Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Left Hand of Darkness/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2016 [1].

The Left Hand of Darkness

edit
Nominator(s): Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Ursula K. Le Guin's 1969 novel The Left Hand of Darkness. It is a seminal work of science fiction, and has been influential in other literature as well. I have rewritten this article entirely, gotten it through GAN, and sought additional opinions at PR. I believe it meets the FA criteria: I have taken particular effort in examining as many scholarly works about it as possible, and synthesizing major themes from those. I look forward to hearing feedback. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Mirokado

edit

This is a well-written and interesting article. A few comments:

  • Lead
  • Setting
    • the background idea of a common origin for all the humanoid species: expand a bit? There are other authors who have used this theme (Larry Ǹiven if I remember correctly, for example). You could alternatively do this in the Hainish universe themes section, where human expansion (subtly different) is mentioned.
      • I've taken a stab at elaborating this; let me know if this addresses your concern. I'm not trying to suggest that that thought experiment is unique, because it isn't.
        • That is now fine, but it is not really addressing my point (which I probably did not make clearly): the corresponding content in Hainish universe themes refers to "human expansion" and confuses the point by referring to Asimov's universe which was almost exclusively populated by humans of Earth origin. The Hainish universe themes content needs to be consistent with the Setting content. It will also be necessary to avoid mere repetition. --Mirokado (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • To be honest I'm still not entirely sure I understand: both the Hainish cycle and Asimov's works involve human expansion, except that in the Hainish cycle humans evolve on Hain, and expand from there. What would you suggest? Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • We can leave this for a while, it is a relatively minor point. I will think further. --Mirokado (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reading this again, I think it is OK as it stands. --19:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Reception
    • hugely positive critical responses: "overwhelmingly positive" would be better idiom.
      • done
    • The novel sold more than a million copies in English alone.: First-edition printings? in the first year? "has sold"?
      • This is strangely tricky; I've spent a lot of time searching, and it seems like nobody keeps track of how many copies of a book have been sold. Even trickier because this one has been issues in a number of editions. The information I have there is what a recent magazine article said, and it neglected to provide detail. I've tweaked the sentence a little to say "by 2014" which was when that article was published, and I'm going to keep trying for more detail.
    • Budrys: I suggest moving the sentence at the end of the paragraph after the first sentence so that all Budrys' comments are together.
      • done
  • Shifgrethor and communication
    • Eventually, the two are able to converse directly with mindspeech, but after Ai is able to understand Estraven's motivations, and no longer requires direct communication.: "but after" is not clear. Do you mean "after which" or "but only after"?
      • done. Yes, "but only after" is what it should have been.
  • Style and structure
    • The structure of the novel was unorthodox enough that it was initially confusing to reviewers, before it was interpreted as an attempt to follow the trajectory of Ai's changing views.: Is it possible to give examples, perhaps quotes, to illustrate what seems to be an important evolution of commentary? Do we know who first published the changed interpretation?
      • This is also rather difficult, because this "initial difficulty" is not from my own interpretation, but directly taken from Donna White's book; and she doesn't mention specific reviews, but points to a general trend (ie its her own analysis, based on many reviews). Would it help if I stated that in so many words, or alternatively excised that sentence?
        • Please don't remove the information, it illustrates the ground-breaking nature of the novel. An inline attribution to White (similar to "Darko Suvin, one of the first academics to study science fiction, stated that ...") would be fine. --Mirokado (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Tweaked it; take a look.
            • Thanks, this is clear now and you have avoided the rather clumsy "unorthodox enough". You could tighten the text a bit by avoiding some repetition: "Writing in 1999, literary scholar Donna White stated that this unorthodox structure meant that ...". Please also have a look through the article for occurrences of "stated", it is getting overused. --Mirokado (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • You're quite right. I've tweaked that sentence, and replaced many instances of "stated." Let me know if it's still excessive.

I will add a few open comments and questions, I hope tomorrow. --Mirokado (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interrupted today: I will post some more later. --Mirokado (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mirokado: just wondering if you had had the time to take another look at this. Vanamonde (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I had a "rather hectic" week, I hope to comment further this weekend. --Mirokado (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RL happens. No worries; looking forward to hearing your feedback. Vanamonde (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through the article again.

  • lead (arrr, Background):
    • a term which she got from her father: "got" is a bit colloquial, how about "a term coined by her father"?
      • Done (not in the lead, fyi)
  • 80 or 81?:
    • and the pair begin an 80-day trek ... During their 81-day journey ...: use either the approximation or the exact figure in both places?
      • Approximate is better: done.
  • Estraven:
    • Convention required that they separated after they had produced a child together; however, because of the first vow, the vow he makes with Ashe Foreth, which also is broken before the events in Left Hand, ...': several problems here:
      • since the second vow was before the events in Left Hand, we probably need past tense here as for "they separated" earlier,
        • done
      • Ashe Foreth is only mentioned here, either just mention "a second vow with another partner" or explain briefly who Ashe Foreth is,
        • I'm not certain how to handle this, because Ashe is not very important to the story (he has no role besides Estraven's partner) but is a named character in the adaptation described below, so removing him seems a little odd. I've changed it to "a second vow with Ashe Foreth, another partner"; do you have a better suggestion?
        • This is now OK, well done (I searched for "Foreth" and did not notice the later "Ashe").
      • I would write "which was also ..." rather than "which also was ..." (word order, after taking account of the tense change).
        • done
  • References:
    • The 30em columns for the short notes are a bit wide: 24em looks OK and would allow for any slightly longer note line later on.
      • done

The following remarks are not absolutely requesting any change, but I will welcome either a change or your comment justifying the current text.

  • Setting:
    • were the subjects of genetic experiments, including on Gethen. ... Winter is, as its name indicates, a planet that is always cold.: If I remember correctly (I read the book in the early seventies and it is now hiding somewhere in a box), the genetic modification on Gethen had something to do with an adaptation for survival in the cold climate. If the motivation for the genetic modification is indeed mentioned in the novel, we could include it here.
      • Actually I'm not sure that this is the case. I've skimmed the novel and the sources again, and nowhere can I see something that suggests the experiments were specifically for cold adaptation. Indeed the following passage, which is the one most directly relevant, suggests otherwise: "From field notes of Ong Tot Oppong, Investigator, of the first Ekumenical landing party on Gethen/ Winter, Cycle 93 E.Y. 1448.

day 81. It seems likely that they were an experiment. The thought is unpleasant. But now that there is evidence to indicate that the Terran Colony was an experiment, the planting of one Hainish Normal group on a world with its own proto-hominid autochthones, the possibility cannot be ignored. Human genetic manipulation was certainly practiced by the Colonizers; nothing else explains the hilfs of S or the degenerate winged hominids of Rokanan; will anything else explain Gethenian sexual physiology? Accident, possibly; natural selection, hardly. Their ambisexuality has little or no adaptive value. Why pick so harsh a world for an experiment? No answer. Tinibossol thinks the Colony was introduced during a major Interglacial. Conditions may have been fairly mild for their first 40 or 50,000 years here. By the time the ice was advancing again, the Hainish Withdrawal was complete and the Colonists were on their own, an experiment abandoned." (TLHoD, Chapter 7, first page. Pg. 117 in my edition).

Thank you for your thorough response. Clearly I was incorrect! Perhaps I imagined extra details while daydreaming about the story.
  • Plot summary
    • the pair begin an 80-day trek across the Gobrin ice sheet: this is the part of the novel which I still remember, with the dramatic battle against the cold and their isolation forcing Ai and Estraven to confront the sexuality issue. Those two aspects could be included here (the following "Over the journey Ai and Estraven learn to trust and accept one another's differences." doesn't do justice to the impact of that part of the story).
      • This is a good point, but once again, I hesitate. This is just because the plot summary is already rather extensive. Now I could trim another part of it, or just extend this: if you believe it necessary, I will do so. Vanamonde (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would quite like a change here, but that is in the realm of "minor improvement" rather than "correction" and can be dealt with at leisure as part of normal editing. --Mirokado (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was also going to raise the handling of the feminist reactions, but you and Wehwalt have covered that below, and on second reading I think the paragraph is OK. I have also not been able to think of any better way of handling the "human expansion" issue I was worrying about above, so I've struck that bit now. --Mirokado (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt responses. It is a pleasure to support this article, which improves our coverage of influential works of science fiction. --Mirokado (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit

I'm a bit pressed for time right now, so this will be catch as catch can. My standard quibbles (Part I):

  • The second lede paragraph seems to me to get bogged down in detail which the reader coming fresh on the subject may not appreciate (I've read the book, and most of Le Guin's stuff, but not for 35 years). Possibly begin with saying it's in the Haimish universe, say briefly what that is (the humans on the various seeded planets is one possibility) and go on with the plot. Obviously you need to mention the cycle and the placement in it is good detail, but I might put it later in the lede.
  • I've shuffled some sentences. Does this help?
  • Can you explain why part of the lede is sourced, and some not?
  • Those parts of the lede that are directly from the references (such as the quote from Bloom) I have sourced; those things that are my summary of sourced material from the body (such as the second halves of lede paras 2 and 3) I haven't, because they cannot be sourced to a small set of pages in a single reference like the rest can.
  • "a native of Earth (referred to as "Terra" in the novel)" I would simply put "a native of Terra" and link to Earth, omitting the parenthetical.
  • done
  • "the theme of religion, by contrasting the two major religions" I would change one or other to "faith" (s).
  • done
  • I would lead the final lede paragraph with the info "received a highly positive response from reviewers." to try to keep things chronological.
  • done
  • "In addition to the Hugo and Nebula awards," This is a bit of a repetition of paragraph 1, so I might recast it as "In addition to being voted the Hugo and Nebula awards by fans and writers, respectively," or some such. It flows easier into the poll, which is another fan action.
  • good point, done
  • " In 1987, Locus ranked it second " was this another poll?
  • Yes, it was. Do I need to adjust the wording to make it clearer?
  • I guess it's clear enough, from context.--Wehwalt (talk)
  • "Le Guin's father Alfred Louis Kroeber was an anthropologist, and the exposure that this gave Le Guin influenced all of her works." maybe "experience" for "exposure"?
  • done
  • "the Vietnam war " caps?
  • done
  • "These sympathies can be seen in several of her works of fiction, including the Hainish universe works." I'm not sure what the last word is doing.
  • "Including works in the Hainish universe" is what it's trying to say, but it came out dreadfully clunky. I've tweaked the sentence. It's an interesting point that since the Hainish series contains novels, novellas, and short stories, none of those terms can be used to describe all of them collectively...hence "works".
  • The last paragraph of Background contains the term "science fiction" four times, and also contains sentences containing quotes that ought to be cited immediately after that sentence, our usual practice with quotations.
  • I've modified this sentence
  • "Some of these groups that "seeded" each planet" As you have not mentioned any such groups previously, "these" should be "the"
  • done
  • "Explorers from Hain as well as other planets use interstellar ships taking years to travel" I might make clearer that the ships do not travel faster than light.
  • Modified this too.
  • "At least two "thought experiments" are used in each novel." You seem to be going from the general, to the specific, back to the general again. Maybe part of the paragraph beginning above should be moved to be with other text speaking about the Hainish works generally.
  • Hmm, I'm a little hesitant about this, because I see that entire paragraph as pertaining the series as a whole; the mention of Left Hand is only incidental (so I could not mention it there?) I can't see an easy way to move that content around.
  • "Commentators have suggested the year 4870 AD, based on extrapolation of events in other works, and commentary on her writing by Le Guin" constant comment
  • done
More anon.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Back again
  • Gethen's division into two nations might be worth mentioning early on in the plot summary
  • done
  • "an art practiced by the foretellers to prove the uselessness of knowing the right answer to the wrong question." I would cut "by the foretellers" as this really adds no info and the word is used a sentence or so later.
  • done
  • "and tells Ai that he was responsible for Ai's presence in Orgoreyn." well, maybe responsible for the invitation.
  • done
  • "He is called "Genry" by the Karhiders, who have trouble pronouncing the letter "L" in their language" I might cut "in their language" as, after all, Genly's name is not part of their language.
  • True. done
  • "shifgrethor and gender roles and Gethenian sexuality" why the multiple ands?
  • because I probably wrote the sentence twice :) fixed
  • Why is the last sentence of Genly's character description in the past tense?
  • done
  • "In contrast to Ai, Estraven is shown with both stereotypically male and female qualities, and used to demonstrate that they are both necessary for survival." I think you need an "is" before "used".
  • done
  • Consecutive footnotes should be in numerical order.
  • done
  • "prime-ministers" It's stylistic, but I really don't see why the hyphen
  • done
  • "he regularly makes speeches on the radio against Orgoreyn" I might cut the last two words and insert "belligerent" before "speeches".
  • done
  • " knowing that Estraven and Ai's presence in Karhide mean his own downfall;" I think this has to be "means" rather than "mean".
  • done
  • "who wish to cease hostilities and reopen trade with Karhide." Given you've just called them the "open trade" faction, I think this could be shortened to "who wish to normalize relations with Karhide".
  • done
  • Your capitalization of "Open trade" vs. "open trade" seems inconsistent.
  • It's "Open Trade" in the original; I've fixed it throughout.
  • "Hugo award" why no cap when you do for Nebula?
  • done
  • "determined by science fiction fans" to avoid the sf repetition, I would say "voted by the fans"
  • this is the only time I use this sentence, thanks to the tweak above.
  • I was struck by your lower casing of all but the first word in Locus's title, and looked ahead to the bibliography. While I gather you are in theory lower casing all but the first word and proper nouns in the titles of short works and using title capitalization for books, you aren't consistent (compare R. Reid with the books listed in the Further Reading section, and in Watson, why is "Role" capped?). Also, while we are down here, all books should have the publisher and location in the citation. Also, "The Oregonian" needs to be italicized. (I'll do the source review) (by the way, I would shorten the in-text reference to simply "Locus". There's a link if the reader's unfamiliar with it
  • Sort of done. What I have tried to do with the citations is to reproduce the original title, so as to respect the capitalization choices made by those authors. I missed that in a couple of places, but I think I have everything now. I've added isbns and locations; the only issue is that locations are not easily available for some of the books. I've added the publishing headquarters as "location" for now, and am digging deeper. Italics and link fixed
  • "The Paris Review" (in reception section) italics?
  • done
  • The reception section seems a bit one-sided. Those who did not like it are consigned to one named person, a couple of categories (such as "feminists") and are immediately swept away by the authorial voice. If the sources will allow, possibly a bit more on the naysaying side, with names and quotes. After all, there was a "debate".
  • This might be tricky. I've tried to add all the substantive criticism I could find, but essentially all of it is of the "she didn't go far enough" variety. Overall, there is very little criticism of the novel. The "debate" occurred mostly among feminist reviewers, and I don't believe there is much of substance to add. However, I certainly might have used an authorial voice that's too strong; if you have suggestions about that, I'm happy to hear them.
  • The sources are what they are, then. I think it's OK as is.
  • "who displays steadily more androgynous behavior over the course of the novel, becoming more patient and caring, and less rationalist" I'm not sure this is phrased in the most understandable way.
  • tweaked this; take a look
  • Looks OK.
  • "The Gethenians are also not inclined to go to war," yet they've got a border conflict which is one of the big plot-movers.
  • true; but the border conflict is a) the exception that proves the rule, and b) not "war" in the conventional sense; the two sides never actually carry out more than "forays" (raids) into enemy territory.
  • "Bloom adds that this is the major difference between Estraven and Ai, and allows Estraven the freedom to carry out actions that Ai cannot" like?
  • done. A strange sentence from Bloom, so I've quoted him.
  • I also note that the retrieval dates are stated as day month year. Why?
  • I believe this is the default in many of our citation templates (such as the "cite" drop down menu in the edit window, which has the option to insert today's date under "access date.") It is also the standard outside the US. If you feel it important, I can change this all to month-day-year, but honestly I'd rather not).
I don't think the book is particularly associated with the US so I don't think it's worth the trouble to change it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will finish soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully finishing
  • "is shown as increasing loyalty to the two countries while decreasing loyalty to the planet as a whole" possibly "is shown as increasing nationalism, making it hard for those in each country to view themselves as citizens of the planet".
  • done
  • "explored through the persons of lone individuals on alien planets" suggest "experiences" for "persons"
  • done
  • I would move the last sentence of the first paragraph of the "Loyalty" section elsewhere. You begin the second paragraph with "this conflict" but you've somewhat diverted from the theme to discuss a related one, so "this conflict" is no longer immediately at hand, rendering the "this" a bit dubious.
  • done
  • " Genly Ai tells Argaven after Estraven's death that the latter served mankind as a whole, just as Ai did" It is unclear from the sentence itself which of the three named persons is the "latter" ("last"?)
  • done
  • "During the border dispute with Orgoreyn, Estraven tries to end the dispute by moving Karhidish farmers out of the disputed territory. Estraven believed that by preventing war he was saving Karhidish lives and being loyal to his country, while King Argaven saw it as a betrayal." Why the shift in tense?
  • done
  • "in marked contrast to the (primarily male-authored) science fiction of the time, which was straightforward and linear" by 1969? That seems an overly flat statement to say about the era of, say, Vonnegut and Ellison (I mean the "straightforward and linear" bit. Ten or more years previously, I wouldn't be inclined to quibble. Similarly, the following sentence makes the reviewers appear awfully naive considering it's the same year as Slaughterhouse-Five.
  • I've rewritten this sentence to say "traditional science fiction" rather than "of the time;" Vonnegut may have been a contemporary, but he was equally unorthodox. Is that okay?
  • "In this sense, the novel can be thought of as a Bildungsroman, or coming of age story, as the reader experiences the central character's growth.[55] Since the novel is presented as Ai's journey of transformation, Ai's position as the narrator increases the credibility of the story." I wonder if the part "as the reader ... growth" could not be safely deleted. I really don't see anything in there that isn't implied in what's around it.
  • done
  • "in commemoration of her then-recent 85th birthday" this feels a bit awkward. Maybe "in honor of her 85th birthday" is enough.
  • done
  • Wehwalt; actually, you're welcome to go on with the source review. Apart from the points you just added (which I will address shortly) I have fixed and/or responded to everything, I believe. A couple might need further attention from you, as I was either unable to find a solution or reluctant to change for reasons I've provided. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will review those.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
  • You are inconsistent between USA and U.S.A. in the references.
  • fixed
That's all I see. Otherwise all sources seem encyclopedic and are appropriately and consistently cited.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any great reason to change the date format just to make work. I'm a little more troubled by the caps issue in the refs. Those works had their own style guides, and we have ours.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, I believe I have addressed all the points you have raised; if there are further issues, let me know. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What did you do about the titles? That's really the only thing left.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt: Um. Forgot, apologies. I think I've brought it in line with this. Is that okay? Is there another guideline I should be following? Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that's the one I was thinking of. All looks good on the source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: thanks for the support. Since you asked, I actually managed to find a slightly more critical review (still a feminist criticism, though). I've added a couple of sentences; I hope this helps with the issue highlighted above. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent work. Thank you for bearing with me, as long as it took.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't have time to do a review at the moment, but I'm glad to see this come to FAC. I pulled the Magill Survey of SF Literature off my shelves and had a look at the entry for this; it's by Richard D. Erlich, and I can email you a scan if you like. He cites several source that you don't mention; were you able to consult these?

  • Bickman, Martin, "Le Guin's Left Hand of Darkness, in SF Studies IV (1977)
  • Ketterer, David, "The Left Hand of Darkness, in Riverside Quarterly V (April 1973)
  • Slusser, George E., The Farthest Shores of Ursula K. Le Guin (Borgo, 1976).

He also lists five reviews: Library Journal (6/15/70), F&SF (11/69), Publisher's Weekly (1/27/69), Times Literary Supplement (1/8/70), and Top of the News (Jan 70). The ISFDB lists a great many more reviews, but these include some mainstream reviews that are likely to be of more general interest. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie: I would love to have a scan of that entry, even just to satisfy my own curiosity. I looked through the Slusser source, and I have come across the others as well. I have quoted Slusser's piece, though I didn't use it extensively: I have not used the others. It was not that I deliberately chose to exclude these sources; rather, there has been such a vast amount of work on this particular volume, that there was no way I could get everything. So, I did my best to a) consult the best known works, and b) try and get some representativeness in terms of when the sources were published. Erlich's survey was published in 1979, ten years after the novel: in the nearly 40 years since then, a lot more work has been published, and the commentary has evolved over time, as well. This is partly why I chose Donna White's 1999 volume, which looks at the history of critical commentary. If you feel that any of these studies was seminal enough that it must be included, I could try to do that. Regardless, I think I will add Erlich's entry to the further reading section. I hope this addresses your concerns. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think a professional reviewing the reviews is superior to what we can do with it, as it is a professional choosing what is significant.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; just wanted to see if any of the cited material was of interest. Vanamonde93, send me a Wikipedia email and I'll reply with the scanned pages. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GwydionM

edit

I'd rate it as a good article. Sorry I don't have time for detailed comments just now. --GwydionM (talk) 07:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GwydionM: no worries, but do you mean a good article in the Wikipedia sense or in the generic sense? Vanamonde (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Jo-Jo Eumerus

edit

Two files currently used in the article:

  • File:TheLeftHandOfDarkness1stEd.jpg: Non-free book cover, which is the correct licensing given the lack of evidence of freeness and the age of the book in question. It has one superfluous non-free use rationale for an article it isn't used in. Seems like each point of WP:NFCC is adequately explained in the rationale (a book cover is hardly substantial enough to violate WP:NFCC#2 in any case) and the criteria themselves met - it may be worth downsizing further but that is something for editorial discretion.
  • File:Ursula K Le Guin.JPG: Free image, seems like illustrating the author in the section of the background is pertinent enough. Odd camera model. Copies on the web are either more recent or of smaller resolution. No indication of anything improper, other than the odd camera model. Wonder where the caption is sourced from, and where the photo was taken.

Both files need WP:ALTTEXT for WP:ACCESSIBILITY reasons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

edit

I'll add comments below as I go through the article; it might take me a day or two to complete the review.

  • What's the thinking behind having some but not all of the lead cited? Nothing that's cited seems particularly controversial; I think you could probably drop all the citations except for the direct quote from Bloom.
    • It's nothing too significant: where a single citation supports a specific statement, I've cited it, because I've had too many experiences with people who do not understand the relevant guideline removing stuff saying "uncited." Where the text is my own summary of content summarized from below, I haven't cited anything. If it's bothersome, I can take them out.
      No, that's fine; just wanted to understand the approach. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have quotes around "best novel" in the lead, which I think looks a little odd. The title of the award the book won is "Best Novel", and just giving it in caps would avoid the need for quotes.
  • I don't much like "creates a large barrier for Ai" -- "large" doesn't seem a natural adjective here, and I also think we need to tell the reader what it's a barrier to -- assimilation? Understanding? Success in Ai's mission?
  • "Many of the protagonists of Le Guin's novels, such as The Left Hand of Darkness and Rocannon's World, are also anthropologists or social investigators of some kind": suggest "The protagonists of many of Le Guin's novels, such as..."; as it stands this parses incorrectly, as "protagonists such as".
    • done
  • It's difficult when repeating critics' opinions to avoid using "stated", but it's one of the most over-used ways of doing this. Instead of "Douglas Barbour stated", I think more natural options would be "According to DB,", "DB has argued", or "DB sees the fiction of the Hainish Universe as containing..." There are other examples later in the article -- thirteen, in total. Anything you can do to reduce this would help.
  • Any reason to use "Lev" instead of the more usual (in English) "Leo" for Tolstoy?
    • done. I think it came from the source, but wikipedia uses the english variant, so I've changed it.
  • "...those in the Hainish universe. The novels of the Hainish universe...": rephrase to avoid the repetition.
    • done: replaced one with "cycle".
  • You mention the Hainish universe before you explain it. I don't think there's any way to avoid mentioning it before the "Setting" section, so I think a very short parenthetical definition would be good on first use, and then a slight rephrasing at the start of the "Settings" section to acknowledge that this is not a new term, as you give a more detailed explanation for the reader.
  • I see why you call Left Hand an alternative history, and link to that article, but is that a term the sources use? I don't recall ever seeing the book described that way. Usually the term is reserved for cases where it is made clear that something different happened in the past, causing the timelines to diverge. I think most readers would treat the Hainish origin of humanity as simply part of the science-fictional premise of the book, not as a marker that it belongs to the alternative history sub-genre. However, if the sources are consistent on this, we should echo them.
    • IIRC I took this from a source, but I can see what you're saying, too. I've unlinked it because it is not an important element of the novel's genre. If you feel it important, I can change to "fictional history".
      I went ahead and made the change you suggested and have struck the comment; I think "alternative history" has too much freight for some readers for it to be a good choice here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I haven't read the sources, please feel free to respond to my questions about terminology by saying that's what the sources use. Here's another: you use "thought experiments" to describe what I'm used to seeing called "premises". "Thought experiments" to me encompasses more than a premise; it includes the implications and working out of consequences, which I think is more than you intend here.
  • Suggest linking "stasis" to stasis (fiction).
    • done
  • Since the novel is the implied source for the plot, I don't think you require citations everywhere in the plot section, but can you explain why you have citations covering nearly all the text in the that section? Any reason not to make it 100%, or else to remove them? The same comment applies to the "Primary characters" section.
  • "...dictated by shifgrethor an intricate set of unspoken social rules and formal courtesy, which Ai does not understand, contributing to his distrust of Estraven": I don't think I completely get what this sentence is saying. What is it about shifgrethor that leads to Ai's distrust of Estraven, exactly?
    • Ai's lack of understanding of Shifgrethor. Is that unclear? I'm trying to think of a better way to phrase this, perhaps you could help me out.
      My copy's in a box or I'd go re-read it, but what I'm trying to ask is: How does his failure to understand shifgrethor contribute to his distrust of Estraven? Does Ai distrust Estraven because he is judging Estraven's behaviour by his earth social norms, including heterosexual, or at least bi-gendered, norms, and doesn't realize that some of Estraven's behaviour is governed by his adherence to the rules of shifgrethor (if "rules" is the word I want)? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, here's one of the relevant quotes: "Nothing succeeds like success. I don't trust Estraven, whose motives are forever obscure; I don't like him; yet I feel and respond to his authority as surely as I do to the warmth of the sun." But there are others as well, where he complains about "effeminate intrigue" and so forth; so it is connected to gender, but not always explicitly. I've added a little bit of detail: it now reads "The behavior of people in Karhide is dictated by shifgrethor, an intricate set of unspoken social rules and formal courtesy. Ai does not understand this system, thus making it difficult for him to understand Estraven's motives, and contributing to his distrust of Estraven." Is that better?
        Yes, I think that's much improved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest putting "knowing the right answer to the wrong question" in quotes, and citing it, to avoid having it in Wikipedia's voice.
  • "sent to a far-northern work camp to meet his death by cold, labor, and sterilizing drugs": my copy is in a box, so I can't check, but this makes it sound as if the Sarf intended the sterilizing drugs to be one of the agents of Ai's death, which doesn't square with my recollections. Can you confirm this is right?
    • Well I guess the intentionality is a little suspect there, because they never state this explicitly. Here is a relevant passage, describing the state of the prisoners: "I took this lifelessness and leveling at first for the effect of the privation of food, warmth, and liberty, but I soon found out that it was more specific an effect than that: it was the result of the drugs given all prisoners to keep them out of kemmer." Is it necessary to change the wording a little?
      Yes, it was the intentionality I was wondering about. How about "sent to a far-northern work camp where he suffers harsh cold, is forced into hard labor, and is given debilitating drugs intended to prevent kemmer. His captors expect him to die in the camp, but to Ai's great surprise..." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Estraven believes that the very appearance of Ai in Karhide will force its acceptance of the Ekumen treaty": can you add a few words on why Estraven believes this?
    • I'm a little hesitant only because the explanation is a little complex. It's something like "Orgoreyn has claimed Ai to be dead, but when Ai turns up in Karhide it allows Argaven to demonstrate that Orgoreyn is fibbing, and therefore increases Argaven's prestige; but to do that he must accept Ai." I wonder if there is a concise way to phrase this.
      I'll think about it but I can see why you hesitate; it's complicated. Perhaps it doesn't need to be there. If I can come up with a good way to say this I'll come back to it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few sentences later you refer to Estraven's prediction, but include Estraven's death in the clause; perhaps "Estraven's prediction is borne out when Ai's presence in Karhide, along with the fallout of Estraven's death..."
  • "attempting to assuage the Sinnoth Valley dispute with Orgoreyn": I don't think you can assuage a dispute. How about "resolve", or "settle"?
    • done
  • The reception section feels a little listy; in places it seems little more than a recitation of a series of critical opinions. These sections are hard to weave into a narrative, and in fact you do this well in several places, but I think a bit more needs to be done.
  • "turned her back on opportunity for experimentation": perhaps "on an opportunity" or "on opportunities" would be better?
    • done
  • "Le Guin's works set in the Hainish universe explore the idea of human expansion, similar to the future history novels of other science-fiction authors such as Isaac Asimov": suggest "Le Guin's works set in the Hainish universe explore the idea of human expansion, a theme found in the future history novels of other science-fiction authors such as Isaac Asimov", and then start the next sentence with "The Hainish novels".
    • done
  • Is the "Light is the left hand of darkness" poem laid out like a poem in the book? If so, I'd suggest giving it the same linebreaks as the book does in the blockquote.
    • yes, it is. Good point. done
  • You go back and forth between using present tense and past tense for critical comments: "Douglas Barbour said", but "Suzanne Reid states"; I think present tense is usually better for this but at least be consistent.
    • I prefer past, to be honest: but thanks for flagging those. I've tried to make it consistent.
    • done, I think
      Just one left that I can see: "Bloom adds..." You do have the sentences in the criticism sections that refer to Le Guin in the present tense -- e.g. "Le Guin seems to suggest..." -- but I think that's unavoidable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • done
  • "Le Guin suggests that this focus on positives": it's not clear whether this is her later commentary, or third-party critical analysis of the book itself.
    • It's third party analysis, but it's a third party saying "Le Guin portrays..." or something to that effect: so I've changed it to "the novel suggests."
  • "the various Gethenian nations": suggest just "two" rather than "various".
    • Actually, his mission is to all the nations, and there's quite a few. There's a few quotes mentioning this, but these are the most explicit: ""You,‘" Slose repeated, leaning forward intensely: "Does that mean Orgoreyn? or does it mean Gethen as a whole?" I hesitated a moment, for it was not the question I had expected. "Here and now, it means Orgoreyn. But the contract cannot be exclusive. If Sith, or the Island Nations, or Karhide decide to enter the Ekumen, they may. It's a matter of individual choice each time." and later "Heo Hew and three others had taken one and flown over to Sith and the Archipelago, nations of the Sea Hemisphere which I had entirely neglected."
    Right; I'd forgotten about them. I think I was thrown off by "Karhide is one of two major nations on Gethen, the other being Orgoreyn" in the plot section; I read it as "one of the two nations". I'll strike this comment, but you might consider a footnote from the earlier point saying something like "Le Guin mentions other minor nations on Gethen but they do not figure in the action of the novel". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • done
  • "This conflict is demonstrated by the varying loyalties of the main characters": might be better as "These conflicts", since otherwise it only refers to the Karhide/Orgoreyn conflict, which I don't think is the intended meaning.
    • true. done
  • "This demonstrates Le Guin's portrayal of loyalty and betrayal as complementary rather than contradictory": "demonstrates" is a bit clunky, and you used it just a couple of sentences earlier. How about "His decision is an example of Le Guin's portrayal of loyalty and betrayal as complementary rather than contradictory".
    • I like it. done
  • "A related theme that runs through Le Guin's work is that of being rooted or rootless in society, explored through the experiences of lone individuals on alien planets": this is not really connected to anything else in the section it's in. Can it be better integrated, and made part of the discussion?
    • When I wrote it I thought it connected somewhat to loyalty, but now it doesn't really seem that way. I'm not sure there's a good way to integrate it, a) because the source doesn't go into it in any depth, and b) it's a very general comment about her work, rather than about this novel. The content that comes closest to it thematically is up in the background which discusses the anthropologists. I could remove it, I suppose, unless you have any bright ideas. It is not critical.
  • "describes shifgrethor as "this status is not rank, but its opposite": suggest cutting "this status" from the quoted text.
    • done
  • Did Phobos Entertainment ever do anything with their rights?
    • not that I am aware of, and I checked when I wrote it, but I'll check again.
    • Checked: there's nothing on the web since that announcement, except for an unreliable source saying "it seems to have stalled since then."
  • hy is "novels" in quotes in note b?
    • It was because it was "novels" as the poll chose to define them, but that's unnecessary nitpicking on my part, so I've removed the quotes.

-- I've completed a first pass; the points above are generally pretty minor and I think the article is close to FAC quality. I'll read through again once these points are resolved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is FA quality. I can attest to the reliability of the sources, but have not checked formatting or done any spotchecks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lingzhi

edit
  • Support.
  • Do the cited sources specifically use the term "sequentially hermaphroditic" or is this something Wikipedia discovered?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • IIRC it is not explicitly in any of the sources. I did not add this, it was in the article previously, and I didn't change it because it seemed to me at the time to be an accurate descriptor. Having better understood what sequential hermaphrodity means in RL, I think the thoroughly sourced "ambisexual" should be good enough.
  • In my years on Wikipedia, I have always thought that the near-ban on wikilinking terms within direct quotes was quite senseless. But since I have to follow the rules: Do we have a problem with 'Instead, she called it a "thought experiment,"'? Or maybe we should remove the quotes around every instance?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh, I wasn't even aware of this rule. It doesn't make too much sense to me, but here's a compromise. Several reviewers have also used the term, which is why uses that are not meant to be Le Guin's words are not in quotes. So I've gone ahead and linked the second use, which is not perfect, but perhaps better than removing the link, which is an important one.
  • I'm happy that the lede mentions the theme of loyalty and betrayal, but I think it is a bit underemphasized there, since it assumes nearly equal importance with gender, and is in fact intertwined with it in organic ways, e.g., "The theme of loyalty and trust is related to the novel's other major theme of gender".  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adjusted this slightly: is this better?
    • @Lingzhi: I've addressed all your concerns, I believe. Could you take a look, soon as you're able? Vanamonde (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Vanamonde93: Please review my changes. Congrats on an excellent article.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Lingzhi: I'm okay with most of your changes, but there are a couple of things that I'm going to rephrase: first, I think calling the other themes "secondary" is a bit of problem, because nobody else does so. Second, her description of what a thought experiment does is generic, not specific to this case, so I might reorder that. Otherwise, thanks for the copy-edit, it's an improvement. Vanamonde (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, I wondered at the time whether the quote was about all sf or just hers, but I read it incorrectly. As for "secondary", I got it from the article itself further below: "Le Guin wrote that the theme of gender was only secondary to the novel's primary theme of loyalty and betrayal." But changing it is probably the best thing, I agree... and finally I wonder whether we should put   between "Le" and "Guin", or {{nowrap}} around them, but that is a trivial detail. Congrats again!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Carcharoth

edit
Briefly, I've been looking at some of the sources that discuss the critical reception of this work, and I noticed that Spivack (1984) has a fair amount to say on this, which isn't really covered in the Wikipedia article as it currently stands. Does the meta-review of the criticism by White (1999) say much about Spivack's views? I found the following in Spivack's work:

Critical reception of The Left Hand of Darkness displayed a tension of opposites appropriate to the novel. Winner of both the Hugo and the Nebula awards and reviewed in major journals, it was clearly acknowledged as a major work. At the same time, however, a debate raged as to its overall success.

I don't get this impression from what is currently in the Wikipedia article. Was that view held just by Spivack, and have views changed since then? I also noticed some sources commenting on Stanislaw Lem's (critical) views on the work (such as his essay 'Lost Opportunities') - should those be included? See something like this for more: Essay: The critical reception of Ursula K. Le Guin's "Left Hand of Darkness". It is a blog, but it provides its sources. I get that there is a lot that could be said, and it is not possible to cover everything, but how was it decided what to include and what not to include? It feels like what is currently in the article is a summary of a much wider body of criticism, with some things left out. How does the reader know that this is an accurate and authoritative summary of the history and state of criticism of this work? Carcharoth (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: let me take a stab at answering your question, and we'll see where that takes us. Before that, full disclosure: while I relied heavily upon White while writing the article and through the many review processes, I no longer have immediate access to the book. If it turns out that it is absolutely critical, then I can make an effort to get it. That said: when I first began rewriting this this article, I tried to get hold of and read as many sources about it as I could. These included a number of analyses of the books itself, as well as a couple of meta-analyses, of which Donna White's was by far the most recent and most thorough. However, when actually writing, I have left out many of those analyses because in my view they are far too esoteric for a 5000-word article on the subject (works like "Aliens, androgynes, and anthropology: Le Guin's critique of representation in The Left Hand of Darkness"). These included many of the essays in Bloom's anthology. I tried to use the best written sources of the remainder to build the article, and as I said to Mike Christie above, I have tried to use sources well spread out in time. Finally, I have tried to include every significant theme among reviewers. Now there are somewhere between 500 and 2000 scholarly works mentioning the subject, and heaven alone knows how many reviews in the popular press: so I cannot be certain that I have ever fairly represented them all. I will say, though, that I would be quite surprised if you can find a major theme or criticism that I have not included. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically with respect to Spivack's comment, there is a straightforward explanation: Spivack wrote in 1984, and criticism has evolved in the 30 years since. White points to this tendency (specifically with respect to the novel's structure) in a statement that is in the article, and you can also see a more general trend in the rest of the literature. Also, it is true that a fair number of people have criticized the novel: yet all of the criticism I could find is the feminist critique mentioned in the article. See the above discussion with Wehwalt. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you. I thought it might be something like that. Do you think there are sufficient sources and meta-sources out there that a spin-off article specifically on the reception of this work might be useful, with a summary in this article? I am asking because the process of selecting what to include and what to exclude is largely invisible to the reader. Is there a way to get across that what is in the article is only a summary of a large body of criticism and academic analysis, and is there a way to state the extent (in size and over time) of that body of criticism and analysis? And then maybe point the reader to further reading on the topic (in the absence of a spin-off article)? Carcharoth (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: that's an interesting question, and not one I've really considered before. There is certainly plenty of material for such an article; there are, after all, entire books written about it. I'm less certain of whether such an article would be accepted on Wikipedia: after all, the issue of tons of scholarly coverage is certainly not limited to this book, yet I'm unaware of analogous articles for these. One example which came to mind is To Kill a Mockingbird (Also an FA) which has a much larger reception section than this one: but large parts of that section are focused on it's impact on popular culture (or real life, more broadly), an impact which this book, influential as it is, has not had. I will think on this further. Vanamonde (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: I've given some further thought to this, and while I might get around to writing a more detailed article about the criticism at some point, I do think it is fairly balanced in the article right now. In the blog you link, for instance, four major criticisms of the article are included: three of those are in the article right now, two of those identified by name (I did expand Panshin's comment a little bit). So I'm wondering if your concerns have been addressed, so that this nomination can move forward. Vanamonde (talk) 03:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy that some thought has been given to this. I appreciate that it is difficult to fully do justice to something like this. What I would hope is that the interested reader is pointed to further reading if they wanted to read more on the topic. I wouldn't expect a short article like this to do more than provide a summary, and the current summary has had careful thought given to it, which is good enough for me. Carcharoth (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Apologies to all for not checking earlier but has anyone done a spotcheck of sources for accurate usage and avoidance of close paraphrasing? This is a hoop we ask all first-time nominators at FAC to jump through, and I think that's the case for you, isn't it, Vanamonde? I did look at a couple of the online sources myself and found no issues but much is sourced to books that don't seem available for preview on Google or Amazon, so it would be helpful if someone can check one or two of those. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Yes, this is my first nomination, though the article has been through spot checks at both GAN and DYK. I think a few sources are available at least partially online, and I can provide quotations for any of the journal pieces or for the Cummins source. I'm afraid I don't have the White source any longer. @Wehwalt and Mike Christie: as the reviewers who engaged most with the source material, I was wondering if you could help out? regards, Vanamonde (talk) 08:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm traveling and don't have access right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Ian, I don't have any of the offline sources, except for Stableford 1995, which I actually found for Vanamonde93 during the FAC. I've read a fair amount of Le Guin criticism, so I can tell you that the article text is at least a reasonably accurate representation of the sources out there, but I can't speak to specifics or paraphrasing I'm afraid. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. {{ping}Lingzhi|Mirokado}} perhaps one of you can help? It would be rather unfortunate if, having come this far, the article fails for lack of spot-checking. Vanamonde (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, we don't tend to archive a nom simply because we're waiting for requisite checks. A spotcheck is just what it sounds like and doesn't require examples from all sources used. Worst-case scenario, if someone could check a few of the online sources, plus emailed scans of Cummins and one or two of the journals, then that would certainly suffice. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly spot check what's online; Vanamonde93, can you email me some relevant pages from Cummins and the relevant pages of a couple of the journal sources?

  • "The protagonist of the novel, the envoy Genly Ai, is on a planet called Winter ("Gethen" in the language of its own people) to convince the citizens to join the Ekumen. Winter is, as its name indicates, a planet that is always cold": this doesn't appear to be sourced to Watson 1975; since that source was used for the previous sentence I suspect you just picked the wrong source for this.

I checked some of the others and found no issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93 sent me Pennington, which was fine, and is going to send me Cummins. Once I've checked that I'll post here again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93 sent me a copy of Cummins and I've checked about a dozen citations. The only problem I found is "Genly Ai tells Argaven after Estraven's death that Estraven served mankind as a whole, just as Ai did"; this is cited to 85-87, but I don't see it there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies: that should have been page 84, I must have flipped back and not noticed. The quote is "After telling King Argaven that Estraven and he served the same "master""Mankind"" I've fixed it.
Tks guys, I think we can wrap this is up then. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Left_Hand_of_Darkness/archive1&oldid=1020579696"