The Lathe of Heaven
The Lathe of Heaven is considered by many to be LeGuin's best work. Though, to be fair, a lot of her books are considered her best by a lot of people. She's written so much good stuff that there just isn't a consensus on what her best work is. But that does make me eager to keep seeking out her books.
This one was almost more of a parable than a proper story. George Orr has dreams that can change the world, though he can't control them. He dreams something and it comes into being. He wants to be rid of this power. But his doctor sees the potential and, using hypnosis to shape Orr's dreams, he starts to exploit him.
Doctor Haber isn't really an evil man. He's ambitious, but he really does try to improve the world for everyone. He focuses on lessening the effects of climate change and overpopulation, of ending war and racism and poverty. The problem is that these problems are so big and interconnected that "solving" one always has unintended consequences. His lack of foresight, and his inability to really consider the negative effect he's having. Which makes Orr more and more desperate to stop dreaming altogether.
Haber is operating under the principle that the ends justify the means. If he can create peace and harmony and prosperity, well who cares about the casualties along the way. But as Orr points out, we can't actually know the end. Things keep going and changing, and there's no way to understand all the effects the ripple out from a single cause. Given that, all you can do is judge the means themselves.
This framing helped me understand something that has long frustrated me about LeGuin. In Earthsea, Ged grows to adopt a policy of not trying to change the world. This goes against everything the chosen one is supposed to do. You're supposed to try and save the world, make it better. But Ged rejects that in favor of just going along with the world.
It confused me for a long time, but I think I'm starting to understand what LeGuin was trying to say there. That we can't actually judge actions as moral or immoral without know all the consequences, and since we can't know all the consequences. And since bigger actions have bigger consequences, they must be considered all the more carefully.
I'm still not sure I agree with this. (Honestly, reading any LeGuin book feels like having an argument.) But it is making me want to revisit Earthsea and see if I appreciate it more now that I have a better grasp of LeGuin's argument.
This one was almost more of a parable than a proper story. George Orr has dreams that can change the world, though he can't control them. He dreams something and it comes into being. He wants to be rid of this power. But his doctor sees the potential and, using hypnosis to shape Orr's dreams, he starts to exploit him.
Doctor Haber isn't really an evil man. He's ambitious, but he really does try to improve the world for everyone. He focuses on lessening the effects of climate change and overpopulation, of ending war and racism and poverty. The problem is that these problems are so big and interconnected that "solving" one always has unintended consequences. His lack of foresight, and his inability to really consider the negative effect he's having. Which makes Orr more and more desperate to stop dreaming altogether.
Haber is operating under the principle that the ends justify the means. If he can create peace and harmony and prosperity, well who cares about the casualties along the way. But as Orr points out, we can't actually know the end. Things keep going and changing, and there's no way to understand all the effects the ripple out from a single cause. Given that, all you can do is judge the means themselves.
This framing helped me understand something that has long frustrated me about LeGuin. In Earthsea, Ged grows to adopt a policy of not trying to change the world. This goes against everything the chosen one is supposed to do. You're supposed to try and save the world, make it better. But Ged rejects that in favor of just going along with the world.
It confused me for a long time, but I think I'm starting to understand what LeGuin was trying to say there. That we can't actually judge actions as moral or immoral without know all the consequences, and since we can't know all the consequences. And since bigger actions have bigger consequences, they must be considered all the more carefully.
I'm still not sure I agree with this. (Honestly, reading any LeGuin book feels like having an argument.) But it is making me want to revisit Earthsea and see if I appreciate it more now that I have a better grasp of LeGuin's argument.
Comments
Post a Comment