Great interview

[firecat]

I've been casually following reviews of the Sci Fi Channel's "Earthsea" miniseries, and this led me to the following marvelous interview - actually an online Q&A - with Ursula K. Le Guin in the UK Guardian. It only briefly mentions the "Earthsea" miniseries because it was done in February.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/sciencefiction/story/0,6000,1144428,00.html

Comments

[libskrat]

Interesting. I've always admired her for being willing and able to shoot from the hip, without the shilly-shallying that seems to be expected particularly of women.

Formidable, certainly, but only unpleasant insofar as one expects women not to be formidable.

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

Um, wow, that was an interesting assumption behind what I meant. I would be being pretty hypocritical if I thought someone were unpleasant for shooting from the hip or for being a formidable woman.

I actually think she sounds like a bit of a snob: "I have no great opinion of the Harry Potter books, but I'm going to blast them for not being great literature" struck me as more eyeroll-inducing than an example of shooting from the hip. And "there isn't much to watch on American TV now unless you are into violence and/or canned laughter" is the sort of comment that always makes my teeth ache. Kill Your Television People have always annoyed me, even during the times I haven't made time to watch any myself. The other thing was the way she corrected the interviewer's summation of her novel at the beginning. While I certainly understand the temptation to do that, there is a lot of truth to the whole thing about the author being dead and reader interpretations being what really count.

*shrug* Your mileage may vary, of course.

-J

[papersky.livejournal.com]

I suppose it might be because I agree with her about Harry Potter and TV, but it just struck me as her being honest rather than diplomatic -- and so all through.

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

I don't disagree with her about Harry Potter, but I think what she said about television is not only something to disagree with, but demonstrably false. There are more things currently on television that contain neither violence nor canned laughter than do -- not all of them are good, mind, but it doesn't take much pop culture knowledge to be aware of that. My real objection, though, is more along the lines that if you approach television with the attitude that good programmes can't possibly exist, you will not only be wrong, but you will miss some truly excellent storytelling. And that's a rather ignorant way to approach anything at all, when it comes right down to it.

-J

[firecat]

there is a lot of truth to the whole thing about the author being dead and reader interpretations being what really count.

She addresses that point several times later on in the Q&A session.

As far as the first question was concerned, it asked her what her intention was, and a full answer pretty much required her to mention that she had taoism in mind when she wrote the book and that she didn't intend it as a dystopia. I think if she'd refused to answer on the grounds that the author's interpretation didn't count, it would have been a lot more disrespectful than the answer she did give.