New Scientist Book Club’s verdict on ‘The Dispossessed’: A tricky but rewarding novel

After reading the head on Alex Foster Circular movementIn which the rotation of the earth begins to accelerate, the new reading club of scientists has headed for two very different worlds from the novel by Ursula K. Le Guin The dispossessed. This classic science fiction in good faith of 1974 moves between two chronologies: in one, the physicist Shevek leaves his house on the sorry moon Anarres to work in a University of Urras, a neighboring and much more abundant planet; In the other, we see him grow up on Anarres in his anarchist society.

I read for the first time The dispossessed In my second year of university. At the time, I was amazed by the structure of the novel and the anarchist principles of the birthplace of Shevek. What better time to read the radical fiction than when you are a fresh face student after all? This time, however, I was much more attracted to the human elements of history. I feel that I understood the character of Shevek much better better reading, even if I did not always love him.

Many members of the reading club were delighted when we announced The dispossessed would be our next reading. “This is my favorite Guin book, although it is really difficult to choose,” explains Kelly Jensen in our Facebook group, when he had been on the pile to read by Rachel Hand for some time. For some readers, it was the first time that they picked up a novel from Guin – something Theo Downes -Le Guin, Ursula’s son, described in a room for New scientist like a “jump in the bottom of a swimming pool”. EEK.

But despite its intimidating reputation, some readers loved how The dispossessed is so full of ideas on politics, physics and language. Laura Akers says he is “absolutely brilliant that Guin has these people who work on physics on the” time “side of the continuum of space-time”. Elizabeth Drummond Young was “immediately committed” and liked “linguistic / behavioral references: how do people swear, arise, abbreviate, do not name, etc. (A therefore is a fine example of linguistic joke!) ”. I wonder what Einstein would have made the novel!

One thing is clear, however: despite its egalitarian principles, few of us want to live on Anarres. People there “cannot seriously appreciate its life forms for themselves, as we can on earth,” explains Laura. “Although they do not waste and are still not aware of their ecosystem, they must always focus on how to handle it so that they can stay alive. We have luxury on earth to be able to enjoy nature, to discover questions to its nuances, etc., and I would not want to have to abandon this. Imagine not having animals!”

Gosia Furmanik is not so sure: “On the one hand, yes, it is great that there is no exploitation and that people can in principle do what they want / are called, and are provided, whatever happens. On the other hand, people are people and that does not seem to work well, people can be sent everywhere for jobs.”

This is something that came to my conversation with Marcus Gipps, publisher in general at the publisher of Guin Gollancz. “Everything, of course, is so on the point of view,” he told me. “I would be fascinated to know what someone who had grown in, say, in Eastern Germany before the fall of the wall of this book, because I think they could have a very, very different opinion and adopt it.” I would do it too!

The most divisor in the novel was perhaps his presentation of women. Some readers were frustrated by potentially sexist tropes in the book and found that our vision of Anarres and Urras was filtered through the perspective of a man. “I actually thought that the book showed the author’s internal prejudices of the author, probably expected for the moment when he was written,” explains Gosia. “The way in which relationships were represented (for example Shevek’s first relationship at the trees planting camp), towards heavy bias towards hetero monogamy (although there is no marriage! But we still have couples ??).”

Others estimated that the novel’s gender policy was more intentional. “Guin wanted us to think at least about the status of women in our society and Anarresti,” explains Niall Leighton. “I do not think it is prudent to assume that it recommended a position on what a utopia should look like in a given characteristic of Anarresti society.”

With so many complex ideas to explore, it is not surprising that not everyone found the book an easy reading. Phil Gurski was not a fan and stopped reading towards page 160, because he had “absolutely no idea what’s going on”, while Steve Swan “had to persevere in the first stadiums”. Judith Lazell summed up this point of view well: “” The dispossessed “was not a captivating reading; Too much philosophy, not enough history. “

I can see what Phil, Steve and Judith mean there. For me, there is the strange moment of the book when all ideas become overwhelming. I am not alone there: “Ursula Le Guin is an absolute master and I am a big fan. I can see why it has received so many prices, there is a really deep thought which was devoted to different political systems”, explains Alan Perrett. “However, I am not convinced that the long philosophical debates do not harm history although – as always – the maestro manages to finish the book in a completely satisfactory way.”

Fortunately, many members of the reading club ended up really enjoying The dispossessed. “I loved this book,” says Niall. “I consider him one of the most influential books on my thought since I read it as a teenager.” “The end was my favorite song,” said Rachel. Terry James liked the last 50 pages of the novel The Best too, calling him a “wonderful imagination behavior”.

We leave behind imaginative science fiction worlds for the next choice of reading club of the new scientist and entering the world of neuroscience with a award-winning piece of non-fiction. I am delighted to say that we will read the winner of the Royal Society Scientific Book Prize for this year: Our brain, our self by the neuroscientist and clinician Masud Husain. In seven fascinating case studies, Husain reveals how the neurological conditions of all forms and sizes can undermine the identity and the feeling of a person. This book, which our criticism Grace Wade called “intriguing and informative” in February, is that of fans of Sacks Oliver, and in fact anyone interested in knowing more about neuroscience.

You can read an extract from the book here. We also have a unique overview of the Sandra Knapp awards ceremony process, a vegetable taxonomist at the Natural History Museum in London and president of the jury. In this room, she explains why Our brain, our self was a cut above the other fantastic entries and what she learned from this “very compassionate” book. Please share your thoughts in our Facebook group and let us know if you enjoy our next reading.