SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

Source of humanity's problems is its inability to sit in room and do nothing. With that in mind homosapiens, even SF readers somewhat surprisingly, can't imagine life -- without "working for living", suffering, stress, hardships, etc. Maybe it's just me...more and more media has romanticized narratives about "dignity of work", living life with purpose, challenges, something to believe in, fight for, etc. That's why dystopias far outnumber utopias.

Smallo wrote: "Source of humanity's problems is its inability to sit in room and do nothing. With that in mind homosapiens, even SF readers somewhat surprisingly, can't imagine life -- without "working for living..."

What is the difference between a human being sitting in a room and doing nothing and a vegetable or a plant? Not much, in my mind. Dystopias tend to bring out both the best and the worst in people. A normally placid man or woman may go heroic in order to save or protect his or her family, or a reputedly nice person could turn into the worst murderous psychopath in order to obtain food any way he/she can. Crowds in dangerous or desperate situations may stampede, become violent or illogical. All those potential situations make for great escapist writing if done well. I however believe that most people actually like to preserve their 'humdrum grind of life'. What is humdrum for the others around him/her actually means a chance to raise and love children in a stable and (hopefully) peaceful environment, to enjoy in private the company of a soulmate and to improve oneself. I have served for 32 years in the Canadian Forces and served in three war zones in the past (Cyprus, Bosnia, Lebanon). If those tours taught me something, it is that the 'little', common people don't want war, instability or chaos. They just want to live their lives quietly and in at least tolerable conditions. On the other hand, reading a good fiction book full of action, mayhem and dangerous situations is a nice, safe way to change your mind from the routine of life. I would however NOT like a dystopia novel that would actually promote hatred or cruelty, or describe in detail inhuman acts just to create some sick feelings in readers (like glorifying acts of genocide or torture).

Firstly, thank you for your service. I train with people who have military and/or law enforcement backgrounds and they're some of the most honorable humans I know.

Still, I wonder if humanity or any "intelligent" species can transcend "life" or "humdrum grind of life".

I tried sitting in room and doing "nothing" and actually end up doing "something" ... improve breathing to relive stress, hoping it leads to "nothing" but so far no go...so inability to do "nothing" might be impossible for current humans...

I suspect that the Dystopia/Doomsday scenario offers both authors and readers an experience out of the ordinary.

For the author, it offers the opportunity to reinvent society without having to completely reinvent the whole ecology of the planet (which is what Sci-fi/Fantasy authors usually have to do), and allows them to place the characters in positions of conflict or transcendence in scenarios that are different to normal everyday life.

For the reader, there is enough familiarity that they feel that they're not necessarily having to read Sci-fi or Fantasy, but something on the edge of it. I think it gives an easy entry for those readers into Sci-fi and Fantasy without them realising that that's what they're actually reading. If you think about it, a lot of the most popular YA books are actually dystopian at the moment, and may well be read by those who've never read Sci-fi or Fantasy.

Obviously this is just my thoughts, and I have no evidence to back up these theories except for the friends of our young adult kids. :)

There are many types of dystopian scenarios.
I find that writing about very near future dystopias is difficult and controversial. Unless you blame the catastrophe on natural causes, it becomes politically tainted.
I think that is why many dystopian stories happen in fantasyland.

It's clear that writers leverage themes of the day, they always have and always will.

100 hundred years ago tales of the future where usually portrayed as prosperous, shining utopias driven by the wonder of the dawn of technology, where everyone had a flying car and there was no gridlock or crime in gleaming megacities.

100 years later we're writing about the insidious evils of technology, the corruption of corporations/governments, the loss of human independence as these corporations/governments take more and more control over our lives, and the ravaging of the environment (etc). Many are politically charged (yet real) problems as noted above, but they can work if properly masked with clever analogies/parables.

It seems a natural progression to me.

Dystopia flings a protagonist into conflict, which generates plot, which generates resolution. The reason most readers read fiction is to see how this conflict is resolve, to see how the protagonist weathers the storm. Dystopias lend themselves to this, while utopian tales usually don't (or are very difficult to pull off).

Humberto writes: Unless you blame the catastrophe on natural causes, it becomes politically tainted.

In Ashfall by Mike Mullin he does propose a calamity that is natural: the supervolcano that is underneath Yellowstone blows. The MC is in faraway Iowa, but still feels significant effect from this. I recommend it; haven't gotten around to the other books in the series yet, but this one is very good.

And even in this book it becomes political. I imagine it becomes more so as the series progresses.

Well, political or social commentary has always been one of the thematic drivers of dystopian fiction -- the classic "if this goes on" type like 1984.

Neal wrote: "It's clear that writers leverage themes of the day, they always have and always will.

100 hundred years ago tales of the future where usually portrayed as prosperous, shining utopias driven by the..."

I think you've hit on a goodly chunk of the interest. Dystopia forces readers (and writers) to examine the world they're living in, and pick apart the weak spots in a way they otherwise wouldn't or couldn't. That means it has a greater likelihood of resonating, and affecting real change. It's an interesting insight into the way that different people interpret the world (For instance, compare Ayn Rand to The Hunger Games. Not a statement on quality, just on differing themes within a similar genre.), and it's a way of drawing people out of their own shell or experience enough to consider a "dry" political topic, or a philosophical meaning-of-life-and-humanity idea that would otherwise be too heavy for their daily entertainments.

Seems to me that the current popularity of dystopian novels is that we are living in a fairly paranoid world, where many people think happy endings, or a happy future, is unrealistic - and they want to explore their fears, and express them.

It's also a form of social criticism that transcends politics.

On this subject, last night we went to a double feature of The Hunger Games and Catching Fire. Between the two movies, we saw the trailer for Divergent. (By the way, we loved Catching Fire!)

Having just watched The Hunger Games, the dystopian themes were very evident, and I was struck by how similar the Divergent trailer appeared to The Hunger Games in terms of mood and colour palette. (I was also struck by how much the girl playing Tris didn't look like my imagined version of her.)

It will interesting to see if Divergent lives up to the hype when made into a movie. Although I enjoyed it when I first read it, the subsequent books don't live up to the promise shown in the first one (in my opinion, which you may well disagree with), and Katniss Everdeen is a much more complete character than Tris.

Watching the two movies back to back was also interesting. The stark divide that Suzanne Collins portrayed in the books, translates well to the screen, and the scene (view spoiler)[ where Effie provides gifts (hide spoiler)] was particularly poignant.

The politicking was explored well, and the ending was appropriately emotional. We took a pile of 18 year old boys for our son's birthday, none of whom had read the books (except our son) and they were devastated when it ended. I did suggest that reading the books might be a nice option to waiting a year and a half or so for the final instalment...

One, obviously, the topic is very hot, plus there are at least two reality TV shows on surviving the apocalypse, whether it be by Zombies or Man made. Authors are given a very large latitude in developing their stories with no restraints. Now that's creative writing.

In Ashfall by Mike Mullin he does propose a calamity that is n..."
I just requested this from the library. The Yellowstone Supervolcano is one of the more pointless things I worry about.....

I have recently been roped into reading the Divergent series by Veronica Roth. This isn't the place to go into the pros and cons of the trilogy other than to say I loved the first book, liked the second book, and I'm trudging through the third book. Truthfully, I don't know why it is such a popular theme at this time, although I think several posts nailed it when they stated that visions of the future mirror current cultural feelings. Despite news of an economic upswing, I, at least, have failed to see it. So we tend to gravitate towards themes of gloom and doom. I'm going to name it the Eeyore Effect. Personally, I find it all to be depressing and can't wait for the trend to end. On a final note, my vote for best post-apocalypse series goes out to Terry Brooks and the Shannara series.

For me it boils down to morbid curiosity. Being able to dive in to something chaotic that I will never experience (I hope) is interesting to me.

David wrote: "For me it boils down to morbid curiosity. Being able to dive in to something chaotic that I will never experience (I hope) is interesting to me."

10-4 on that David!

Chip wrote: "I have recently been roped into reading the Divergent series by Veronica Roth. This isn't the place to go into the pros and cons of the trilogy other than to say I loved the first book, liked the ..."

I think you're homing in on the motivation. The younger generations (who seem to be the major consumers of dystopian fiction) can't see a positive future for themselves. The government has mortgaged their income and that of their children and grandchildren to the point that there is no end in sight. Jobs are hard to come by. Some think there is a new tyranny on the horizon in the USA and worldwide. Terrorists are on the move everywhere. There seems to be no hope.

Since "misery loves company", they gravitate to literature that mirrors their feelings of hopelessness and, hopefully, will offer them a vicarious way to fight back (since most dystopian stories feature heroes than overcome).

Like most fiction, it's a form of escape with the attachment of affirmation of their feelings of doom and gloom.

Not all people react that way, many escape into positive stories. During the Great Depression, Monopoly was invented as a form of escape where you could get rich. The inventor of the game used to vacation in Atlanta before the crash, and daydreamed of going back.

The inventor of the game used to vacation in Atlanta before the crash, and daydreamed of going back.

Atlantic City, surely? That's where all the original street names are from.

Margaret wrote: " The inventor of the game used to vacation in Atlanta before the crash, and daydreamed of going back.

Atlantic City, surely? That's where all the original street names are from."

Yep. Sorry for the mix-up. My mind is starting to go. Part of "old-timer's disease".

Orion Connection is coming out this month, and it's has a more hopeful outlook for humanity. Humanity is at a crossroads in my story.

There was a really cool article that came out a few weeks ago about science fiction in North Korea - one of the major observations was that there were no dystopian stories (and before you go "well, of course the dear leader wouldn't allow dystopian fiction!" there were also no utopian stories either. And, for that matter, there weren't any "the rest of the world is a dystopia" stories). Even though dystopias were common in soviet sci fi, which DRK writers leaned heavily on, they never made it over. The DRK stories sound like they were at the far edge of hard scifi, focusing more on discovery and innovation.

Anyway, it's a quick and interesting read: From Pyongyang to Mars: Sci-fi, Genre, and Literary Value in North Korea.

Al wrote: "Chip wrote: "I have recently been roped into reading the Divergent series by Veronica Roth. This isn't the place to go into the pros and cons of the trilogy other than to say I loved the first boo..."

Agreed. I remember in the 1980s nuclear war seemed to monopolize literature, which was Brooks original idea of the end of the Old World. Saberhagen's (I'm not sure of the spelling) Game of Swords had a similar theme. As I said, I've read some of the books, but I prefer my fantasy to be in the past and my sci-fi to be in the future. Not both present at the same time.

Chip wrote: "Al wrote: "Chip wrote: "I have recently been roped into reading the Divergent series by Veronica Roth. This isn't the place to go into the pros and cons of the trilogy other than to say I loved th..."

As a teen/adult of the 70's and 80's nuclear war seemed very much a real threat - particularly in the 70's. I think you're right about current events influencing the "pick up" rate of some types of literature. I remember reading Nevil Shute's On the Beach and almost being freaked out of my mind. I think part of it was that I'm Australian, and unlike nearly every other futuristic book of that era, it was partially set in Australia.

Leonie wrote: "Chip wrote: "Al wrote: "Chip wrote: "I have recently been roped into reading the Divergent series by Veronica Roth. This isn't the place to go into the pros and cons of the trilogy other than to s..."

This may sound strange and bizarre, but for many Americans, the quintessential post apocalypse scenarios were the Mad Max movies. Is it safe to assume they didn't get a lot of traction in Australia?

Chip wrote: "Leonie wrote: "Chip wrote: "Al wrote: "Chip wrote: "I have recently been roped into reading the Divergent series by Veronica Roth. This isn't the place to go into the pros and cons of the trilogy ..."

Mad Max movies were BIG in Australia, but they came in the latter part of the seventies - 1979 was when the first one was released, and they were a lot of fun, and probably not as gritty and realistic as some of the current dystopian themed stories. Well, they were attempting to be gritty and realistic, but they were essentially escapist, more than anything!

The first Mad Max became the highest grossing Australian movie ever then, but those movies were the exceptions, rather than the rule. Unfortunately when I was a teen, nearly everything you saw at the cinema came out of Hollywood or occasionally the UK. We were very accustomed to big screen actors with American or British accents.

Things have changed quite a bit, obviously, as Australian actors appear to be doing a reasonable job of attempting to take over Hollywood :)

A doomsday novel doesn't have to be set in a dystopia. Poul Anderson's After Doomsday, for instance.

To the OP: I don´t know. I run away from them.

Smallo wrote: "Source of humanity's problems is its inability to sit in room and do nothing. With that in mind homosapiens, even SF readers somewhat surprisingly, can't imagine life -- without "working for living..."

We can imagine it. We just don't want to read about it. As a story, it's dull.

Most adventures have nothing to do with 'working for a living.'
I cannot imagine anything duller than a description of 99% of the jobs. From 9 to 5 or whatever hours people work nowadays.

Working for a living is not necessary or even desirable. It is just that:
A. We have to survive and the only way is by having a job or
B. Somebody is forcing us to do it, like (wage) slavery.

I don't include working because it's your company and you are so rich that you can live from your investments. Then it is not necessary and is just a hobby.

Stories touch working for a living, but are seldom based on it.

I write a post-apocalyptic series and for me, as an author AND as a reader, the stories always appealed to me because they're a comment on change in a society. Whether you get there by war, famine, or an alien invasion, the human race is changed and now must soldier on. I enjoy seeing each author's perspective on that kind of change, what it does to relationships, and the world around them.

I personally have only read three distopian novels: "1984" by George Orwell, "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley, and "Fahrenheit 451" by Ray Bradbury.

I found each to be very entertaining and thought provoking. However, it appeared obvious from the beginning, to me at least, that entertainment was secondary to the author's wish to make a personal political or social statement to protest his specific grievance regarding the state of affairs at the time he was writng the story.

Very true. Using an SF setting to construct a social protest is a grand old tradition. . . .

You notice that these dystopias are really about the societies they were written in. I think this is why dystopias are more acceptable, those ones being regarded as good literature.

In the country of the blind, they practice sculpture. Tactile sculpture, of course. When they try to evaluate our sculpture, their judgments bear only the faintest relationship to ours.

Just so, the fans' evaluation of SF and fantasy bears little relationship to that of the literati and other non-fans. They are evaluating it by standards it was not written to. Their fondness for works that are really about modern society is the most obvious product of this.

As I said once before on this thread: dystopias tend to bring out both the best and the worst in people. That provides a rich pool of possible scenarios and of good and bad character types for an author writing about a dystopian world. It gives excuses for intense, violent, exciting action sequences, moral dilemmas for the characters in the novel and stories of courage, both moral and physical. I am planning to write next year an alternate historical fiction of World War Two where the Nazis invade England and win the war in Europe. I want to write such a book because it will be a great setting for writing about courage, perseverence, hope and resolve, not because I have any love for the Nazis. On the other hand, can you get any darker than having the whole of Europe ending under the Nazi boot?

"Dystopia flings a protagonist into conflict, which generates plot, which generates resolution. The reason most readers read fiction is to see how this conflict is resolve, to see how the protagonist weathers the storm. Dystopias lend themselves to this, while utopian tales usually don't (or are very difficult to pull off). "

This says it in a nutshell.

I write dystopian sci-fi/horror for the same reasons Orwell and Vonnegut did: to express fears about the direction society is taking and to warn readers about the potential outcome of our collective complacency. I like to read it because I'm curious about other authors' takes on our social path.

I am an old dude who lived most of his life during the Cold War.

Some younger readers may think it funny or ridiculous now; but back in the 1950's and 60's many of my generation looked upon these post-apocalyptic novels as prophecy.

I read Pat Frank's novel, "Alas Babylon", about the aftermath of a thermo-nuclear war when I was a sophomore in high school during the Cuban missile crisis; so you can imagine what kind of thoughts were running around in my brain at the time.

I think this kind of genre makes the fantasy become dire. People love to be entertained and engaged these stories to anyone. It's funny because it is a reality that no one would get, knowing about environmental pollution and other issues that make these apocalyptic stories are very specific.

Jim wrote: "I am an old dude who lived most of his life during the Cold War.

Some younger readers may think it funny or ridiculous now; but back in the 1950's and 60's many of my generation looked upon these ..."

Draft in the 80's , NBC drill's over and over again.
I was also certain WW III was coming.rather dead than red slogans, failing economies on both sides. that was Dystopian enough for me.

Many books, sci-fi and otherwise, include that extreme stress element, so I think it goes beyond dystopian themes. No conflict makes for a dull book, and extreme conflict or hardship makes for a much more interesting tale and more plot line opportunities. I like dystopian books in particular because 1) it does seem plausible that we could wind up in a situation like that, and it makes me curious, and 2) I like to see what humans are capable of under extreme circumstances. I have always been very effective under stress, and while I don't wish to be in a (more) dystopian society that I currently am, I like to think I would be good in an end of times scenario (huge asteroid kills of most of life, virus takes out humanity, post nuclear war, etc.) even though I don't wish for it.

Leigh wrote: "I write dystopian sci-fi/horror for the same reasons Orwell and Vonnegut did: to express fears about the direction society is taking and to warn readers about the potential outcome of our collectiv..."

I am reading Gallapagos right now, and thoroughly enjoying the end of humanity scenario ;)

Because it's hard to find any hope in the newspapers, on the TV, or in the magazines.

Another reason for the post-doomsday story is that it provides justification for a steampunk or other outlandish setting. 0:)

They're popular because the world is going to hell...

JohnViril wrote: "They're popular because the world is going to hell..."

But people have been saying that for 1000+ years ;-)

I sometimes wonder if its hardwired into western thinking ... the Bible is full of apocalyptical inevitability and I wonder if that permeates our collective psyche.

Do other cultures have the same fascination with it?

Mark wrote: "JohnViril wrote: "They're popular because the world is going to hell..."

But people have been saying that for 1000+ years ;-)

I sometimes wonder if its hardwired into western thinking ... the Bib..."

That, of course, was the implication of my post.

Sometimes, I wonder if its a function of losing our innocence. As we get older, the world becomes "more messy"---even after we're an adult. I think the whole process of "knowing more" means that, by comparison, the past seems "more ordered".

Part of that is memory glossing over the past, part of it is simply knowing more. So you project it out to the ultimate conclusion of an apocalypse. Clear the decks. Start over. We can do better.

Maybe its the imaginative equivalent of an artist hating a painting and throwing white paint over the canvas to start over again.

JohnViril wrote: "Mark wrote: "JohnViril wrote: "They're popular because the world is going to hell..."

But people have been saying that for 1000+ years ;-)

I sometimes wonder if its hardwired into western thinkin..."

You make a very good point, John.

For me, the best thing about the "Good Old Days" is, I wasn't good and I wasn't old.

Mark wrote: "JohnViril wrote: "They're popular because the world is going to hell..."

But people have been saying that for 1000+ years ;-)

I sometimes wonder if its hardwired into western thinking ... the Bib..."

Can't be the Bible, because lots of pagans said it too.

Like Tacitus. Of course, he was Roman. And we all know what happened to Rome.

Saw another thread like this elsewhere. Same answer:

The Hobbit, Chapter 3: A Short Rest: "Now it is a strange thing, but things that are good to have and days that are good to spend are soon told about, and not much to listen to; while things that are uncomfortable, palpitating, and even gruesome, may make a good tale, and take a deal of telling anyway."

That about wraps it up for me. Dystopians have been around for ages. I don't think they've ever really gone away. Current fashion trends (the popularity of zombies for example) have brought them to the forefront again, but they're a mainstay of speculative fiction because they offer so much potential for conflict and stress.

I've asked myself the same question. I don't like them so I seldom read one unless it promises to have some redeeming qualities, but they do seem to be popular.

I like dystopian stories. I like scifi and fantasy. In my opinion, I have enough "reality" each day so I need someplace to escape to when I get home in the evenings.

For example, the only time I have ever tried to read a John Grisham book, I stopped after the second chapter (actually it was an audio book). It was about lawyers and environmental issues with some factory polluting the water and causing cancer in small town USA. I am not putting these types of stories down or John Grisham (or any other similar author/story) but I can find that in any newspaper on any given day. When I want to read, I am looking to escape and the only way to do that is to find a story that either can't happen or will not likely happen.

As for current dystopian stories, its a fad. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the "Hunger Games" and can't wait until the next movie but something different will be all the rage after "Hunger Games" movies are completed.