I too found the reflexivity to be the most interesting aspect of this week’s text. However, it was the existence of the Aldebaranians that troubled me the most. While it could be argued that they were created by Orr to fulfill his need of help and resolution (much like Josh argues that Dr. Haber is a necessary component of the psyche), it’s problematic that they actually had a solution. If we are to read this meta-SF text in this manner, Orr had the solution to his problem all along (like Dorothy and her gaudy slippers).
For some reason, this doesn’t sit well with me… Orr was the jellyfish in the water, the helpless tool.
I would argue that this text is not about the wants and needs of Orr, Dr. Haber, or the dreaming rocks, but rather the wants and needs of Ursula K. Le Guin. Dr. Haber exists because novels need an antagonist, and aliens with solutions exist because novels need resolution. Orr reflects the horror of a self-aware character (if we take this a lot further than I would care to, Orr represents the horror of a character being worked through multiple drafts of a SF novel.) I had to come to this conclusion, otherwise I would be stuck in the horror of a “chicken or the egg” quandary involving Orr and Er’ perrehnne.
At the risk of drastically changing the subject with an insufficient transitional sentence, I would like to address Michael Berube’s article. I really don’t understand his particular beef. In terms of postmodern philosophy, architecture, art (as demonstrated in the Harvey chapter we were assigned), etc., I understand that we are mired in a nebulous world that is uncomfortably described as “postmodern.” However, in terms of literature’s use of this term, it seems relatively straightforward. Teachers break time periods into movements, and call those movements names. Why should the simple fact that elements of pomo’s distinctive characteristics exist in previous novels trouble the label more than any other movement? True, Don Quixote, The Odyssey and even the Bible are reflexive; does this mean we should scrap the whole project? For that matter, doesn’t every literary movement have predecessors that shared similar traits? Isn’t the entire modernist movement predicated on a neo-classical sensibility?
There is something starkly different between the writings of Faulkner, Eliot and cummings and the texts produced by Vonnegut, Vollmann and Pynchon. That difference needs a name. My teachers called it postmodernism. While it may be useful to trouble this distinction, I find it no more useful than troubling any categories in all of literature. However, to do so would be very postmodern (not to mention quixotic).
Jarrod, i didn’t see the Aldebaranians in the same light as you, nor do I think that le guin needed them for resolution (becuase they dont provide any). i do agree with you that orr is a jellyfish, but not a helpless tool. there are many more animals in the novel: lelache is a crab, spider, snake, fish, etc. the aldebaranians are a mix between a turtle and a dolphin, and, well, haber is one of the only humans. i don’t pretend to answer any of your questions, but perhaps beginning with le guin’s themes of taoism and animalsim will lead us into a fruitful discussion. taking into account of le guin’s consistent animal motifs, i see one final, highly structural final draft, and not many, revised drafts as you may have seen. please let me know if im full of crap.
Zack,
First of all, thanks for posting all of the comments. It’s good to know that these writings warrant discussion.
Next, how can you argue that the novel is “highly structured,” while at the same time arguing that “there is no resolution?” It seems to me that you can’t have both.
Also, the Aldebaranians teach Orr the magic word that solves the conflict that drives the story… Isn’t that, by very definition, a resolution?
I agree that this novel is incredibly well structured (I did preface my argument about the multiple drafts by saying that I did not wish to take it that far.) And the animal motifs, race issues and Orr’s “centeredness” will be very interesting, especially when situated in a “postmodern” (if such thing exists) context.