dystopian literature

[kabbes]

While what you say is true, his anti-semitism when matched with his positive ideas on eugenics don't make him a likable man and sadly I've never been able to read BNW the same way...

As I say, don't confuse the voice of the character with the voice of the author. As I understand it, he was never an advocate of eugenics, he merely found the idea interesting in its infancy. And he later rejected it utterly.

Not sure about the anti-semitism -- first I've heard of it. But Charles Dickens was pretty fucking awful if you start bringing that kind of thing into it. As I say, judging pre-war authors by modern standards will bring all kinds of questions to mind. Life, thankfully, moves on. That doesn't invalidate the art of previous generations, however.

His trip-philosospy and sheer arrogance annoy me too

Well that all came many decades later!

 

[cesare]

He died on the same day as CS Lewis and JFK.

Speaking of whom, That Hideous Stength is another example of dystopian writing.

 

[DotCommunist]

an example of bad writing too lol.

Out of the silent planet was ok but they got progressively worse

 

[DotCommunist]

As I say, don't confuse the voice of the character with the voice of the author. As I understand it, he was never an advocate of eugenics, he merely found the idea interesting in its infancy. And he later rejected it utterly.

Not sure about the anti-semitism -- first I've heard of it. But Charles Dickens was pretty fucking awful if you start bringing that kind of thing into it. As I say, judging pre-war authors by modern standards will bring all kinds of questions to mind. Life, thankfully, moves on. That doesn't invalidate the art of previous generations, however.

Well that all came many decades later!

If you read some of his essays it's clear as day.

He also hated Jazz so really is all kinds of wrong'un.

You can see why BNW is still on GCSE curriculums though, it's an interesting work

 

[cesare]

an example of bad writing too lol.

Out of the silent planet was ok but they got progressively worse

Well, at least they weren't ripping off his mate

 

[DotCommunist]

Well, at least they weren't ripping off his mate

The arguement has been made that That Hideous strength was ripping off silmarillion more than a bit

Theire relationship relatively cooled over the years and I always wondered if the ripping of was why...

 

[cesare]

The arguement has been made that That Hideous strength was ripping off silmarillion more than a bit

Theire relationship relatively cooled over the years and I always wondered if the ripping of was why...

Have you read The Inklings?

 

[DotCommunist]

Have you read The Inklings?

I've not, but I'll wiki it and see what it says about the book.

e2a

ooh one for the list

 

[kabbes]

You can see why BNW is still on GCSE curriculums though, it's an interesting work

It certainly is. Another reason it's still so popular is the way it is still incredibly relevant today, if not even more so! He pre-empted the "science" of advertising, the commoditisation of sex, "designer babies", rave culture and a thousand other issues that we're still struggling with today. It's really amazing stuff. And the fact that it's an ambiguity of bad and good facilitates thinking about these issues too, so long as we don't make the mistake of just labelling it a "dystopic novel".

 

[cesare]

I've not, but I'll wiki it and see what it says about the book.

e2a

ooh one for the list

I recommend it. Not just from the point of view of the development of their relationship, but also the other authors in the club.

 

[ebonics]

That would be post-Apocalyptic.

No one mentioned We yet?

You're absolutely right. Strike The Road from the list.

 

[llion]

Interesting selection of the best dystopian novels by Michael Moorcock:

George Orwell: Nineteen Eighty-four
Frederik Pohl & CM Kornbluth: The Space Merchants
Angus Wilson: The Old Men at the Zoo
Ray Bradbury: Fahrenheit 451
Thomas M Disch: Camp Concentration
Margaret Atwood: The Handmaid's Tale
Joanna Russ: The Female Man

 

[strung out]

Can you explain please

to put it very simplistically, a dystopia is the opposite of a utopia, an anti-utopia is a utopia that is let down by certain elements while intending to be a utopia. For example, there isn't much doubt that the society in 1984 is a dystopia, characterised by poverty, misery, torture and oppression. The society in Brave New World however is slightly different, because for a lot of the characters, the society they live in is a utopia. The vast majority of people living in Huxley's society are happy and content. The only thing preventing his vision from being a complete utopia are certain fatal flaws which turn his utopia into an anti-utopia.

for many people the difference between dystopia, anti-utopia and utopia are really only literary definitions because societies in real life rarely set out to be one or the other. People's opinions on paradise, hell and whatever lies between naturally differ, but the literary differences between the three words can be quite important. For some decent examples of anti-utopian literature i'd take a look at Banks' Culture novels.

 

[Bakunin]

People's opinions on paradise, hell and whatever lies between naturally differ, but the literary differences between the three words can be quite important.

I've always thought that Hell, far from being the place of demons, fire and brimstone as propagated in the Bible, is in fact far more similar to Orwell's Room 101. Seeing as we all have our own personal definition of what we ourselves would consider to be hellish and beyond tolerating even for a few seconds or minutes, Orwell would have to be bang on about Hell, if such a place as Hell actually exists.

 

[DotCommunist]

to put it very simplistically, a dystopia is the opposite of a utopia, an anti-utopia is a utopia that is let down by certain elements while intending to be a utopia. For example, there isn't much doubt that the society in 1984 is a dystopia, characterised by poverty, misery, torture and oppression. The society in Brave New World however is slightly different, because for a lot of the characters, the society they live in is a utopia. The vast majority of people living in Huxley's society are happy and content. The only thing preventing his vision from being a complete utopia are certain fatal flaws which turn his utopia into an anti-utopia.

for many people the difference between dystopia, anti-utopia and utopia are really only literary definitions because societies in real life rarely set out to be one or the other. People's opinions on paradise, hell and whatever lies between naturally differ, but the literary differences between the three words can be quite important. For some decent examples of anti-utopian literature i'd take a look at Banks' Culture novels.

yeah, see this is why I see 'that isn't dystopia it's post apocalypse' arguments to be specious. Most post-apoc works deal with a society created after a catastrophic event-invariably crap horrible societies.

I'd also question the idea that just because most people are happy that it is not a dystopia. The stunted idiot operating the lift was actually designed to be happy with his rote task.

For me designing a genetic class system is actually worse than our existing class system.

To design a servile creature demeans the the creator as much as the created, just as forced servitude is demeaning to a functioning human. Degrees of intelligence and comprehension do not come in to it. Thou Shalt Not Put a Potentially free individual or machine mind Into Servitude.

Book of DotC, Chapter 1

 

[strung out]

I'd also question the idea that just because most people are happy that it is not a dystopia. The stunted idiot operating the lift was actually designed to be happy with his rote task.

For me designing a genetic class system is actually worse than our existing class system.

To design a servile creature demeans the the creator as much as the created, just as forced servitude is demeaning to a functioning human. Degrees of intelligence and comprehension do not come in to it. Thou Shalt Not Put a Potentially free individual or machine mind Into Servitude.

Book of DotC, Chapter 1

perhaps, but i'd suggest that a society which is intended as a utopia and which the vast majority of people actively participate in, in the belief that they are living in a utopia cannot be a dystopia. i understand your points about unknowing servitude and freedom of the individual, but i think there's an important distinction to be made between a dystopia where the citizens are aware of their plight (dictatorial misery, environmental disasters etc), and an anti-utopia, where the characters are seemingly happy with what to them is a utopian reality (whether false or not).

 

[DotCommunist]

perhaps, but i'd suggest that a society which is intended as a utopia and which the vast majority of people actively participate in, in the belief that they are living in a utopia cannot be a dystopia. i understand your points about unknowing servitude and freedom of the individual, but i think there's an important distinction to be made between a dystopia where the citizens are aware of their plight (dictatorial misery, environmental disasters etc), and an anti-utopia, where the characters are seemingly happy with what to them is a utopian reality (whether false or not).

See I disagree, but then I think our modern society in the UK is a dystopia. Regardless that many enjoy happy lives within it, it is not a utopia nor even a middle ground. We exist off of the blood n sweat of total hellholes. That's no utopia and I can't think of any society that can call themselves that. Until we eliminate scarcity even the shiniest nicest societies are still built on the blood and bones of the less fortunate.

 

[Fictionist]

to put it very simplistically, a dystopia is the opposite of a utopia, an anti-utopia is a utopia that is let down by certain elements while intending to be a utopia. For example, there isn't much doubt that the society in 1984 is a dystopia, characterised by poverty, misery, torture and oppression. The society in Brave New World however is slightly different, because for a lot of the characters, the society they live in is a utopia. The vast majority of people living in Huxley's society are happy and content. The only thing preventing his vision from being a complete utopia are certain fatal flaws which turn his utopia into an anti-utopia.

TE]

If a dystopia is the opposite of a Utopia then it would surely be something which actually existed. Utopia means 'nowhere place' - a recognition that the situation and circumstances described therein do not actually exist, and perhaps, can never exist. But even accepting the fact of your definition, '1984' could be classed as a Utopia for those with an authoritarian, centralist bent, with a liking for conflict and fear. With any text it can be dangerous to become too prescriptive in respect to meaning.

 

[Cerberus]

Watcha D'wards.

Kabbes is pretty much spot on. Huxley was very keen/interested in eugenics before WW2. Like many men of his class, generation and background AH was alarmed at the parlous state of the economy (1930's) and the coursened and debased (to them) society it was appearing to yield. Like many of his contemporaries, he feared for the future of so-called 'civilised' society. Thus its possible to see BNW more as a utopian novel rather than a dystopian one.

Fast forward to post WW2 and his stance on eugenics changed dramatically. This is born out in the introductions to the later publications.

Fahrenheit 451; The Man in the High Tower; plus a number of JG Ballards novels are all good shouts and highly recommended.

Am looking forward to reading "the Road" -whether or not its dystopic or post-apocolyptic

 

[strung out]

If a dystopia is the opposite of a Utopia then it would surely be something which actually existed. Utopia means 'nowhere place' - a recognition that the situation and circumstances described therein do not actually exist, and perhaps, can never exist. But even accepting the fact of your definition, '1984' could be classed as a Utopia for those with an authoritarian, centralist bent, with a liking for conflict and fear. With any text it can be dangerous to become too prescriptive in respect to meaning.

well here we're starting to get into semantics. Utopia can mean 'nowhere place' but the more commonly used meaning is to describe a place of perfection (utopia and eutopia, double meanings etc). If you're going to start getting into discussions about whether 1984 is a utopia for authoritarians who like conflict and fear then the whole distinction between utopias, dystopias, anti-utopias becomes non existent because for each society to which one of these words is applied, it will be one of the others to someone else.

i think we're starting to get a bit too diverted from dystopian literature and talking too much about realistic or unrealistic utopian ideals. The whole distinction between anti-utopia/dystopia is one which has traditionally been used by literary theorists so i think it's worth pointing out the difference between the two in a conversation about dystopian literature.

 

[Fictionist]

I don't wish to seem pedantic but 'Utopia' does mean 'nowhere place' - IIRC from a Greek root? More's 'Utopia' is usually acknowledged as the first example of this kind of literature - as opposed to the somewhat prescriptive vision and discussion of an idealised society as seen in Plato's 'Republic' (for example).

I do recognise the general point that you are making, so please be assured that I was not seeking to disrupt this thread or discussion.

 

[strung out]

nah, it's cool! when i briefly mentioned utopia/eutopia i was aware of the meaning of utopia as 'nowhere place' but also trying to get across the more usual use of the word to mean paradise/perfect place/whatever you want to call it. I'll quote from wikipedia because it explains it a lot better than i can (if you'll excuse the wiki link )

The word comes from Greek: οὐ, "not", and τόπος, "place", indicating that More was utilizing the concept as allegory and did not consider such an ideal place to be realistically possible. The homophone Eutopia, derived from the Greek εὖ, "good" or "well", and τόπος, "place", signifies a double meaning that was almost certainly intended. Despite this, most modern usage of the term "Utopia" assumes the latter meaning, that of a place of perfection rather than nonexistence.

 

[strung out]

btw, i agree that its double meaning a 'nowhere place' as well as 'good place' is important. The fact that utopia is impossible in reality is a central basis of anti-utopian and dystopian literature.

 

[Fictionist]

That makes for interesting reading, particularly the slightly later more nuanced differentations made available in the article. Good to see my reading hasn't been wasted!