On Ursula K. Le Guin's "The Left Hand of Darkness"

David Ruiz

16 Jan 2026 — 1 min read

I haven't read a book like this in two ways:

In years, when I last devoured a text in 80-page sprints, completing the work in less than a week (the last time I accomplished this near osmosis was more than 15 years ago with "100 Years of Solitude.")
Ever, because, as far as I can tell, there's really only one book like this, assumedly because there's really only one Ursula K. Le Guin

Le Guin's "The Left Hand of Darkness," a book ostensibly about the future, is consistently astonishing in its observations about the present. There are sentences in each chapter that could be expanded into dissertations, like Le Guin's quick aside that any population's universal access to mass communication leads inevitably to nationalism. Written in 1969—well before Facebook failed to intervene against a genocide communicated on its platform in Myanmar, and before Twitter celebrated the return of white supremacist accounts—Le Guin, it could be believed, predicted the future.

But, much like Le Guin's mystic "Foretellers," Le Guin herself focuses less on What Might Happen and more on How We Might Escape. For example, a great deal of attention is paid to the "proof" of God, and how all the work that goes into proof exists along the same axis as the work that goes into disproof. The novel's protagonist, an intergalactic envoy inviting an alien planet to join a sort of League of Nations (but for space), represents the clearest opportunity for that alien planet to avoid the threat of not only war, but of a nationalistic identity that is rooted in that war. For one character, the envoy represents a potential escape, a way to think beyond nationalism entirely and to reach somewhere else for community, governance, and partnership.

Similarly, Le Guin provides such an amazing, alternate thinking on gender and sex that we can't help but see today's failures in what was lost decades ago. The hateful rhetoric to "prove" today that a woman is a woman, a man a man—and the well-intentioned rebuttal that exists on that same axis—miss the opportunity to define people beyond their sex or gender all together. So long as we believe our gender defines us, we will define ourselves strictly through its limitations.

An actual masterpiece of thinking. Lovely stuff.

On Umberto Eco's "The Name of the Rose"

It's been far too long since I last wrote and while I can blame some of the delay on the impending energy crisis, the country's self-inflicted war wounds, and whether a head of state's recent public appearances are actually AI (???), there's actually

On Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein"

Reading any universally agreed-upon "classic" brings predictable anxiety. What if it's bad? Worse, what if it's boring? Worst (!), what if it doesn't matter??? But, notwithstanding a few eye-rolling decisions by Mary Shelley in her 200-year-old sci-fi progenitor (she cites her husband'

On Ben Shattuck's "The History of Sound"

It's good to, once in a while, read something bad, especially when others insist it's great. Ben Shattuck's collection of short stories, "The History of Sound," is just that—serviceable writing that has received heaps of praise since its 2024 release (The

On Cory Doctorow's "Enshittification"

It's healthy to appreciate small wonders—even corporate ones—and the truth is that I'm in receipt of a rare privilege where, strictly though my work, I'm allowed to read a book, write questions of its arguments, and then discuss those questions directly with

Read more

On Umberto Eco's "The Name of the Rose"

On Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein"

On Ben Shattuck's "The History of Sound"

On Cory Doctorow's "Enshittification"