It just seems incredibly odd for there to be so many lines in a book about gender insisting that there is no way to refer to someone (in the English language, at least) without implying gender. She even mentions the possibility of using „it“ at one point!

I’m liking the book otherwise, but every time the narrators ponder about pronouns without even considering „they“ I have to ask myself if there is any point in ignoring it or if she genuinely just forgot. I don’t think it’s possible for her to have not known about it considering how well-read she was and how long it’s been in use.

  • belluck@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
    51·
    23 days ago

    She was already criticizing the generic „he“ while writing the book. It probably wouldn’t be bothering me so much if there weren’t entire passages debating it every few chapters without mentioning the possibility of the singular „they“.

    • Dunstabzugshaubitze@feddit.org
      5·
      23 days ago

      there are many possible reasons for that:

      • she might have thought that the general critic on gender roles is allready enough for the reader
      • she saw singular “they” as something for written or formal language and not everyday talk, which is what most of the dialogue in the book is.
      • she was not happy with “they” since it can lead to confusion around singular and plural or did not see it as better alternative than a generic masculin pronoun for someother reason
      • she simply did not use “they” that way when she wrote the book.

      I sadly don’t own the anniversary edition, so i don’t know if le guin elaborates further on that. It’s definitely valid criticism however.

      e: english grammar hard.

      • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.worldEnglish
        23·
        23 days ago

        or the pragmatic reason that for a book that is basically popular fiction, it would alienate and seem weird to the vast majority of her readers? and maybe her or her editor had this in consideration when it the book was almost published 60 years ago?

        perhaps if she had done that… the book might have been been or successful or popular as it was because that construction would have been so alienating and ‘incorrect’ for people for the first 30-40 years of it’s publication?

    • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.worldEnglish
      23·
      23 days ago

      do you think Newton was an idiot because he didn’t know about relativity?

      you do know, that the majority of modern gender discourse… originated in the 1970s, and only became popular with non-academics in the in the 2010s, mostly thanks to it’s use on social media?

      but don’t let these facts get in the way of how much a book written before most of any of what you are talking about, existed, let alone outside of a tiny tiny subset of academics who were originating most of what you take for granted as having always have existed?

      perhaps you could, I dunno, give Le guin credit for what a trailblazer she was in her time?