Ursula Le Guin, last night

...I am super confused how we got from point A to point B, honestly. My reading of "alternative lifestyles" was "Hey, let's put solar panels on everything and grow our own food."

Then again, I've read Always Coming Home about eight hundred times, and it's worth noting that the big mega terrible social taboo in that book is about underage people having sex.

It sounds good, but I can't quite figure out what kind of change she's hoping for. Are we looking at a future where the media isn't scaring us all the time? Or something where teenagers put down their tablets and talk to people? (Not gonna happen. XD) What?

Samsonet said:

It sounds good, but I can't quite figure out what kind of change she's hoping for. Are we looking at a future where the media isn't scaring us all the time? Or something where teenagers put down their tablets and talk to people? (Not gonna happen. XD) What?

Click to expand...

Ah yes, the problem with society is teenagers enjoying entertainment and communicating using electronic devices and not things like the destruction of the public space, overprotective parents, difficulty of transportation, the real decline of wages, etc. etc. etc.

The internet and mobile devices did not destroy "real human interaction." It filled a void that had been there for a long time.

Hapax Legomenon said:

Ah yes, the problem with society is teenagers enjoying entertainment and communicating using electronic devices and not things like the destruction of the public space, overprotective parents, difficulty of transportation, the real decline of wages, etc. etc. etc.

The internet and mobile devices did not destroy "real human interaction." It filled a void that had been there for a long time.

Click to expand...

This. My mom doesn't buy it, though. Oh, well...

Samsonet said:

This. My mom doesn't buy it, though. Oh, well...

Click to expand...

I guess I find it strange to think that computers have fundamentally changed people. When I was little, I played computer games, but I did a lot of things that didn't involve a computer. I wrote, I drew, I listened to music, I read novels, I knit and crochet... And you know what, I do most of the same things then as I did now. It's just that while that used to involve sketchbooks, notebooks, pens, pencils, library books, pattern books, CDs, and a Walkman, most of these things now involve a computer.

I'm somewhere in between hell-yeah and meh. Where do I go to complain about the poll options?

A first read had me agreeing (typical), but I've read it a few more times, along with everyone's posts, and I honestly am not sure that there's any substance there. At the very least, there's no connection between paragraphs.

Why can't we writers write something amazing and transformative and ground-breaking and expressive of truth and change and freedom, that is also a bestseller that makes millions? (I'm kind of embarrassed to admit that that's always been my goal in writing.) Conversely, the idea of making millions from a piece of crap work that "everyone loves" (I'm thinking of a particular, current book-almost-movie, a zillion reppies if you can guess the one) makes me want to hurl myself off of a cliff.

Voted "hell yea." Isn't that kind of common sense though? Now I do think social change should be sought after through the narrative. Nobody seems to like a preachy book.

But hells to the yea.

Hapax Legomenon said:

When I was little, I played computer games, but I did a lot of things that didn't involve a computer. I wrote, I drew, I listened to music, I read novels, I knit and crochet... And you know what, I do most of the same things then as I did now. It's just that while that used to involve sketchbooks, notebooks, pens, pencils, library books, pattern books, CDs, and a Walkman, most of these things now involve a computer.

Click to expand...

Yes, this. Computers are a tool, and as the tool grew in power, the number of tasks it made easier began to increase.

If anything, I think computers make people more creative because the difficulty of getting started on a new hobby has decreased. How many more people have taken a stab at writing a book now that we no longer have to re-type an entire page just to correct a typo?

I think it's completely valid to mourn the loss of skills that new tools give rise to, but it's also not wrong to be delighted to see the limits of what humans can do pushed farther because a new tool has decreased the busywork.

I mean, does anyone really mourn the fact no one knows how to calculate a square root on paper anymore? Personally, I'm okay with the calculator doing the approximation for me.

Hapax Legomenon said:

Ah yes, the problem with society is teenagers enjoying entertainment and communicating using electronic devices and not things like the destruction of the public space, overprotective parents, difficulty of transportation, the real decline of wages, etc. etc. etc.

The internet and mobile devices did not destroy "real human interaction." It filled a void that had been there for a long time.

Click to expand...

I think this is a very good point.

I'm amazed at one thing though--how placid some teens and young adults are at the way parents use these technologies to monitor them and to be in constant contact with them.

Back when this all started, I'd have predicted that the rise in helicopter parenting would have resulted in massive rebelliousness, not acquiescence. I suspect the ability to connect with friends remotely, via social media, must be some of the reason teens and young adults don't resent the almost stalkerish parental behavior you see sometimes.

Ari Meermans said:

Humanity is at crisis point on so many different levels that these new visionaries are needed to awaken us all to new possibilities and alternatives.

Click to expand...

Humanity has never not been at a crisis point, and there have always been visionaries.

caw

And we've always needed visionaries.

I have to say that I agree with JAR on this one. I wonder if the speech has more to do with Le Guin, than the fact that they world has changed. I 'm pretty sure that during the Industrial Revolution there were writers crying out that we were going to Hell in a handcart (i.e. Thomas Hardy,) a century ago Karl Marx wrote how we were selling our souls for commodities to the vampiric Capitalism.

As for young people. Well, I went to a PG Open Day at Edinburgh University yesterday. 99% of the audience were in their 20s and were taking notes with paper and pen. The only person taking notes on a Tablet was my sister.

blacbird said:

Humanity has never not been at a crisis point, and there have always been visionaries.

caw

Click to expand...

But that isn't really what I wrote, is it? The insertion of the article "a" changes the meaning, as does ignoring the phrase "on so many levels."

Yes, in all our long history as a species we have faced crises, many of them global. The fact that we aren't extinct may show how well we met those crises, or it may be attributed to dumb luck, or may be a combination of those and other factors. What I meant by that sentence is that there is an approaching culmination of the effects of extremely fast growth in the areas of technology--the Industrial Revolution was just over 200+ years ago, after all--of medicine (and the rise in new diseases); of extremism in politics, religion, and education, for instance; and of dangers to the environment. We have access to more information more quickly than ever before; yet we on the whole have less understanding. Possibly it's overload. Whatever the reason for our torpor wrt these crucial issues, our individual opinionism based on what has worked in the past isn't helping us to meet the challenges we now face. We need deep-thinkers and visionaries, those who can cut through the crap and see the larger picture, to posit new methods of just freakin' dealing with it all. To show us better ways of fixing what is broken, adapting, and continuing to grow.

Thank you, Ari.

There are many ways to stick one's head in the sand of denial, and one of them is an attitude of jaded "oh, we've seen this all before, don't get your knickers in a wad over it" toward the systemic increase of crises, and multiple systems being mutually stressed and the feedback that generates.

Meh. People will continue to do that, to avoid looking up from their tracks. It's really a shame.

Yeah, I'm sorta between hell yeah! and meh too. I can't quite decide whether I think she has a point, or whether she's just being kinda disingenuous, as a hugely successful author complaining about the commercialism of publishing being anathema to artistic endeavour and visionary thinking. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Also, she seems to be implying that commercial publishers are in the business of providing bread and circuses, keeping the public happy and distracted from the real issues in the world. It seems a bit alarmist to me.

Reading through the whole speech (http://parkerhiggins.net/2014/11/wi...reedom-ursula-k-le-guin-national-book-awards/ ), I don't think it was so much about art versus commercialism ("We who live by writing and publishing want—and should demand—our fair share of the proceeds") as comment on where the priority should be. Personally, I see writing more as a fine craft versus 'art', but that's just me, and I do agree with the sentiment that writing should not be viewed as merely a commodity to be sold like widgets. At the same time, publishing is a business, and a certain amount of 'commercialism' has to be included if the art is to be sustained. It's not a trade-off, IMO, but a balance.

I think the only reason anyone particularly noticed Le Guin's comments is that they're being read in the context of the Amazon /publishers dispute. Since everyone has lined up along ideological lines (and it's even become yet another "culture war" issue) people are perhaps parsing her words to apply to broader issues.

I think we have more crises than ever, though I'm not sure it's in quite the same concrete or specific way it used to be. Feels much more scattered and intangible. Like instead of capitalism, it might be entertainment, industry, education, and everything else. With their own little sub issues, that it makes it hard to formulate what exactly is going on.

It's that aspect that scares me the most. Dystopic, but not traditionally so.

Just one person's opinion even though the person in question is a renowned author.

In general, I am always troubled when someone bashes the industry.

Hello.

The industry is only responding to the demands of the public. So if you have a complaint lash out at the public. They are the ones buying the books and creating the demands and dictating what is being sold.

As to the content of her statement, I like it.

ps Great replies above. Very thought-provoking. Terrific discussion. Anticipate further replies. Keep 'em coming !

Well, I can certainly think that Le Guin has plenty of reason to be cynical about the effects of commercialism. There was that horrible TV series that was ended up having little in common with her actual books besides the name. I'm guessing those decisions to whitewash everyone and completely change the story were made in the interest of commercialism.

So I hear what she's saying, but I don't know what the answer is. Should all writers write only as a hobby? That's mostly the case now, as very few published authors make a living at their work (and this has actually been mostly true throughout the history of novel writing). Should all writers go the self publishing or indy route?

I guess the big question really is, does being popular and marketable always correspond with lower quality, or generic, uninspiring work? Or is every area of human endeavor characterized by occasional paradigm-shifting leaps into uncharted territory, followed by a sort of free and wild "anything goes" period of amazing innovation, followed by standardization and incremental improvement within more limited parameters, based on which innovations were most successful or popular?

Until something comes along to pull the rug out from under everyone's feet again, and a new period of experimentation arises. And is the trigger for the new era something external to writing, such as a larger change in society itself, or can it stem from something writers themselves can do, like the invention of a new genre or approach to getting their work out there or something?

And wow, I feel like I'm describing the punctuated equilibrium model of biological evolution.

Roxxsmom said:

And wow, I feel like I'm describing the punctuated equilibrium model of biological evolution.

Click to expand...

*nods sagely*

*has no idea what you're talking about*

*feels dumb*

*goes back to looking at pictures of bunnies*

RedWombat said:

...I am super confused how we got from point A to point B, honestly. My reading of "alternative lifestyles" was "Hey, let's put solar panels on everything and grow our own food."

Click to expand...

I thought it was the Alternative Way of Life (AWOL*) but hey

PS seems to be no link in the OP for me? Anyway, how the heck did this go from art to paedophilia? Can we get back to the topic?



*details on request

There was no link in the OP, but shadowwalker posted a link in post #41. http://parkerhiggins.net/2014/11/wi...reedom-ursula-k-le-guin-national-book-awards/

Gotcha

Still not sure how Ursula Le Guin is now linked to.... stuff....

Peripherally at best it seems?

So, the article
Anyone?

Anyway, if anyone *cough* Roxx* cough* wants to explain what punctuated equilibrium model of biological evolution is?

That link was to the speech she gave; there is no article.

Not sure what stuff you're referring to there so can't help with that question.

As for biology, it's over my head.