In the story “She Unnames Them” by Ursula LeGuin, Eve from Adam and Eve is the main character. The main character makes references to the story of Adam and Eve and also mentions the garden. The authors point in the story is that in today's world there are many barriers between humans and God’s creations, one of them being the debate of whether people have names because of respect or classification. For example “They seemed far closer than when their names had stood between myself and them like a clear barrier” (LeGuin 2). The quote clearly exposes the author's point in getting across the message that between all of God’s creations from humans to animals that the names that are in place for humans and nature create barriers such as fear and
…show more content…
For example, the opening sentence; “Most of them accepted namelessness with the perfect indifference with which they had so long accepted and ignored their names” (LeGuin 1) this sentence itself is very confusing for someone who has never read the story because it has a tone that seems repetitive and it has a very broad and general statement behind it. As I read further through the story I began to question on why the narrator was objectifying the animals mentioned in a way that seemed like they had something to argue or a point to prove. “The councils of elderly females finally agreed that though the name might be useful to others it was so redundant from the yak point of view that they never spoke it themselves” (Leguin 1). At first, I found the narrator’s attitude toward the animals having a say in their names confusing, but I came to understand that language and naming can be a form of domination over …show more content…
These verbally talented individuals insisted that their names were important to them, and flatly refused to part with them. But as soon as they understood that the issue was precisely one of individual choice, and that anybody who wanted to be called Rover, or Froufrou, or Polly, or even Birdie in the personal sense, was perfectly free to do so, not one of them had the least objection to parting with the lowercase (or, as regards German creatures, uppercase) generic appellations "poodle," "parrot," "dog," or "bird," and all the Linnaean qualifiers that had trailed along behind them for two hundred years like tin cans tied to a tail.” (LeGuin 1). Le Guin explains how humans even after they domesticate their pets they throw away their generic names that have been with them for hundreds of years and simply give the pets a name that the humans will use to objectify the animals as their pets. In conclusion the main point of LeGuin’s story from my understanding is that humans and nature all belong in the same food chain, the humans are above some of nature's creations like the animals naturally because of the ability we have to classify them as pets and objects. But I also understood that sometimes humans try to manipulate each other to their best interests and in the end according to the bible
For example, the opening sentence; “Most of them accepted namelessness with the perfect indifference with which they had so long accepted and ignored their names” (LeGuin 1) this sentence itself is very confusing for someone who has never read the story because it has a tone that seems repetitive and it has a very broad and general statement behind it. As I read further through the story I began to question on why the narrator was objectifying the animals mentioned in a way that seemed like they had something to argue or a point to prove. “The councils of elderly females finally agreed that though the name might be useful to others it was so redundant from the yak point of view that they never spoke it themselves” (Leguin 1). At first, I found the narrator’s attitude toward the animals having a say in their names confusing, but I came to understand that language and naming can be a form of domination over …show more content…
These verbally talented individuals insisted that their names were important to them, and flatly refused to part with them. But as soon as they understood that the issue was precisely one of individual choice, and that anybody who wanted to be called Rover, or Froufrou, or Polly, or even Birdie in the personal sense, was perfectly free to do so, not one of them had the least objection to parting with the lowercase (or, as regards German creatures, uppercase) generic appellations "poodle," "parrot," "dog," or "bird," and all the Linnaean qualifiers that had trailed along behind them for two hundred years like tin cans tied to a tail.” (LeGuin 1). Le Guin explains how humans even after they domesticate their pets they throw away their generic names that have been with them for hundreds of years and simply give the pets a name that the humans will use to objectify the animals as their pets. In conclusion the main point of LeGuin’s story from my understanding is that humans and nature all belong in the same food chain, the humans are above some of nature's creations like the animals naturally because of the ability we have to classify them as pets and objects. But I also understood that sometimes humans try to manipulate each other to their best interests and in the end according to the bible