What makes a story Dystopian?

[keith99]

The lines seem even more blurred than Science Fiction and we do not have Campbell's out that Science Fiction is whatever Science Fiction Editors will buy.

It is clearly more than the setting being nasty. There are scores of Science Fiction stories with nasty settings that are not considered Dystopian.

Somehow Enders Game and Flowers for Algernon are considered by some to be dystopian stories. Perhaps my memory has faded, but Enders Game was pretty mild when it came to war Science Fiction and I do not remember the society of Flowers for Algernon being at all bad.

Drawing conclusions for omissions is more difficult, after all items get left off lists simply because the list maker is unaware of them, thinks they are second rate or even dislikes the author.

But Tunnel in the Sky makes some lists while I Will Fear No Evil has not made any list I found. Tunnel is far from overly dark. Yes, there is over population and food is scarce, but society functions. In fact Tunnel in the Sky could be considered a reply to Lord of the Flies. A group of young people ends up cut off from society, but they do not revert to savagery, they create a functioning and surprisingly advanced society.

I Will Fear No Evil has a society as nasty as 1984 or Brave New World. The one difference is we see that world mainly from the view of the very rich. Is a story not dystopian is we only see the drek but do not have our faces rubbed in it over and over? Since I Will Fear No Evil may not be known to some I'll describe a few features. The rich always have drivers, drivers and someone ridding shotgun. But the guy riding shotgun does not have a shotgun, he has something more like turret with a 50 caliber machine gun. There are places, and lots of them, called abandoned areas, as in there is no law. In some of those there are entertainment centers rather like Las Vegas, but with everything imaginable. Like 'escorts', both male and female. At one point it is noticed one of these 'escorts' is at most 13. It is what we hear next that is disturbing, that she probably considers herself lucky to have the position and that she is right.

Now there is one huge difference between I Will Fear No Evil and the vast majority of dystopian stories. There is a story aside from the dystopian society. So does that disqualify a story? Must there be nothing else? In some ways it makes the Dystopian aspects far more clear to focus on something else for a while, when one look on the nasty parts again they disgust with full force. When there is nothing else one can get numb.

 

[TillICollapse]

On a related note, and not to derail a thread immediately, have you watched Fringe ? If so, thoughts ?

 

[RDKirk]

The lines seem even more blurred than Science Fiction and we do not have Campbell's out that Science Fiction is whatever Science Fiction Editors will buy.

It is clearly more than the setting being nasty. There are scores of Science Fiction stories with nasty settings that are not considered Dystopian.

Somehow Enders Game and Flowers for Algernon are considered by some to be dystopian stories. Perhaps my memory has faded, but Enders Game was pretty mild when it came to war Science Fiction and I do not remember the society of Flowers for Algernon being at all bad.

Drawing conclusions for omissions is more difficult, after all items get left off lists simply because the list maker is unaware of them, thinks they are second rate or even dislikes the author.

But Tunnel in the Sky makes some lists while I Will Fear No Evil has not made any list I found. Tunnel is far from overly dark. Yes, there is over population and food is scarce, but society functions. In fact Tunnel in the Sky could be considered a reply to Lord of the Flies. A group of young people ends up cut off from society, but they do not revert to savagery, they create a functioning and surprisingly advanced society.

I Will Fear No Evil has a society as nasty as 1984 or Brave New World. The one difference is we see that world mainly from the view of the very rich. Is a story not dystopian is we only see the drek but do not have our faces rubbed in it over and over? Since I Will Fear No Evil may not be known to some I'll describe a few features. The rich always have drivers, drivers and someone ridding shotgun. But the guy riding shotgun does not have a shotgun, he has something more like turret with a 50 caliber machine gun. There are places, and lots of them, called abandoned areas, as in there is no law. In some of those there are entertainment centers rather like Las Vegas, but with everything imaginable. Like 'escorts', both male and female. At one point it is noticed one of these 'escorts' is at most 13. It is what we hear next that is disturbing, that she probably considers herself lucky to have the position and that she is right.

Now there is one huge difference between I Will Fear No Evil and the vast majority of dystopian stories. There is a story aside from the dystopian society. So does that disqualify a story? Must there be nothing else? In some ways it makes the Dystopian aspects far more clear to focus on something else for a while, when one look on the nasty parts again they disgust with full force. When there is nothing else one can get numb.

I've read all those stories, and I even know who Campbell was.

You're totally right. I've not heard "Tunnel" called dystopian, but you're right that it's not.

I think the (erroneous) idea is that any stories of the future must be judged in a binary manner--thems that ain't Utopian must be Dystopian.

But who are you hearing making these judgments? People with real SF backgrounds or general media pundits.

 

[RDKirk]

On a related note, and not to derail a thread immediately, have you watched Fringe ? If so, thoughts ?

Re-watching it on Netflix now. Enjoy it. Kind of like the way they decided more than once to make major direction changes.

 

[TillICollapse]

Re-watching it on Netflix now. Enjoy it. Kind of like the way they decided more than once to make major direction changes.

You know, (SPOILER ALERT TO THOSE WHO HAVENT WATCHED FRINGE) when they erased Peter, and did the "amberverse" route, many serious watchers were disenfranchised and thought the show jumped the shark. It made perfect sense to me however, and tied in well with the overall theme the show was heading imo. For the most part, I envisioned many of the loose ends along the time paradox routes to be tied up and either explained directly, or hinted at indirectly. The fringe science itself got lazy at various times, suspending my belief and dumbing myself down to enjoy some of the things they explored (quantum emotional entanglement ? Ugh) was to be expected, but I was pleased overall with the timeline archs and found them to be consistent in general. So I was fine with the major changes as well

 

[dms1972]

Good question. I am not sure, but heres a few thoughts.

Most people usually have a novel in mind that to them is "proto-dytopian". They then conclude other novels to be dystopian to the degree that they contain similiar themes to that novel.

I don't think 'dystopian' fiction requires rubbing one's nose in the nastiness. However it does depict a widespread and severe social malady that is usually polarised in at least one way. There would be an artificial happiness preserved at all costs, and pockets of realism in the society depicted. But some novels that make lists seem to be pre-dystopian, others seem to be post-disaster dystopian. In a sense the term catches a wide variety of novels.

Though a reader I am more familiar with the dystopian theme in films.

To me they usually have as elements a society under totalitarian control, artificial happiness, a considerable degree of acceptance of this and a small number who refuse to conform.

Novels like CS Lewis's Ransom Trilogy are difficult to peg. In the last part - England and the world is leaning heavily towards becoming a dystopia, or worse. But Lewis's novels mainly base the intellectual element behind the dystopia in scientism. A less obvious form would be social experimentation, and a novel could depict that without seeming overtly nasty, yet the experimentation itself would be oppressive. So a novel depicting anything which wars against genuine humanity (with its foibles) ostensibly to improve the human condition but in a one size fits all manner, seems to me to contain dystopian themes.

In Lewis's science fiction novels he is depicting to a considerable extent the psychomachia of several of the characters. Other characters therefore appear rather one-dimensional. His bad guys are long-time reductionists (their humanity is already diminished). I think they are well written, and good literature with keen psychological and spiritual insights. They are not strictly dystopian but more pre-dystopian, with the suspense built on whether a full-scale dystopia will prevail or not, and how it will be averted.

 

[keith99]

I've read all those stories, and I even know who Campbell was.

You're totally right. I've not heard "Tunnel" called dystopian, but you're right that it's not.

I think the (erroneous) idea is that any stories of the future must be judged in a binary manner--thems that ain't Utopian must be Dystopian.

But who are you hearing making these judgments? People with real SF backgrounds or general media pundits.

Here are the main links I had read:

List of dystopian literature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Categoryystopian novels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So general population.

I think your false binary and things like it may be the explanation. If one asks the question is this a dystopian story and then looks only for bad stuff one gets a far different answer than if one looks for reasons why it might not be.

As to Tunnel the only elements I can see are food is we are running out of space and resources. But there is an out and over all it is far nicer than a collapse. Racism still exist, the news media will go with sensationalism over truth and some people are useless scum. If that makes the story dystopian we live in a clear dystopia.

Side note, several sources say Rod Walker is Black. A careful reading will show that is incorrect unless one accepts the one drop rule, then it shows it is correct. The scene where Rod ends up fighting one of the scum starts with Rod being called a Cholo. It is unclear if Heinlein intended the older meaning or the more modern on where it would mean Latino. From what I know of Robert I think he intended it to be unclear other than to say Rod was not lilly white.

 

[Paradoxum]

Isn't a dystopian society one which is politically/ legally bad (and based in the future)?

So a society which is bad due to chaos wouldn't be dystopian for that reason alone.

So it's about unjust governance, not lacking governance.

On a related note, and not to derail a thread immediately, have you watched Fringe ? If so, thoughts ?

I've watched all of it. I quite liked it.

SPOILERS:
I particularly liked the alternative universe season. The future could be considered dystopian in it.

 

[RDKirk]

Here are the main links I had read:

List of dystopian literature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Categoryystopian novels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So general population.

I think your false binary and things like it may be the explanation. If one asks the question is this a dystopian story and then looks only for bad stuff one gets a far different answer than if one looks for reasons why it might not be.

As to Tunnel the only elements I can see are food is we are running out of space and resources. But there is an out and over all it is far nicer than a collapse. Racism still exist, the news media will go with sensationalism over truth and some people are useless scum. If that makes the story dystopian we live in a clear dystopia.

I think i'd say a dystopia must first be a plausible result of negative social trends now clearly present. 'Way wrong, not just a little more crowded or polluted. I would exclude external disasters, such as a meteor strike or an alien invasion.

Side note, several sources say Rod Walker is Black. A careful reading will show that is incorrect unless one accepts the one drop rule, then it shows it is correct. The scene where Rod ends up fighting one of the scum starts with Rod being called a Cholo. It is unclear if Heinlein intended the older meaning or the more modern on where it would mean Latino. From what I know of Robert I think he intended it to be unclear other than to say Rod was not lilly white.

I think the term "Cholo" as used was meant to be more descriptive of the user. I don't think it's clear that Rod Walker was African-American at all, but was not Euro-American, either. However...in Heinlein's time, the "one drop rule" was the rule.

I'm calling Eunice, though, African-American.

 

[RDKirk]

Isn't a dystopian society one which is politically/ legally bad (and based in the future)?

So a society which is bad due to chaos wouldn't be dystopian for that reason alone.

So it's about unjust governance, not lacking governance.



I've watched all of it. I quite liked it.

SPOILERS:
I particularly liked the alternative universe season. The future could be considered dystopian in it.

I agree that governance is a factor in what I'd call a dystopian future, but....

There are two universes and one universe with three timelines in "Fringe." IMO, none of them is dystopian. The alternate universe is shown a bit more totalitarian than our own, but that's largely because of the worldwide disasters that they know were caused by activities in our universe...which they interpreted as deliberate attacks. They are at war.

The same is true of one of the alternate timelines of this universe, the one that is also suffering from the effects of "universes colliding." The harsher government rising from constant disasters isn't dystopian.

Nor is the Observer timeline a dystopia, IMO, because it's not a result of current social trends.

The third alternate timeline of this universe in "Fringe" is that in which the Observer situation is circumvented...but that's a very near future which hasn't had time to change much.

 

[keith99]

I think i'd say a dystopia must first be a plausible result of negative social trends now clearly present. 'Way wrong, not just a little more crowded or polluted. I would exclude external disasters, such as a meteor strike or an alien invasion.



I think the term "Cholo" as used was meant to be more descriptive of the user. I don't think it's clear that Rod Walker was African-American at all, but was not Euro-American, either. However...in Heinlein's time, the "one drop rule" was the rule.

I'm calling Eunice, though, African-American.

What is your reasoning behind that? Or is it a claim based on wanting to claim her as one of the same type as yourself (something I cannot blame any male who even still remembers being interested in the opposite sex for in her case).

 

[keith99]

Isn't a dystopian society one which is politically/ legally bad (and based in the future)?

So a society which is bad due to chaos wouldn't be dystopian for that reason alone.

So it's about unjust governance, not lacking governance.
.....

I don't think I'd go with governance or legality, but rather being systematic, pervasive and ongoing.

To take an extreme (hmm,and interesting) example a society that practically worships anarchy and systematically prevents governance would almost surely be dystopian.

One with no governmental structure because 99% of the population was wiped out by the meteor strike would not, as I see it, be dystopian per se.

 

[RDKirk]

What is your reasoning behind that? Or is it a claim based on wanting to claim her as one of the same type as yourself (something I cannot blame any male who even still remembers being interested in the opposite sex for in her case).

I don't automatically picture a character as Caucasian as I read a story (and didn't in the 60s and 70s), so I don't have a pre-image that needs obvious steering away from that.

In the case of Juan Rico, for instance, I immediately saw him as a "brown" character merely from the name. For Rod Walker, there was little to go on--the character was too far into the future. I never saw him as African-American, but as I said, not Euro-American either.

But I got an African-American vibe about Eunice.

Remember, though, that in the time Heinlein wrote, we could literally count the number of black television characters for the entire decade on our hands and recite them by name. It might have been Heinlein's intention of making her race ambiguous, but given the times, an "ambiguous" leaning toward "not white" meant "not white."

 

[keith99]

I don't automatically picture a character as Caucasian as I read a story (and didn't in the 60s and 70s), so I don't have a pre-image that needs obvious steering away from that.

In the case of Juan Rico, for instance, I immediately saw him as a "brown" character merely from the name. For Rod Walker, there was little to go on--the character was too far into the future. I never saw him as African-American, but as I said, not Euro-American either.

But I got an African-American vibe about Eunice.

Remember, though, that in the time Heinlein wrote, we could literally count the number of black television characters for the entire decade on our hands and recite them by name. It might have been Heinlein's intention of making her race ambiguous, but given the times, an "ambiguous" leaning toward "not white" meant "not white."

I was just thinking that some of the descriptions of Joe's art regarding Eunice might exclude certain extremes. Been a long time, but the contrasts noted in a certain painting that was lesbian erotic comes to mind. That and one rather simple piece of work that i vaguely recall being red and black. Taken as a whole those might exclude a very dark black or an Irish pale white for that matter. Can't think of anything that would exclude chocolate black, and there might even be something in that first portrait that would support it.

 

[RDKirk]

I was just thinking that some of the descriptions of Joe's art regarding Eunice might exclude certain extremes. Been a long time, but the contrasts noted in a certain painting that was lesbian erotic comes to mind. That and one rather simple piece of work that i vaguely recall being red and black. Taken as a whole those might exclude a very dark black or an Irish pale white for that matter. Can't think of anything that would exclude chocolate black, and there might even be something in that first portrait that would support it.

As I said before, the "one drop rule" was the rule in those days. There was no such concept as "bi-racial." Race was binary then.

 

[TillICollapse]

Isn't a dystopian society one which is politically/ legally bad (and based in the future)?

So a society which is bad due to chaos wouldn't be dystopian for that reason alone.

So it's about unjust governance, not lacking governance.



I've watched all of it. I quite liked it.

SPOILERS:
I particularly liked the alternative universe season. The future could be considered dystopian in it.

I would have considered the Observer-invaded future to be dystopian. I'm a bit surprised that someone wouldn't :/

There are two universes and one universe with three timelines in "Fringe." IMO, none of them is dystopian. The alternate universe is shown a bit more totalitarian than our own, but that's largely because of the worldwide disasters that they know were caused by activities in our universe...which they interpreted as deliberate attacks. They are at war.

The same is true of one of the alternate timelines of this universe, the one that is also suffering from the effects of "universes colliding." The harsher government rising from constant disasters isn't dystopian.

Nor is the Observer timeline a dystopia, IMO, because it's not a result of current social trends.

The third alternate timeline of this universe in "Fringe" is that in which the Observer situation is circumvented...but that's a very near future which hasn't had time to change much.

That's interesting you wouldn't have considered the Observer-invaded future a dystopia :/

 

[RDKirk]

I would have considered the Observer-invaded future to be dystopian. I'm a bit surprised that someone wouldn't :/

That's interesting you wouldn't have considered the Observer-invaded future a dystopia :/

As I said, I consider a dystopia to be necessarily derived from current social trends. An external disaster of any character would not be a dystopia.

 

[TillICollapse]

As I said, I consider a dystopia to be necessarily derived from current social trends. An external disaster of any character would not be a dystopia.

Hmm.

IMO, all the timelines at play in Fringe have a common theme woven into them that is given early on from the start, that effects them both internally and externally. "Destruction by advances in technology." Thus, Fringe references both current social trends in our own society as well as trends within the societies in Fringe. Since Fringe is both a "story" that is told through alternate universes as well as various timelines, in it's context the disasters which take place within it, even if they involve universes colliding or timelines being interrupted/altered/etc ... are still "internal" imo, because ultimately all of them are trumped by a single, dominating timeline anyways, which leaves it's mark in each of them and has events in each of them. So I see the external disasters which take place, resulting from internal trends. They are intimately linked and build off each other, imo. I haven't re-watched it in a couple of years however, so I'm going off memory and thoughts I've previously had.

 

[Eudaimonist]

A dystopian story is a story that puts a society under critical philosophical scrutiny.

There are degrees, I suppose. A story could have a "dystopian setting" while not caring much about that setting except as atmosphere. It could be an entirely different sort of story, such as a cop story or a love story. Blade Runner comes to mind.

A story gets deep into dystopian territory when the pattern of society itself comes under intense scrutiny. Examples are 1984, Brave New World, Anthem, Atlas Shrugged, We, Ecotopia, and A Handmaid's Tale.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Paradoxum]

I agree that governance is a factor in what I'd call a dystopian future, but....

There are two universes and one universe with three timelines in "Fringe." IMO, none of them is dystopian. The alternate universe is shown a bit more totalitarian than our own, but that's largely because of the worldwide disasters that they know were caused by activities in our universe...which they interpreted as deliberate attacks. They are at war.

I can't remember how totalitarian he alternative universe was. And if it was totalitarian, I'm not sure outside attack/ influence necessarily makes it not dystopian.

Imagine US continuing to lose liberty from fear from terrorist attacks. I think you could write a dystopia story, which was born from fear of attack.

But as I said, I don't remember how bad the alternative universe was.

The same is true of one of the alternate timelines of this universe, the one that is also suffering from the effects of "universes colliding." The harsher government rising from constant disasters isn't dystopian.

I don't even remember this bit of story.

Nor is the Observer timeline a dystopia, IMO, because it's not a result of current social trends.

I don't think the Observer controlled future is like aliens attacking though.

The Observers are future humans. The technology to increase intelligence will likely be available in my lifetime, and it's reasonable to say that we value intelligence. Considering the influence of capitalism, you could say that heartless progress is widely considered useful.

It's not crazy to think that human intelligence will be artificially increased in the relatively near future. In fact, it almost certainly will happen somewhere.

So while significant human genetic engineering isn't a big social issue right now, the foundation for it exists.

Time travel wont exist anytime soon, so the story isn't a realistic progression from our society... but you can easily use your imagination to see that the Observer future could exist without time travel.

The Fringe Observer potential is a real and swiftly approaching potential problem, so I think that should count it as dystopian (and a warning to be taken seriously).

I would have considered the Observer-invaded future to be dystopian. I'm a bit surprised that someone wouldn't :/