The Left Hand Of Darkness - Ursula K. Le Guin

Coursera Fantasy and Science Fiction Week 9

I had planned not to write this essay, partly because I'd only read just over a quarter of the book. Realising a couple of hours before the deadline that I wanted to read other people's opinions, I wrote this quite quickly.

Some of my thoughts are possibly a bit confused as they were emerging as I wrote. I changed the thesis at least once and it could have used more editing for clarification.

The story seems to me to be about perceptions of duality and how point of view influences our thoughts and opinion. I think I managed to get some of that across and I felt I was heading in the direction of what Peer 2 writes, although I didn't express it as well.

I agree with Peer 4 that I slipped up in describing the scope of the reaction to the character Genly, but I disagree with their second point as I qualified my statement about the reader's point of view by saying that is what a reader would think "at the outset". That is, it sets up one of the main tensions of the story.

Thanks, as ever, for the comments.

The Left Hand Of Darkness - Ursula K. Le Guin

A cursory reading of Ursula LeGuin's "The Left Hand Of Darkness" might lead the reader to conclude she is writing about gender as a source of antagonism. She dispenses with other traditional origins of conflict: there are two non-antagonistic religions on Gethen and racism and inter-society conflicts are either rare or low-level. The extreme cold seems to exacerbate the struggle for survival to the extent that large-scale competition over resources seems a luxury no one cannot afford and the implication is that the societies have developed more slowly as a consequence. There is however, a highly-developed system of politics in Karhide based on social status and while it is from this the initial conflicts emerge and amplify, LeGuin makes it clear how an individual's context informs their viewpoint and gender is a lens through which we view all things.

Genly vainly attempts to unravel his own feelings about Estraven's lack of gender, but can only do so from his own context: "Was it... this soft, supple femininity that I disliked and distrusted in him? ...and yet, whenever I thought of him as a man I felt a sense of falseness, of imposture: in him or in my own attitude to him?"

Even when Estraven is trying to warn Genly about his lack of favour within the society, Genly has a hard time overcoming his gender perceptions to grasp the former's meaning: "I at last saw that I was missing another signal. Damning his effeminate deviousness..."

The Karhidians' respond to what they learn of Genly's biology by dismissing him and his people - and by implication all non-Karhidians - as "A society of perverts".

Ironically, by removing gender altogether, LeGuin succeeds in making biological context such a strong source of conflict at the outset that the reader immediately questions whether a resolution will ever be possible between such antithetical beings.

Responses

Form: 2/3

peer 2 → I cannot complain about the form of this essay.
peer 3 → The structure is ok but piling a lot of information in the first paragraph is not very appropriate… Any way, the expressions used are generally good.
peer 4 → Your essay was generally well-written and understandable. There are a few problems with form. Some examples: 1) "a luxury no one cannot afford" should be "a luxury no one can afford" or "a luxury one cannot afford." The double negative is poor form. 2) Your use of commas is incorrect and frequently confusing.
peer 5 → A well constructed and thought out essay.Well done.

Content: 2/3

peer 2 → This was well written. The problem is you start by suggesting that gender isn't the only issue, then say the society/government is the antagonizing issue, and then write "LeGuin makes it clear how an individual's context informs their viewpoint and gender is a lens through which we view all things." So that's a bit confused. Genly is so unsuccessful in incorporating the Gethenians for so long because he doesn't realize that his own gender bias is distorting his perception of their society; it's almost as if they are speaking another language. That's why the government and the culture is so antagonizing to Genly in this text.
peer 3 → The thesis is expressed clearly ---- the gender issues. However, about half of the essay is taken up by quotes from the story. Giving more of your own opinions may be better.
peer 4 → Your theme is understandable, but I see some problems with it: 1) You state "and by implication all non-Karhidians." I disagree. Your statement might be correct if you had said "and by implication all non-Gethenians." 2) You state "the reader immediately questions whether a resolution will ever be possible between such antithetical beings." I disagree. I think Le Guin does answer the question. I believe your essay misses one of the points of the book.
peer 5 → This essay is very well written. the thesis/agrument is clear and concise.

Comments

None.

The Martian Chronicles - Ray Bradbury

Coursera Fantasy and Science Fiction Week 8

The only Ray Bradbury I've read previously was in English classes at school where we read the short story collection "The Golden Apples of the Sun". Although it includes the classic "A Sound Of Thunder", I don't clearly recall any of the other stories. Reading this excellent book has opened a door to further reading, exactly what I'd hoped for from this course.

Insightful comments this week. I had got distracted from my original thesis by some interesting ideas and was in a rush to submit. If I'd started earlier, left it overnight and returned to it, I might have picked up the problem and fixed it. Thanks to the reviewers.

The Martian Chronicles - Ray Bradbury

Only forty years separate the writing of Bradbury's "The Martian Chronicles" and Burroughs' "A Princess Of Mars", but the two books are clearly from different ages.

Burroughs' story is rooted in the nineteenth century and he transposes the Wild West to Mars to act as a backdrop for heroic adventure. By contrast, Bradbury's post-modern narrative is a product of the twentieth century which examines the mechanics of colonisation in a collection of stories replete with irony and black humour.

Burroughs signals otherness by casting the Martians as a physical analogue of Native Americans whose strength is literally in their strength. Bradbury though pushes further, evoking a sense of the uncanny in the astronauts' interactions with the Martians through the latter's telepathy. When the first expedition to Mars ends in the death of the astronauts, interplanetary warfare isn't the cause: the men are killed by a jealous Martian husband who tells his wife he's “Just hunting...” When the second expedition fails, the mental impact of Martian telepathy leads to the astronauts' murder and a Martian psychologist's suicide.

Were Bradbury merely writing an adventure about the inevitability of colonisation and the triumph of humanity, the rule of three would lead us to expect two failures then success. Instead he adds irony by having the third landing party killed and making the Martians appear unassailable. Yet, like the Martians who succumbed to the common cold while attempting to invade Earth in H.G. Wells' “War Of The Worlds” and the Incas killed by the smallpox virus, humans overcome Martian resistance by inadvertently infecting them with disease.

Mankind does not deserve to have conquered Mars. His victory is an accident, a side-effect. And Bradbury forces us sympathise with the Martians as subsequently, human after human blunders foolishly and selfishly across their planet.

Responses

Form: 2/3

peer 1 → You write well and saw no obvious errors in grammar or use of language. However, your conclusion didn't mirror your introductory paragraph.
peer 2 → Nice clear comparative structure and effective language use
peer 3 → Clear exposition, correct grammar and a nicely constructed flow of sentences.
peer 4 → The form is fine. Spelling grammar and word usage. It is well laid out and paragraphs logical. The exposition and argument are unclear.
peer 5 → The essayist clearly possesses a decent mastery of the English language, and his grammar and vocabulary are relatively well developed. However, I personally found the essay to be a little unfocused; the introduction seems to propose an impending comparison between Bradbury and Burroughs, but Burroughs is abruptly and conspicuously dropped in the midst of the essay. The third paragraph is particularly suspect; from that point onwards, the diction of the essayist makes him sound as if he is going off on a tangent.

Content: 2/3

peer 1 → I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion that man's victory was an accident. Earthmen didn't give up easily even after losing several expeditions. They were persistent, which is usually what is required for conquest. Also I'm not sure that Bradbury's sympathies lie with the Martians. They are absent through most of the book. As I have mentioned, from your introduction I thought you were going to compare Burroughs' and Bradbury's approach in writing about extraplanetary conquest but you veered off half way through. Nevertheless your essay makes some good points about Bradbury's post-modern narrative.
peer 2 → Nice ideas
peer 3 → A novel, absorbing and nicely narrated work displaying a good understanding of Ray Bradbury's work.
peer 4 → The essay is interesting but doesn't tell me anything new. You start off by telling us that the books are clearly from different ages but this doesn't seem to be the premise that you argue through to a logical conclusion. I would have liked to see some comparison between the two showing how they are " clearly form different ages".
peer 5 → A relatively well written essay; the background knowledge, and the contextual interpretation and comparison, does make a striking point when viewed in that respect. However, as mentioned, the essayis should focus his essay a little more, possibly focusing on either the Burroughs-Bradbury comparison or the colonization/alienation theme, which would make for a narrower, more detailed, and this more engaging essay.
peer 6 → I like what you are saying with Wells bringing to light the uncanny, but I don't see how Burroughs connects into the essay. It's as though you started with one idea and then changed.

Comments

peer 1 → It would have been interesting to pursue Bradbury's novel as an example of post modern fiction considering its structure, the ironic playfulness and its ambiguity of meaning.