Tootfinder

Just finished "A Psalm for the Wild-Built" by Becky Chambers. Overall it's good but I also have some Thoughts.
First, it was very pleasant to finally read some non-trite utopian solarpunk after having read stuff like Octavia Butler recently. Both hope and despair can be poisonous on their own IMO, so getting some balance in is nice. It's definitely a very valuable thing to be able to lay out an actually desirable and in many ways imaginable future given our grim present. Chambers is no LeGuin though. I'll probably be reading more of her work and maybe she fleshes out these ideas elsewhere, but at least in this book there is no focus on either how the transition to a better society could happen nor on how the better society holds up in the face of adverse events and inclinations. Compare LeGuin's "The Dispossessed" or N. K. Jemisin's short story "The Ones Who Stay and Fight" and it feels like there's something important missing from Chambers' portrait of a future society. Of course, maybe the point is to make a cozy book, in which case fine, there's certainly a place for such things, and I can look for deeper inspiration elsewhere.
The second big thought I had was that Chambers' worldview seems not well-informed by certain indigenous perspectives, and this creates some contradictions. For example, (minor spoilers) when Dex enters the wilderness there's a whole bit about understanding humankind's place in nature and how human settlements are what we're used to but they're only a brief interruption of the vast untouched wilderness. Along the same lines, much of the world is intentionally left untouched by humans as a way to keep it pristine and natural. Later however, a character makes the point that humans *are* animals. The indigenous perspective that I appreciate would agree with that, and would further question the value in distinguishing between human influence on ecosystems and influences that others have. More sharply, one might observe that there's a bigger difference between how different kinds of humans relate to and influence their environments than between how less-disruptive humans and various animals do the same: the strip-mine-operator vs. migrant tribesperson impact difference is probably much greater than the migrant tribesperson vs. beaver gap, for example. Rather than talking about limiting human disruption, then, as if all human-environment interactions are disruptive and must be minimized, we could/should be talking about how to create human societies that have beneficial relationships with their environments and acknowledging that we actually have many positive examples of that, both historical and contemporary. Chambers' utopia is a "humans dominate nature but restrain themselves so that their disruptions are minimal and thus nature can thrive" vision, but what I'd even more like to see would be a "humans study old ways and make new ones so that they can interact positively with ecosystems again" vision, including some of "here are the places that sometimes breaks down but also the patterns and institutions that ensure repair of those breakdowns and thus long-term sustainability."
Final big thought: Chambers' utopia is too homogenous for my tastes. Of course it's hard enough and valuable work dreaming up and sharing any utopia and Chambers' transcends triteness in a number of ways, so this criticism is a bit rude. But the single shared religion, lack of mention of conflicts around shared decisions, especially historical society-defining ones, and nagging questions like "what about the people indigenous to the now-uninhabited lands?" and "what about the indigenous peoples who weren't part of the factory-building societies?" leave me wishing for more nuance in this direction.
All in all: a good book, and I'm criticizing out of a place of appreciation, not scorn. I've got there sequel out from the library as well and will probably detour to a few other books but get to it pretty soon.
Sadly I don't remember who, but I got this one because of a recommendation on here, so thanks if you're someone who recommended it!
#AmReading #ReadingNow #Bookstodon

Burnham is on the radio doing a launch speech.
He thinks the people of Makerfield are going to write the script for the whole UK.
Namechecks every local borough.
There's been forty years of policies that leave people struggling, that took away jobs, can't afford homes. [yep]
Namechecks some local companies and football teams and schools in a story about a football game. He lived here a long time and likes it.
It's unjust what Westminster has done to this place which makes him very angry.
So the election is a call for change, for these local people in particular, to the economy, education, transport, care, and politics.
More tech schools not concentrating only on university degrees.
He wants to get to the point where the council is building more homes than its losing. New cheap council homes.
Imagine some local person suddenly called to a job interview in the city, they have to pay 364 quid to get to the city. Re-nationalize rail to make rail fares sane.
His dad is in a care home. A local one. Its run for profit. Which needs to change so that it's provided on NHS terms with a social care system that supports the NHS.
We won't get those things without changing politics.
Manchester is the fastest growing city because of how he worked with business. He loves working with business too. Public "control" working with business over busses has been good in Manchester he recons [I think people generally agree, but I dunno]
Note, he says, how he's not been dissing the other parties. He doesn't want that. [Good actually]
He wants his own party to change too.
A vote for him is a vote to change Labour. To change it back to the one the people used to know. On the side of working class people and communities.
This is not a new journey, he has always been working to make the lives of local people better. Ever since his first day walking into the Labour club when the manager said "You're on, between the bingo and the turn, keep it short".
His three word slogan: I'm For Us.
Its a very good speech. He is very personable. Sounds like a normal person not remotely like a robot the way ministers tend to.
It does sounds a lot like what Starmer was saying when he was running for selection four years ago. He hasn't explained how he can do all that given the constraints Starmer thinks he is under. Which of those constraints are wrong.
That Andy Burnham will win this contest.
#UkPol #labour #makerField #andyBurnham