Incorrect Literature Quotes

me: yeah whatever I don’t feel shit

me 5 minutes later: dude I swear i just saw a sarf agent in the kemmerhouse

I' m going to start by saying that I didn't think I was going to like this book that much (I even foud it a bit slow at the begining) but boy was I wrong. So if you start it and think it's boring I can assure you you'll probably like it if you keep on reading.

So what's this book really about? It's a science fiction novel in which the main character, Genly Ai, a man from Terra (our Earth), is sent to the planet of Gethen to try to convince its people to join an spacial human alliance. What's really interesting about Gethen (appart from it being super cold) is that all of its people are ambisexual. They usually only present sexual characteristics once a month, in some kind of heat called kemmer that lasts about a week. During this time they can present either female ol male characteristics, but these rols can vary, one month you may have male genitalia and on the next one you might present as sexually female. The rest of the month, when they're in sommer they don't present any sexual characteristics whatsoever and look kind of androgynous. Gender isn't a thing in Gethen. And Genly Ai, who isn't used to that, will have to adapt to Gethen's culture.

I think I must also mention Estraven, my favourite character (I'm sorry, you know I had to), who guides Genly in this new world and shows him how things work there. I think he's a remarkable character, his relationship with Genly evolves into a pure and strong bond, not necessarily romantic, but described by both of them as love.

The left hand of darkness has heavy feminist topics that are treated in a really interesting point of view. It doesn't talk about women (there aren't any female characters in it), but it shows a society without gender norms or differences because gender does simply not exist. It shows that humans, at the end, are all humans, at that's what really is important. When Genly indentifies some steriotipically feminine behaviours in other characters and treats them as inferior you'll probably get mad at him, because he doesn't seem to really want to understand the people arround him. That's a strong message itself.

This book's exploration of gender is fascinating. It might be because I've always felt something for the concept for androgyny, but Gethen's people and culture go further and make you question your own. A book published in 1969 happens to have more feminist values than most books of the same genre nowadays. And that's what I love about this book, and specially about Le Guin. Oh, and it also critizices extreme nationalism!

When an English teacher, or reader, taught or picked up 1984, it wasn’t with the intention they were going to love the protagonist. They picked it up with the intention of reading a whole story and trying to grasp the theme or catharsis from the story. If the protagonist was a *shitty* person it played into the the themes or the story, because it wasn’t about morally judging the book or *liking* or feeling attachment to the protagonist. Sometimes and often times, books were just about gaining another perspective. 

No one read Lolita expecting to endear, or like, or be inspired by Humbert. You are supposed to be upset by his behavior, you don’t read Lolita with the intention of being inspired. You read it to learn more about what the fuck is going on inside someone’s head when they behave like that. How children get sucked into abusive situations. Or read “The Great Gatsby” not because they want to fall in love with Gatsby or Nick, but to better understand and analyze the experience of the 1920s or destitution of the American Dream. 

A lot of internet and fandom culture has changed that though. When we say something like “I love the Great Gatsby” it comes with the idea or association that means you must *love* or relate to one of the characters. And maybe you do, but the first assumption is not longer about the quality of the work or themes, or cathartic impact-it’s about character admiration. And with that character admiration, in tumblr stan culture, or kin culture, or exalting characters with fanart/romance/so on you don’t just ‘admire’ or find that character ‘compelling’ it now translates to ‘you LOVE that character’ or you ‘DIRECTLY relate to that character.’ 

You can’t say “I love how Humbert is written, it’s so fascinating and dark”, without it directly translating you somehow relate to a child abuser or condone his actions. Taking in media has become an act of worship and connection. We no longer watch meant to just see the story as a whole, we watch expecting to connect to a character and if we offer them our “worship” as it’s become, as opposed to just attention or interest study as it traditionally was, it means we are condoning the character or saying we directly empathize with all their actions. 

I think that’s why there is often now so much fuss over *toxic* characters or not. Or whether that classical novel is showing good or bad things anymore. We’re treating the characters as people we should love or want to draw or write about. Sometimes a story is just about getting the the theme or catharsis or learning another perspective. We don’t NEED to like the character. Or we don’t HAVE to like a character to be impressed by how they’re written or intrigued by their behavior.