Comments on: The D word

By: Richard Paez

Richard Paez — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:54:16 +0000

I have never come across any SF book set in a dystopian world or that otherwise provides a “warning” scenario in which the characters make references to other SF books. There might be a few (given the size of the genre, there must be), but they must be rare.
The point of this observation is that since we do live in a world where dystopian literature is common, we are better prepared to avoid (or minimize) the mistakes made in many of these novels. This isn’t often discussed in open political forums (at least in the US) because SF is still considered ‘juvenile’ by many politicians, but that doesn’t stop them for paying top dollars to hired futurists. That these narratives form for us a kind of scratchpad and external immune system makes them all the more important.
Let’s keep on exploring the worst choices in our fictional narratives so that we can hope to make better ones in our historical narrative.
And kavka is absolutely correct: while all possible hells fall on the same spectrum of hellishness, no two people’s heaven will ever be the same. Every utopia will seem crooked, controlling, or downright boring to somebody sooner or later — the reason, I believe, why real-world religions and fictional depictions alike tend to be vague when it comes to describing ‘heaven’.

By: dpomerico

dpomerico — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:03:05 +0000

And then there’s the other side of the coin, in which people tend to not classify “dystopian” literature as science fiction at all. But the fact remains that much of what gets written as science fiction–set in the future–is a direct response (and/or warning) to what’s going on in the present. Would we have 1984 without Stalin? How about Fahrenheit 451 without McCarthy? Hell, is there a Lord of the Rings without the trenches of World War I? Or any of the giant bug-monster movies without the Cold War?
Dystopian literature may appear negative, but much of what it’s trying to do is, as kavka says, “a call-to-action.” Kim Stanley Robinson’s series that started with Forty Signs of Rain isn’t about the inevitability of global environmental catastrophe, but the fact that it’s only inevitable unless we do something about it.
And, perhaps more importantly, most of us read for pleasure. And it’s a lot cooler when the world is going to hell then when everything is hunky-dory. The Burning Skies and The Mirrored Heavens are so fun because there’s non-stop action–because there are people who need killing and the world is going to shit.
Now I don’t mind if the ending is ultimately a positive one, but I think it’s way more satisfying if the protagonists have to go through hell to achieve it.

By: kavka

kavka — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:30:35 +0000

I think that part of the irony here is that positive SF is usually not positive at all (or, at best, merely represents the positive ideals of a specific, select few) – it tends to focus on hive-mind states and a loss of individuality – whereas the darker dystopian tales can often be seen as a call-to-action for the reader, who is reading the work at a time when they’re not just stuck in the outcome of their/our decisions, but are actually making those decisions. In that regard, there is a lot more empowerment within dystopian tales for the reader.
And quite frankly, I can’t think of anything more positive than being able to put down a book and think, ‘I’m so grateful and appreciative that life isn’t like that/that bad now’ – and feeling like my little antshit self might be able to ensure that it never gets that way.