Shikasta
Shikasta - a book I didn't finish. Mainly because of its very strong religo-fascist overtones; everything is wrong in the world because we are out of touch with the cosmic plan. If we were in touch with the cosmic plan and unfailingly, unquestioningly obedient to it we'd all be happy and everything would be wonderful. Disobedience is called the 'Degenerative Disease'. I skipped to the end because I thought - perhaps I've just mis-interpreted this, and we're supposed to be siding with the people who aren't following this cosmic plan. But no, we're supposed to think the intergalactic forces of unquestionable order are the good guys.
I was genuinely surprised at finding out when this had been written (1979) - I thought it must have been earlier. It talks about breeding the right kind of people on the planet, and even openly talks about eugenicists being part of the great cosmic plan, so I thought it must be written before the Second World War, because surely everyone had become totally revolted with the idea of eugenics after that. But again, no.
Honestly, if I want a tale of how we must mindlessly obey authority or be punished I could read Paradise Lost. It has some excellent poetry and no creepy eugenics, which weirdly means that the 1667 work is overall less objectionable than the 1979 one.
Wikipedia tells me that the author was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature, and in the citation it said she was an "epicist of the female experience". Bollocks. Unquestioning obedience has done bugger all for women (and men) across the ages; that's not my female experience, and it's not the female experience of the women I admire through history.
I was genuinely surprised at finding out when this had been written (1979) - I thought it must have been earlier. It talks about breeding the right kind of people on the planet, and even openly talks about eugenicists being part of the great cosmic plan, so I thought it must be written before the Second World War, because surely everyone had become totally revolted with the idea of eugenics after that. But again, no.
Honestly, if I want a tale of how we must mindlessly obey authority or be punished I could read Paradise Lost. It has some excellent poetry and no creepy eugenics, which weirdly means that the 1667 work is overall less objectionable than the 1979 one.
Wikipedia tells me that the author was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature, and in the citation it said she was an "epicist of the female experience". Bollocks. Unquestioning obedience has done bugger all for women (and men) across the ages; that's not my female experience, and it's not the female experience of the women I admire through history.