In the novel, "The Dispossessed," As we have read in Literary Criticism, one of the primary objectives of ecocriticism is to prompt individuals to action. Does Le Guin’s novel successfully advocate ecological activism? Are there any tensions regarding the role that nature plays within the novel (i.e. is nature always “good” or are there times that nature is an adversary)? How do the adversarial aspects of nature complicate an ecological reading of the text? 1-2 paragraphs

This is a great question about a complex topic. Of the many approaches you could take, one worth considering is the connection between environment and political systems. One of Le Guin’s most challenging ideas is the notion that scarcity (e.g., Annares) does not necessarily lead to a breakdown of society, and that, in some ways, the anarchic system in drought-stricken Annares might be preferable to the patriarchal system of resource-rich A-Io. In other words, the environmental challenges on Annares can be seen to actually contribute to a more free and egalitarian society. The “good” and “bad” labels your question presumes about nature are, I think, deeply problematized by the novel; it seems more accurate to point out that “bad” aspects of nature can lead to “good” political outcomes, whereas the “good” aspects of nature (beauty, plenty, etc.) can foster more regressive systems. I think that in as much as The Dispossessed is a novel that explores the ways an Anarchist utopia might be achieved, it is a novel that advocates for activism, ecological and otherwise.