Dystopia Land discussion

Continuing from this topic with Patrick's suggestion.

Everyone has own interpretations of genres. How do you guys define the dystopian genre and how do you distinguish it from other genres?

DYSTOPIA...like dysfunction, suggests the polar opposite of UTOPIA... (which is the idealized version of a perfect world). Therfore I define it as either post-apocalyptic or a vast land where dysfunction is the rule of law, in other words the darker, 'more out there' side of human nature!

I think that a key aspect of a dystopia which often seems to be overlooked is that a dystopian novel is a work of social criticism. It is not enough that the setting be bad, or dark, that the society or whatever be oppressive, or that the characters be unhappy for whatever reason; you must be able to see reflected in the story whatever aspect of society prompted the writer to imagine the dystopia. This is very clear to see in the classics of the genre. I think it is a lot less clear in some modern works that claim to be dystopias.

according to Wikipedia (yes I don't like to use that as a source but whatever...) 'A dystopia is a community or society, usually fictional, that is in some important way undesirable or frightening. It is the opposite of a utopia. Such societies appear in many works of fiction, particularly in stories set in a speculative future. Dystopias are often characterized by dehumanization,[1] totalitarian governments, environmental disaster,[2] or other characteristics associated with a cataclysmic decline in society'

I don't know what I would personally call Dystopia. I think it is a twisted version of the futuristic ideas of an author. What an author would think of (i.e. better technology etc.) and then they just add a dicatorship

Ronald wrote: "This is a very useful comparison from Wikipedia.

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one wh..."

This is fascinating. Thanks.

Kate wrote: "Over in listopia, many of the same books are listed as both dystopian and post-apocalyptic. A book can definitely be both, or only one. The PA aspect is fairly new, and I think it reflects what we'..."

I think PA is Dystopia if an ill-society is developed after the appocalyps. Such as in the handmaid's tale.

I'm wondering if "the gate to women's country" can be classified as Utopia, or at least a society on the path to achieve this.

S.M.R. wrote: "Ronald wrote: "This is a very useful comparison from Wikipedia.

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there wou..."

It really is fascinating. Thank you Ronald. And how much of what Huxley feared can be compared with reality. Make's me shiver.

Ronald wrote: "Barney wrote: "according to Wikipedia (yes I don't like to use that as a source but whatever...) 'A dystopia is a community or society, usually fictional, that is in some important way undesirable ..."

How am I being negative?

S.M.R. wrote: "I think that a key aspect of a dystopia which often seems to be overlooked is that a dystopian novel is a work of social criticism...."

What would you consider books that fail this test?

Well, I read the Hunger Games trilogy and have a hard time seeing that as a work of social criticism.

S.M.R. wrote: "I think that a key aspect of a dystopia which often seems to be overlooked is that a dystopian novel is a work of social criticism. It is not enough that the setting be bad, or dark, that the socie..."

+1 to that. Since it's the opposite of "utopia" or perfect society, seems that society needs to be a key component of the story. Perhaps also in the plot -- that is, the main characters are struggling within or against the dystopian world they live in?

S.M.R. wrote: "Well, I read the Hunger Games trilogy and have a hard time seeing that as a work of social criticism."

Without tone of voice I can't tell if you're kidding/joking or not. I assume you are, since the Hunger Games is very much social criticism!

Ellie [The Empress] wrote: "I'm wondering if The Gate to Women's Country can be classified as Utopia, or at least a society on the path to achieve this..."

Interesting question. I'd say they are on the path to it, but I won't go into why because I don't want to spoil it for anybody ;)

Ronald wrote: "This is a very useful comparison from Wikipedia..."

Excellent summary -- I really like the repeated juxtapositions of what the two authors feared/worried about/predicted. Clearly we are well on our way to becoming a Huxleyan society rather than an Orwellian one!

(For anyone who's curious, the quote is originally from Neil Postman's book Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business.)

I believe a dystopian novel is a story that not only creates a world that is "bad" but also explains why it is so dark.

The story should make you feel and understand just how dark the reasoning behind the characteristics are so dark.

This is what I believe to be the emphasis of the dystopian genre.

I've always thought that one of the marks of "true" dystopian literature (think of the true Scotsman) was that it took a danger present in most societies and showed what would happen if it grew to dominate the society. I wouldn't necessarily call that "social criticism," since the chances of this characteristic growing to dominate the society could be pretty remote at the time of the composition of the work.

To deviate from the theme of this thread momentarily: I've always thought Huxley was absurd. Now if he had written a novel about how everyone was obsessed by team sports that such obsession took up all their spare time, well then.......

Craig wrote: "I've always thought that one of the marks of "true" dystopian literature (think of the true Scotsman) was that it took a danger present in most societies and showed what would happen if it grew to ..."

I think the people were pretty obsessed with their "soma's", was it? I think one common thing in most dystopian novels is the complete brainwashing of a society and then the protagonist overcoming this. It seems rather impossible situation, but I'm sure there are common delusions (generalizations) in every society that exists.

You know, that is a very interesting distinction. Very well put. I can see that that is not exactly "social criticism"; and is a very key characteristic of a dystopia.

Craig wrote: "I've always thought that one of the marks of "true" dystopian literature (think of the true Scotsman) was that it took a danger present in most societies and showed what would happen if it grew to ..."

Well no, actually, I wasn't kidding. I read the books and for the most part enjoyed them, but I don't ever remember feeling any kind of connection to them as in seeing any reflection/distortion/extrapolation of our present life in them. After I posted this comment I was exposed to people making references to The Hunger Games and reality T.V. and I thought oh, OK, sure, I can see that. But it didn't really occur to me as I was reading the book, thus my comment.



Michele wrote: "S.M.R. wrote: "Well, I read the Hunger Games trilogy and have a hard time seeing that as a work of social criticism."

Without tone of voice I can't tell if you're kidding/joking or not. I assume ..."

I think of Dystopia as any story that is about a group of people striving so hard to reach a "utopia" that they actually create something that is far worse. When you think about it, a utopia is actually an impossible ideal. In order for it to happen, every single person within that society has to be of the same mindset and have the same core values. As hard a feat as that is for humans, you would also have to establish some method of making sure that everyone continues to have that same mindset in the future as well as a plan for dealing with those that don't. That level of control is what creates the dystopia. The level of control that is necessary to create and sustain a true utopia is exactly what makes any human attempt to do so a dystopia.

I disagree that The Hunger Games trilogy doesn't contain social commentary, btw. I think the fact that the games are a actually televised reality show that everyone in that society watches is most definitely social commentary. So is the extravagant hedonistic lifestyles of those that live in the Capital. The privileged either have no clue or don't care about the plight of the people in the districts as long as they are being provided with the resources to sustain their lifestyle. I think even the scene where Katniss shoots the apple while the Judges are jovially eating is social commentary. They are completely oblivious to the fact that she is in a position that she is about to be forced to fight for her life and they aren't even paying attention because they are too busy eating and celebrating. The mere fact that people are celebrating human suffering is social commentary.

Yes...that is definitely getting at it. I think that sometimes it is portrayed as "brainwashing" - in Brave New World it certainly is - but there is definitely often an element in which most of the people in the society are oblivious to the danger/oppression, and are sometimes even (ignorantly) "happy" in spite of it. Which leads us, I think, to another key characteristic of a dystopian novel, that almost without exception (I'm going out on a limb here because I'm sure someone will very shortly post the exception, ha ha!!!) the central idea is that as a result of whatever aspect of society is the lens through which the book is written, that people have lost some aspect of their humanity; my personal opinion is that a dystopian novel always asks the question, "what does it mean to be human"? And the answer is usually whatever it is that is profoundly missing in that particular society. I think that Huxley saw that absence of independent and critical thought as a loss to a society that is only interested in safety, security, entertainment and escape. In Ayn Rand's Anthem the loss is individuality. In The Handmaid's Tale it is love of all kinds, the ability to create a lasting emotional relationship with another person. In 1984 it's the loss of those "few cubic centimeters" inside one's own head that are completely one's own. Etc. It's an interesting thing to me to look at all book labeled "dystopia" and see if one can pinpoint the element of humanity that is "missing" in it and that forms the cruxt of the story.


Ellie [The Empress] wrote: "Craig wrote: "I've always thought that one of the marks of "true" dystopian literature (think of the true Scotsman) was that it took a danger present in most societies and showed what would happen ..."

I don't think that's all Huxley thinks we've lost either....that's just one aspect of Brave New World that came to mind when I posted that comment above. There's also the loss of connection to nature (people being "decanted" in tubes), there's the loss of genuine, deep and lasting relationships and the lack of genuine connection between individuals ("everyone belongs to everyone"...) etc.

S.M.R. wrote: "Yes...that is definitely getting at it. I think that sometimes it is portrayed as "brainwashing" - in Brave New World it certainly is - but there is definitely often an element in which most of the..."

Mochaspresso wrote: "I think of Dystopia as any story that is about a group of people striving so hard to reach a "utopia" that they actually create something that is far worse. When you think about it, a utopia is ac..."

I agree with both your points. The utopia/dystopia tension and your analysis of The Hunger Games. I guess I was just being obtuse when I was reading The Hunger Games. :0)

when I'm explaining 'dystopia' in the very simplest terms to people who are unfamiliar with the genre, I describe it as an "unhappy future world." Seems to sum it up pretty well.

S.M.R. wrote: "Yes...that is definitely getting at it. I think that sometimes it is portrayed as "brainwashing" - in Brave New World it certainly is - but there is definitely often an element in which most of the..."

Wow, I think you summed it up nicely! To add to that I think it is important for the protagonist to also show why that element that is lost is so important at a deeper level than simply face value. Losing those "few cubic centimeters" clearly is bad but I really enjoy it when books also make interesting arguments as to why it is so bad.

I could see how some people may not care for the deeper levels though. If done wrongly it could become a little boring and tedious to read about. It's just a personal preference of mine I guess.

When I tell people I write dystopian fiction, they usually always ask for a definition. I usually just tell them it's a society/setting/world that thrives(in its own fashion) solely off of human suffering-at least that's my definition.

I've always thought of dystopia as a bleak future extrapolated from something we experience now (at the time it was written).

Much of dystopia has a prescient feel to it, such as King's The Running Man or The Long Walk because there wasn't reality tv at the time they were written, but when The Hunger Games came out reality tv was prevalent so it's easier to see what seed planted Collins idea.

Take Make Room! Make Room!, which later became the movie Soylent Green. We are living in a population crisis right now, but Harry Harrison really wasn't. He could just "see" it coming.

I see dystopia as somehow the world went wrong as compared to ours. The world functions and sometimes very well, but it is off kilter.

I also see PA as a different genre and with a different focus. PA to me is something went boom from some intervening event such as nuclear, biological, environmental catastrophes. Whereas dystopia is the society went down the wrong tracks somehow.

In my mind, dystopia is either social criticism or commentary and the really good stories make you ponder.

Surprisingly, a lot of people don't know what the dystopia genre is. To me, it means a place (usually in a post-apocalypse setting) where a "government" or some higher power has complete control over everything and everyone, and makes living conditions miserable for the people in the community.

It's interesting to hear everyone's thoughts on this subject. My dictionary describes it as an unpleasant world, either controlled by a totalitarian government or else environmentally degraded. However, the dystopian I prefer to read is one in which the character strives to find hope. I enjoy reading the post apocalyptic settings, and yet at the same time I can't see how they're remotely realistic (that's why it's fiction of course). We are so tied to the natural world, there is no way humans could survive without it.

This conversation is really interesting, and it looks like there are quite a lot of definitions for dystopia.

I see dystopia as a "dysfunctional utopia". By that, I mean a society that is born from the will (or the pretext) to create an utopia, a perfect society, but that has gone wrong at some point. Maybe people relinquinshing their freedom for comfort and safety (such as in The Giver), or a group of people manipulating the population, making them believe that there are living in a perfect world. Maybe they really believe that it's the best for the population, maybe they just want power.

For me, dystopia is clearly a social criticism, usually of a part of our current society that might go really wrong if let loose (like socialism/communism in 1984).

I think my dvision might come close to that of Papaphilly and Kandice.

Melaslithos wrote: "This conversation is really interesting, and it looks like there are quite a lot of definitions for dystopia.

I see dystopia as a "dysfunctional utopia". By that, I mean a society that is born fro..."

I agree with this definition. I also think it's a society that focuses solely on scientific and economical development and ignores humanitarian development

Melaslithos wrote: "This conversation is really interesting, and it looks like there are quite a lot of definitions for dystopia.

I see dystopia as a "dysfunctional utopia". By that, I mean a society that is born fro..."

I agree with this notion, which is why it confuses me that GR even has a 'Utopia' genre. In my experience, I have never come across a book that describes a utopia, only dystopias. It wouldn't really be a very interesting book if everything was perfect, which is the very notion of a utopia. Dystopias are, as mentioned, dysfunctional utopias. Systems that on the outside seem perfect but which perfection is only a cover and comes at a huge cost, one that most often than not revolves around a complete lack of personal choice and freedom.

Ana wrote: I agree with this notion, which is why it confuses me that GR even has a 'Utopia' genre. In my experience, I have never come across a book that describes a utopia, only dystopias.

I totally agree. But I am of the opinion that perfection is terrifying, and actually quite impossible to really achieve, because it's only a POV. Which, in a certain way, gives: utopia = perfection = terrifying = dystopia.

But on GR, I think genres are given by the users, so it is quite possible some might find it interesting and believe it exists?

This is very interesting to me because I set out to write fantasy and was then told that I had written dystopia. I always thought dystopia was a futuristic, post-apocalyptic thing and mine is very much contemporary. So, according to the definition I was given dystopia is just an unpleasant, problematic and usually totalitarian society. You make it contemporary dystopia by having an unpleasant, totalitarian explanation for today's problems. Er... I think that's called a conspiracy theory. :P

Arie wrote: "This is very interesting to me because I set out to write fantasy and was then told that I had written dystopia. I always thought dystopia was a futuristic, post-apocalyptic thing and mine is very ..."

It can be set into today or yesterday or tomorrow. It doesn't have to be totalitarian either, although most are based on that assumption because it is easier to understand. The Giver is dystopia and there is no totalitarian government. Player Piano is another dystopia and there is not a totalitarian government. Never Let Me Go is perfect example of present day dystopia. Set in present England, the government is as it is, but society went of the rails in an unusual way.

Make Room! Make Room! shows what can happen to America if population exploded and infrastructure collapses and government becomes bound up in laws and fails the populace.

Dystopia to me is a mind frame of society going wrong.

Ana wrote: "...it confuses me that GR even has a 'Utopia' genre. In my experience, I have never come across a book that describes a utopia, only dystopias..."

Oh yes, there are plenty of utopian novels. The earliest one is probably Plato's The Republic. Then there's Thomas More's classic Utopia, which gave the name to the genre. Later ones include The New Atlantis by Thomas Bacon, H.G. Wells' A Modern Utopia.

Most of the utopias date from an age when people believed in human perfectibility and susceptibility to rational persuasion. It's harder to find modern utopias because nobody believes it's possible these days (o so cynical we have become!).

And of course what one person or era views as a utopia might not be viewed as such in other times or by other people (e.g. Herland).

Also, note that a dystopia doesn't have to be totalitarian. If a utopia is about a society or community that's perfect (or nearly so), then a dystopia is about a society or community that's unpleasant or frightening. Note that it is the community or society that is unpleasant, not individual people or the natural world. So environmental disaster would not qualify as a dystopia since the environment is a separate thing from the community or society.

However, a community or society might react to an environmental disaster by becoming a dystopia (severe water rationing, forced suicide of a percentage of the population, execution of people who use up more than their fair share of resources, etc.)

Michele wrote: "Ana wrote: "...it confuses me that GR even has a 'Utopia' genre. In my experience, I have never come across a book that describes a utopia, only dystopias..."

Oh yes, there are plenty of utopian n..."

Thank you so much for clearing that up. I guess I was mostly confused because when looking up Utopia and Dystopia on GR, the same books kept appearing.

dystopia is about some aspect(s) of our modern society, that usually exist in today's world, is causing harm to the nature/society or is growing to become one of the most dominant aspects of the modern society because of it's high potential.
dystopia usually asks the question: what will happen when those aspects take over our lives?

Ana wrote: "Michele wrote: "Ana wrote: "...it confuses me that GR even has a 'Utopia' genre. In my experience, I have never come across a book that describes a utopia, only dystopias..."

Oh yes, there are ple..."

Melaslithos wrote: "Thank you so much for clearing that up. I guess I was mostly confused because when looking up Utopia and Dystopia on GR, the same books kept appearing"

Yes, genres are sourced from the shelves people put the books on. Which leads to not very accurate categorization, since a lot of people often shelve by the genres displayed on the page, before reading the book. So not all genres might be accurate.