The reader is allowed to see only what the narrator allows, or what can be seen through the eyes of the characters. From this information the reader must piece together how these worlds function as seperate entities, and as parts of a whole. We are told not to trust Pae, by Chif, because he works for his government; but that means we can't trust Chifoilisk because he is an agent for his Thu. Chif is saying here that the individuals don't matter at all, and it is only this power, (which is government(anythng else?)),that matters. Is LeGuin telling the reader here that, though this novel is focused on the characters, it is necessary to only look at the motivating factors as the real story? But, Chif is coming from a society that is more of a communist society, and in which the individual really means nothing in comparison to the larger whole. In this case then, Chif's view point is one side, but maybe not the right one, and definetly not the whole one. Also, Shevek does not trust Pae because he evades. If this is a reson not to trust, then who is the reader to trust. Does Shevek evade? THe choices he does make come into question. He chooses not to give his information to the Ioti government. He chooses to help start a revolution in a world where he has been living for only a few months (time frame?). Someone mentioned in class a lack of emotion in Shevek. I would apply this to most of those on Annares. Is this a form of evasion? Without this emotion, the reader becaomes unsure of how to judge certain situations. How does Shevek feel about his mother? And, do we need to know this? The one who does feel emotion, and who can't find a way to express it, is Tirin. He ends up in an asylum.Another point of interest is how Chif sees Shevek as approaching everyone as an individual, but Shevek comes from a society that is anything but individualistic in terms how they should think (concept vs. practice?). Power throughout the novel is based on knowledge (_A Canticle_). Maybe this stems from the fact that LeGuin chooses an intellectual as the lens. For all intensive purposes, though, Shevek is a naive child in terms of how A-Io works. In this, the reader is superior to Shevek. I found it strange to view him in this way, and it made me think way back to Microcosmic God, and the genius of that story, who never really saw the outside world, and was never exposed to it. In the end, he created a barrier between himself and the world. Shevek attempts to break down this barrier (as can be seen with the repeated references to "the wall.") between himself, Annares, and Urras. Is there a world in which Shevek fits. Can the reader trust Shevek because he really has no allegiance to a "government." Though he values his world's belief system, does he feel he owe's it an allegiance?
Rich asks above, "Is there a world in which Shevek fits?" This seems to be a very central notion of inquiry within the discourse of the novel. Because Shevek is the central character of the novel it is natural to assume that the reader will identify with his plight more than any of the other characters. Given this, as a reader we are cast into his position when we read the novel, asking ourselves what we might do if we were in his shoes. This is an uncomfortable position to be in, for Shevek really is caught between two worlds, neither of which seem altogether satisfying. This is mainly due to the social conditions which are found on each world. Annarres is founded upon Odonian principles, but we come to see that they are not entirely realized, that the characters, in fact, are highly socialized and indoctrinated into a opressive hierarchy of social expectations, and while they are not codified, literally, they are practiced within the culture to an equal extent as the written laws upon Urras are. Hence, Shevek senses some annoyance at both worlds and their indoctrinating and oppressive social structures. As the reader we too are presented with this dilemma, and it is a dilemma that we are familiar with in our own lives, in our "real" lives. So, the novel succeeds at creating a character who does not belong on any of the known worlds because they are restricitve to him in some way or another. Here is the crucial point. While the novel sets up a series of binary oppositions between the worlds, it would seem likely that one would be more appealing than the other, but in actuality, neither one is. Shevek, as a person who has been reared believing in the ideal of individual freedom, realizes that this cannot be found upon either world. Therefore, the reader is aware that as subjects of society (no matter how conscientiously a society attempts to liberate individuals from tyranny) they are not completely free, no matter how libertarian they might believe their society to be. So, to answer Rich's question, "Is there a world in which Shevek fits?" the answer is no, in the sense that there is a world where complete liberty can be attained with a social structure. Perhaps then, the much ballyhooed symbolic and real walls of the novel can be understood, for in order to be completely free an individual must erect walls in order to keep out the would-be oppressors from his or her world. This act would neccessarily undermine the notion of freedom, for walls inhibit movement, either psychological or physical. Therefore, freedom is unattainable if we believe in the worlds presented to us in The Dispossessed.
He goes back to Annares in the end, but earlier this world was not satisfying, and I didn't get the feeling he was going back to a system that was now going to work, but to something that was at least familiar to him. It is a plaec where he would be comfortable, at least more so than on Urras. But, he is still going back to where he is considered a traitor by many.---------That which does not kill us makes us stranger. Dance is both self-exhibition and self-exploration. Dancing should not be work;it should be a vacation the body takes from the mind. Dance should transcend its form.Dance should not be a worry, but worry's cancellation. John Updike
Return to "The Gallery of Art" Homepage