Fiction Forum

The Dispossessed

By Samuel E. Konkin III
Long Beach, CA

Both Victoria Varga and Robert Shea independently asked me to ‘review’ The Dispossessed for Prometheus. Considering that my literary aesthetics make John J. Pierce look like a New Wave-symp, and I think Neal Wilgus’s “libertarianism is not necessary to win a libertarian literary award” position is self-annihilatory, you may wonder—as much as I do—why?

It seems that T.D. is not getting sufficient support to earn its rightful position in the Prometheus Hall of Fame. Supposedly, the opposition is coming from those who—mirabile dictu—actually want to apply hard-core libertarian criteria in their selections. Some, I gather, have even threatened resignation from the Libertarian Futurist Society should this anti-property screed crash through the Hall’s doors. I know how at least some of them feel; I have similar dark urges every time one of Jerry Pournelle’s statist stories make the final ballot from our golden gift.

I would not be so churlish as to suggest that the same squad of secessionists (if Le Guin wins) are Jerry’s janissaries of nominators, nor will I argue for an openness and tolerance which can encompass both—sort of out-Wilgus Neal. My position is that Ursula Le Guin’s classic tale of Shevek the dissident and anarchist ambassador is within reasonable limits of libertarian definition—and Pournelle (he stands not alone among inapt nominators) is not.

You see, I am so proprietarian that, if someone could ever prove to me that abolishing the State or saving my own life (egoists may wish to avert their own eyes from the rest of this sentence) would jeopardize Property (qua concept), I would save said State and regret that I have but one Life to live (and love of it) to give it. [I also consider the first possibility to be a violation of Natural Law; i.e., for those who still do not understand what that term means, to be impossible.] I suspect that is why Bob and Victoria wish me to review Ursula K. Le Guin’s The Dispossessed. I have nominated it for the Prometheus Hall of Fame and will gladly do so again. Furthermore, I expect to nominate the worthy Ms. Le Guin for future stories she should write; I can think of at least one other meriting consideration [The Left Hand of Darkness, if you’re wondering; it already won her first Hugo] from her past writing.

I am not an unqualified Le Guin fan; the only sf writers I have ever gushed unreservedly over are both dead, [Robert A. Heinlein and Edward E. (“Doc”) Smith—I told you my aesthetics were Old Wave.] I have actually criticized the Holy Trinity of Koman, Schulman, and Linaweaver (only once each, though)—and only become a Neil Smith fan when he gave up partyarchy. As a charter smokestack kisser and “I prefer my planets paved” nonecologist, I didn’t care for ‘The Word for World is Forest’ Nor did I care for the written version of The Lathe of Heaven in fact, I actually like the televised version better.

So why do I agree with most of sf fandom that The Dispossessed is hot stuff and disagree with my propertarian comrades?

Let’s dispose of the obvious stuff: it’s a good story and quite traditional in the telling; definitely not New Wave. When it came out (and I read it in time for the Hugo nominations and, uhm, I did nominate it and, yes, I did vote for it, and, yes, I was as hurt and astonished as the other libertarians sf fen [frefen] when a year or two later Ursula thought we libertarians were a bunch of closet Reaganites), that was an important criterion. Did it keep me gripped in my seat? Sure did. Did I care about Shevek and his plight? Darn right.

And, something which may not be true of other readers; I could identify with Shevek and his world a lot. Not only was I an academic but I was a dissident publisher (New Libertarian was only a couple of years old). Furthermore, I could identify with leaving a small world of my fellow idealogues to re-enter the larger statist world outside; the Anarchoslum (predecessor of the spiffier Anarchovillage) had just begun in Lower East Side New York.

Le Guin’s terminology may put off some libertarians still nursing an objectivist hangover when she calls The Dispossessed “an ambiguous utopia.” It bothered me until I read the book. Ambiguity is usually the first refuge of the scoundrel, particularly the literary con artist. Anarres is not ambiguous; it is honest. I had only to look around the Anarchoslum (and I could do so even today in the Anarchovillage) to know that the best society will still have non-best people living in it. I was so impressed with her honesty that in my near-contemporary first sf novelette (now completely out-of-print and unobtainable, thank goodness), Agent for Anarchy. I had Rann Gold (my anarchist version of James Bond) visit a commune that had survived into the free-market future and talk to a bitter—but sympathetic—old friend there who still refused to accept the wonderous agora around his little world.

Now let me deal with the first of the two key issues that really bother the opponents of Le Guin’s novel; A-Io. This separates the Revisionists from the unenlightened, if not the women from the girls. Doesn’t A-io deliberately represent the capitalist United States of American? You bet. Now you tell me; if Murray Rothbard had half the fictive talent of Ursula K. Le Guin (and he claims none), how different would his portrayal of Imperial America be in 1972 or, even better, 1968?

Secondly, and the element that most impacted me back when I first read T.D.; the underground printers, the samizdat. Whether or not Le Guin thought this through consciously, she portrayed the rediscovery of property in a propertyless society as a necessity for the re-establishment of dissent and, hence, meaningful freedom. This case was one of many elements percolating in my mind when, in 1973, I discovered Counter-Economics and formulating Agorism. The heroic activists in T.D. are not “capitalists” and not even good anarcho-communists; they are proto-agorists!

I have no idea whether Ursula K. Le Guin votes or even supports reformist politicians (but see her position on Establishments below); however, compare her position on the other four crucial issue areas for libertarians at this time (let alone in early 1970s):

Anarchy vs Minarchy; she’s anarchist. (Jerry Pournelle, as a counterexample, is strongly archist).

Revisionist History; she’s revisionist. (Pournelle is not a Fundamentalist-type statist but that’s the best you can say).

Economic Liberties; Le Guin is weak on understanding what the better parts of our mixed economy are but surprisingly far-sighted on Counter-Economics. (Pournelle, with his dropping of Space Statism, can no longer be called an outright fascist, but he still accepts a lot of state economic intervention and regulation along with his formal advocacy of free enterprise.

For those who like grade-point simplification; Jerry Pournelle (who supports politics and Party—the RP) gets about 1.75 out of 5—D to D-; Le Guin: gets about 3.25 out of 4.—a B+ or A-.

In the most recent issue of Locus (November 1988, #334—and if you qua sf fan, don’t know what Locus is, shame!), an article entitled, significantly, “Ursula K. Le Guin; Not the Establishment,” Le Guin is quoted as saying, ‘The Eastern Literary Establishment basically makes me throw up. If I wanted to join, I don’t suppose they’d let me. I don’t like Establishments. I’m not an Establishment person.’ Right on! Time for Neill, Brad and Vic to offer her membership in the Libertarian Writers’ Mafia!

One last thing: I last read The Dispossessed 15 years ago; it sticks in my mind that much.