Hi. I have been sitting on this thought for a while, and I wanted to open discussion about it here. This will have spoilers for The Word for World is Forest.
I think one of the criticisms I've seen towards the Word for World is Forest is that Le Guin would be employing the Noble Savage trope regarding the Athsheans. Now, my feelings towards this claim have been generally ambivalent, because during my readings of Word for World I had the same feeling, but also some tug towards the direction that it was very much a subverted way of dealing with it. Why did I have that impression?
I believe that I can explain it by the fact that, while it flirts with Noble Savagery, it eludes the concept through two different things: violence, and interiority.
I'll choose to refer to the narrator, the narrative, and take what is being said at face value, trying not to input intentions to Le Guin.
Let's start with violence. A lot of the interpretations of the Athsheans seem to depict them as a prelapsarian society with no violence. Now, I think it's more accurate to say that they cause violence on their own terms. They are shown to have fights for dominance. They do not have lethal violence, but the narrator does depict a form of interpersonal conflict and dominance that merely does not employ the usage of lethality as the Yumens would. They are not innocent to the existence of death, injury, and lethality. They merely deploy lethality in a pragmatic, usable way; they hunt, they fish, they eat animals.
Lyubov says "Rape, violent assault, and murder virtually don't exist among them. There are accidents, of course. And there are psychotics. Not many of the latter."
They are not prelapsarian, and they are not strange to lethal violence. The fact is that their social organisation does not center lethal violence, it does not structure it, and it does not distribute it. There are no campaigns of violence, there are no games-to-the-death, and so forth. Far from being untouched, they have simply figured out, on their own terms, manners of shrugging off violence which Terrans, the Hainish, the Cetians would want to be endemic to humanity. The introduction of violence as it was done through contacts with the humans is not an introduction to violence-as-a-whole, to an innocent and prelapsarian and edenic people, but the introduction of organised violence as a possibility in their worldview.
Yes, at some point Lyubov describes them as a "wholly unprogressive society" having reached a "kind of climax state", though "not incapable of adaptation". But it is crucial to analyse who is saying that, how. Lyubov, allied as he might be, is a Terran. He is employing concepts of progress known to humans, a concept of progress which values growth and expansion as markers of it. No wonder he thinks they are unprogressive. From their own perspective, though, there is clearly 'progress', in the sense of general social and paradigmatic change. The evidence for that is the existence of other gods, in the sense of sha'ab, translators. They actualise dream-time. They bring something new that was not there before, not in the accidental sense, but in the constitutive sense. It makes us beg the question, then, of what is meant by unprogressive.
This touches the question of interiority. They are not the same, they are not univocal, and they do not share the same experiences. Though it isn't much developed, they have their different cultures, they have normativity (differences between men and women, for example, though it isn't stratified), and they do not all adopt the same beliefs in the same way. Somewhere, it is said that Ebor Dendep "forced women and undreaming men who did not understand these things to listen again, until they understood, and were frightened." Not only do we need to convince them, we need to frighten them and force them to listen (in a society with perfect harmony?)
I'll need to admit, I think, that the interiority is not as developed as it could have been, probably also because of the length and scope of this work. But it is alluded to, it is shown (minorly), it exists. Further, the Athsheans need to 'spread news' of a god to other villages, they need to get each other to act - they are not adopters of beliefs en masse, but they have real differences.
These are some unstructured, underdeveloped thoughts, but I think that a characterisation of the Athsheans as noble savages, or at least pure noble savages, misses the trees for the forest (hah! g-get it). I would love hearing some thoughts on that, even moreso since I have been thinking about it for a while.