Going off of class discussion today, there was heavy
criticism against Captain Davidson’s character for embodying ideas of
patriarchy and old beliefs that the world revolves around humans (the world is made
for the exploitation of humans) etc. There are valid reasons and support to
attest to this, but I also found his character interesting and still having
likeable traits. I suppose it is because of the way he is so transparent, how fervently
set he is in his ways, and full of flaws...which makes him so human. It is
engaging to dive into a character having traits of strength, patriotism and
integrity, but is also so wrong in his thinking. He sees himself as a “...a
world tamer. He wasn’t a boastful man, but he knew his own size” (15). He later
describes himself as “a patriotic man” (32). In both examples, Ursula Le Guin
ends with “it just happened to be the way he was made…” This illustrates Davidson's belief of a kind of inevitable destiny that he has. This could be applied
to his overall view of humans being conquerors of land and other creatures:
“it’s Man that wins, every time. The old Conquistador” (19). It seems to me
that he is unembarrassingly aware of himself, and the nature and the roles that
“humans” play within the worlds because that's just the way it is.
Le Guin’s choice of placing the readers in Captain
Davidson’s perspective first was an effective because it allows the reader to
not place any negative judgment on his character at first. The reader goes into
the novel with expectations that the protagonist would be a relatable, neutral
or well-intentioned character. Instead, we are forced to deal with a character
we start to dislike more and more, which shows Le Guin’s skill for character
development. I feel allowed like having the contrasts between perspectives developed
the later characters (Selver and Lyubov) in the story more profoundly.
*page numbers are taken from the E-book version.