant women writing SF. There has, however, been a noticeable increase in the number of titles unambiguously written by women. This increase deserves examination. While there are still very good women writing science-fiction and fantasy, I do think that the number of poorly written books being published seems to be increasing. I think the market has expanded, and publishers are less likely to devote resources for editing. The recent surge of women writing means that women are disproportionately affected by that lack of editing. This is particularly true in Fantasy, as opposed to Science-Fiction, as Fantasy allows more discretion over the rules of the Universe (one can always resolve a plot issue through magic, “deus ex deus”, if you will). Science-Fiction requires a higher degree of internal consistency (“Deus-ex-machina” requires a machina, after all). Again, poorer editorship then has a disproportionate effect on the incoming women writers of Fantasy. To be clear, poor editorship effects both genders and both genres, but hits disproportionately against women writing in Fantasy].
NB: (*) Which might actually come as a disappointment to many a hardcore nerd: sorry (Nah. Not really).
NB: Both quotes from the essay “Myth and Archetype in Science Fiction”.
[2018 EDIT: I'm still slightly in shock. Ursula Le Guin was simply one of my favourite writers; a constant companion throughout my reading life. Everything she wrote is worth reading. However perhaps it's worth going beyond these same things that everyone recommends (excellent though they are) to work that people don't read enough or underrate. You could read the Hainish novels. “The Left Hand of Darkness” and “The Dispossessed” aren't the first of these. City of Illusions (1967) is perhaps the most Taoist of them all, and does provide a kind of underpinning for many of the others. For my money, the novella, “The Word for World is Forest” (1976), is also one of the best: a brilliant anti-colonial eco-political fable. Then there are her short stories. And don’t get me started on Earthsea…] show less
This is a collection of essays, introductions from various editions of the author's novels, and talks given at workshops and conventions. They set out the author's philosophy on what makes good science fiction or fantasy - truth rather than commercial qualities. There is quite a lot of Jungian philosophy which sometimes veers close to pretentiousness. The most interesting parts for me are where she discusses her own method of writing, which was intuitive and from the subconscious. She usually began with a character in a scene - or maybe a couple of characters - and then had to write the story to work out what was happening.
Some of what she said about "trash" writing is probably correct, but she was quite proscriptive on what show more constitutes truth in fantasy. In this connection, the essay 'From Elfland to Poughkeepsie' stoops to an attack on the work of a particular author. I immediately recognised whose work was being pilloried from the character names in the quoted extract. A footnote at the end of the essay confirmed it was taken from that author's first novel. Le Guin posits a fictional novel in which only four words are changed in that extract, transforming it into a political novel set in Washington DC. She apologises to the author for picking her for this object lesson, saying something good had gone wrong for her to be able to do this, and decides it is the straightforward style.
Although I haven't read the book in question for many years I greatly enjoyed it, and I think its use is unfair, especially as the examples of 'good' fantasy it is compared to include E R Eddison (whose prose I found so impenetrable I gave up the idea of reading 'The Worm Ouroboros') and Kenneth Morris who isn't much better. (Considering I once read William Hope Hodgson's 'The Night Land', which is written in a kind of cod Elizabethan, I don't think I can be accused of giving up easily on a novel.) From my memory of the book attacked, I don't think much of it could be translated into a Washington political thriller: the story is set in an alternative medieval Wales, beset by political and religious strife and the persecution of a race who have magical abilities. If anything, if it were to be reassigned to another genre and the magic were somehow to be removed (which might not be possible anyway), it would be a historical novel. But I don't see anything wrong with lucid, straightforward prose that does not get in the way of the story - as the Eddison and Morris examples do.
Le Guin characterises this plain prose as 'Poughkeepsie' style (ironically, as someone from the UK, Poughkeepsie sounds to me like somewhere in Elfland). In her view, this is fake plainness (she takes care to distinguish it from Tolkien's who she admired) equivalent to journalism. She attributes it to a lack of serious intention: 'a failure to take the job seriously'. Presumably permission was given for the quote to be used, but with the author denied the right of comeback, the attack mounts up over several pages into overkill, causing me to lose respect for Le Guin as a person. It wasn't necessary to quote a particular author's work to make the points she wanted to make, and I'm sure the book's author takes her job just as seriously as Le Guin did.
She also attacks the extract for a line spoken by one of the characters who says 'I could have told you that at....' This she interprets as "I told you so" and says 'Nobody who says "I told you so" has ever been, or will ever be, a hero.' This isn't consistent, since elsewhere in the collection she talks about people not being heroes but doing heroic things, and having normal human flaws etc. The quote from the story is given no context anyway, but I don't see a problem with a protagonist, heroic at other times, having the odd impatient moment under stress. But, she tells us, Lords of Elfland are the only true lords and the sign of their lordship is their inward greatness and therefore they can't actually show human flaws. To me, that sounds more like a cardboard cutout than the portrayal of a real person with weaknesses and strengths.
Given my level of annoyance with this essay and the slight pretentiousness elsewhere, I can only rate the collection overall at 3 stars. show less
Some of what she said about "trash" writing is probably correct, but she was quite proscriptive on what show more constitutes truth in fantasy. In this connection, the essay 'From Elfland to Poughkeepsie' stoops to an attack on the work of a particular author. I immediately recognised whose work was being pilloried from the character names in the quoted extract. A footnote at the end of the essay confirmed it was taken from that author's first novel. Le Guin posits a fictional novel in which only four words are changed in that extract, transforming it into a political novel set in Washington DC. She apologises to the author for picking her for this object lesson, saying something good had gone wrong for her to be able to do this, and decides it is the straightforward style.
Although I haven't read the book in question for many years I greatly enjoyed it, and I think its use is unfair, especially as the examples of 'good' fantasy it is compared to include E R Eddison (whose prose I found so impenetrable I gave up the idea of reading 'The Worm Ouroboros') and Kenneth Morris who isn't much better. (Considering I once read William Hope Hodgson's 'The Night Land', which is written in a kind of cod Elizabethan, I don't think I can be accused of giving up easily on a novel.) From my memory of the book attacked, I don't think much of it could be translated into a Washington political thriller: the story is set in an alternative medieval Wales, beset by political and religious strife and the persecution of a race who have magical abilities. If anything, if it were to be reassigned to another genre and the magic were somehow to be removed (which might not be possible anyway), it would be a historical novel. But I don't see anything wrong with lucid, straightforward prose that does not get in the way of the story - as the Eddison and Morris examples do.
Le Guin characterises this plain prose as 'Poughkeepsie' style (ironically, as someone from the UK, Poughkeepsie sounds to me like somewhere in Elfland). In her view, this is fake plainness (she takes care to distinguish it from Tolkien's who she admired) equivalent to journalism. She attributes it to a lack of serious intention: 'a failure to take the job seriously'. Presumably permission was given for the quote to be used, but with the author denied the right of comeback, the attack mounts up over several pages into overkill, causing me to lose respect for Le Guin as a person. It wasn't necessary to quote a particular author's work to make the points she wanted to make, and I'm sure the book's author takes her job just as seriously as Le Guin did.
She also attacks the extract for a line spoken by one of the characters who says 'I could have told you that at....' This she interprets as "I told you so" and says 'Nobody who says "I told you so" has ever been, or will ever be, a hero.' This isn't consistent, since elsewhere in the collection she talks about people not being heroes but doing heroic things, and having normal human flaws etc. The quote from the story is given no context anyway, but I don't see a problem with a protagonist, heroic at other times, having the odd impatient moment under stress. But, she tells us, Lords of Elfland are the only true lords and the sign of their lordship is their inward greatness and therefore they can't actually show human flaws. To me, that sounds more like a cardboard cutout than the portrayal of a real person with weaknesses and strengths.
Given my level of annoyance with this essay and the slight pretentiousness elsewhere, I can only rate the collection overall at 3 stars. show less
By Hain, I love this book! I read it in an indescribably awful B&B in Norwich during the BtVS conference at UEA. It was so cold, I couldn't sleep, so I stayed up all night, in three layers of clothes, reading and rereading this book. Finally, I warmed up enough to get to sleep - and shortly thereafter, the evil harridan who ran the place came and woke me up 'cause I was holding up the kitchen. On a Sunday. While the mere mention of Norwich induces shivers in me, I have only the fondest memories of this book and its (almost literal) warmth. Although I don't share Le Guin's enthusiasm for the style of Lord Dunsany, I am inspired and energised by pretty much everything else she has to say.
I like the idea of Ursula K. Le Guin more than I like her writing. These essays are all very well written but I found them dated in style and content. This is my failing, not hers.
I received a review copy of this book from the publisher through NetGalley.com.
I received a review copy of this book from the publisher through NetGalley.com.
Members
- Recently Added By
Lists
Best Essay Collections
61 works; 24 members
Writing
10 works; 4 members
Non-Fiction Worth Reading
1,015 works; 254 members
Best Feminist Science Fiction
188 works; 35 members
Ten Books That Have Stayed With Me
160 works; 29 members
Five star books
1,756 works; 108 members
Creativity and the Creative Process
20 works; 4 members
Books in the Bibliography of Humans: A Monstrous History by Surekha Davies
346 works; 1 member
Books Read in 2025
4,091 works; 97 members
Read 2026 Ranked
17 works; 1 member
Author Information
496+ Works 167,155 Members
Ursula K. Le Guin was born Ursula Kroeber in Berkeley, California on October 21, 1929. She received a bachelor's degree from Radcliffe College in 1951 and a master's degree in romance literature of the Middle Ages and Renaissance from Columbia University in 1952. She won a Fulbright fellowship in 1953 to study in Paris, where she met and married show more Charles Le Guin. Her first science-fiction novel, Rocannon's World, was published in 1966. Her other books included the Earthsea series, The Left Hand of Darkness, The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia, The Lathe of Heaven, Four Ways to Forgiveness, and The Telling. A Wizard of Earthsea received an American Library Association Notable Book citation, a Horn Book Honor List citation, and the Lewis Carroll Shelf Award in 1979. She received the Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters in 2014. She also received the Nebula Award and the Hugo Award. She also wrote books of poetry, short stories collections, collections of essays, children's books, a guide for writers, and volumes of translation including the Tao Te Ching of Lao Tzu and selected poems by Gabriela Mistral. She died on January 22, 2018 at the age of 88. (Bowker Author Biography) show less
Some Editions
Awards and Honors
Awards
Work Relationships
Contains
Common Knowledge
- Original publication date
- 1979
- First words
- INTRODUCTION
by
Susan Wood
Those who refuse to listen to dragons are probably doomed to spend their lives acting out the nightmares of politicians.
A Citizen of Mondath
One evening when I was about twelve I was looking through the living room bookshelves for something to read, and pulled out a little Modern Library book, in the old limp leather binding; it had ... (show all)a queer title, A Dreamer's Tales. - Last words
- (Click to show. Warning: May contain spoilers.)If we meet now and in the future, we writers and readers of SF, to give each other prizes and see each other's faces and renew old feuds and discuss new books and hold our celebration, it will be in entire freedom--because we choose to do so--because, to put it simply, we like each other.
Classifications
- Genres
- Literature Studies and Criticism, Nonfiction
- DDC/MDS
- 809.3 — Literature & rhetoric Literature, rhetoric & criticism History, description, critical appraisal of more than two literatures Fiction
- LCC
- PN3435 .L4 — Language and Literature Literature (General) Literature (General) Prose. Prose fiction Special kinds of fiction. Fiction genres
- BISAC
Statistics
- Members
- 1,232
- Popularity
- 20,016
- Reviews
- 23
- Rating
- (4.19)
- Languages
- 5 — English, French, Italian, Japanese, Spanish
- Media
- Paper, Audiobook, Ebook
- ISBNs
- 17
- ASINs
- 5