Sick of Dystopian Novels?

[Erythr]

Let's start with the definition of Dystopia from the Merriam Webster:

Definition of dystopia​

an imagined world or society in which people lead wretched, dehumanized, fearful lives.


Personally, around 50% (or more) of sci-fi books that I read are dystopian. That is about as likely as flipping a coin to find whether a sci-fi book I picked was dystopian or not. (Even including sci-fi shows and movies). If you were to immediately ask me a sci-fi book, movie or show that is not dystopian then it would be rather hard for me to come up with one on the spot. (Not to say there aren't any, like Star Trek, Hitchhiker’s Guide to Galaxy, Dr. Who) The common theme seen is, if the protagonist of the story is introduced as being part of a futuristic society with no initial conflict, then there is a very high odds for it to be a dystopian novel. (i.e., hunger games, divergent, Dune, Do Android's dream of electric sheep). Even books like "The Giver" by Lois Lowry started with a utopian premise (which I really liked) before immediately transitioning into a "dystopian society pretending to be a utopian society". Again, I am not saying there does not exist non-dystopian sci-fi books especially classics like "Invisible man", "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea", "Time Machine" etc.

What I am saying is that the new dystopian sci-fi books have managed to saturate the sci-fi genre. I understand the appeal of dystopian novels and the premise they offer but I am curious to know if it really is the defining element of the sci-fi genre? I want to know if you had the option of reading a dystopian sci-fi novel or a normal sci-fi book, which would you choose? If you are writing a sci-fi book, would you write a dystopian novel or something else? Would you ever read a completely utopian novel? Or in the end is classifying books as dystopian just arbitrary? What are your thoughts on the matter?

 

[hitmouse]

Dystopian sf is developing some slightly boring cliches, not helped probably by sf on TV where it is less expensive to film in derelict buildings than to build a new set. The fact that it is (to me) a bit repetitive does not mean that it is representative of SF as a whole, or indeed of dystopian SF

There is a lot of good dystopian sf that falls outside the popular contemporary trope: Ballard and Moorcock, Dick for starters.

There is also buckets of sf that has none of this, or only minor elements.

Dune is not usually classed as a dystopian novel.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Im Reading Station Eleven at the Moment. It is excellent, clever dystopia. Never Let Me Go is another good eg.
the thing is I rarely feel that dystopia lacks hope. In fact, I’d argue most dystopias are full of hope in a bleak world. They make us reassess what we take for granted and the people that we are, and love. i like a good sf too but I’ve always a soft spot for a great, well executed dystopia. (I write more dystopia than sf, too - i like how it’s mirror can reflect on us)

 

[Erythr]

Im Reading Station Eleven at the Moment. It is excellent, clever dystopia. Never Let Me Go is another good eg.
the thing is I rarely feel that dystopia lacks hope. In fact, I’d argue most dystopias are full of hope in a bleak world. They make us reassess what we take for granted and the people that we are, and love. i like a good sf too but I’ve always a soft spot for a great, well executed dystopia. (I write more dystopia than sf, too - i like how it’s mirror can reflect on us)

I really feel like despite dystopia embodying hope it can also embody our generational fears for example 1984 was written by George Orwell following the events of the Second World War. The fear of absolute dictatorship and control was shown through his work. Even if you take the present time, for example, dystopias thrive on the fear of dominance by Artificial Intelligence and the advancements in technology leading to humanity's downfall. So even though dystopian novels become cliched after constant reproduction of the same concept, their popularity may never die out as a result of our attraction to fear ironically. Do you think it is the hope that draws us to read it or confirmation of our subconscious fears?

 

[Erythr]

Dystopian sf is developing some slightly boring cliches, not helped probably by sf on TV where it is less expensive to film in derelict buildings than to build a new set. The fact that it is (to me) a bit repetitive does not mean that it is representative of SF as a whole, or indeed of dystopian SF

There is a lot of good dystopian sf that falls outside the popular contemporary trope: Ballard and Moorcock, Dick for starters.

There is also buckets of sf that has none of this, or only minor elements.

Dune is not usually classed as a dystopian novel.

Yeah, you are right, Dune doesn't technically fall under the category of dystopian novels or the definition I gave, But weirdly it was the only memorable dystopian-ish novel that came to mind when I was writing the thread. There are novels that blur the line between complete dystopian and normal sci-fi, hence the reason I asked if it was arbitrary to classify sci-fi novels as dystopian.

 

[BAYLOR]

I really feel like despite dystopia embodying hope it can also embody our generational fears for example 1984 was written by George Orwell following the events of the Second World War. The fear of absolute dictatorship and control was shown through his work. Even if you take the present time, for example, dystopias thrive on the fear of dominance by Artificial Intelligence and the advancements in technology leading to humanity's downfall. So even though dystopian novels become cliched after constant reproduction of the same concept, their popularity may never die out as a result of our attraction to fear ironically. Do you think it is the hope that draws us to read it or confirmation of our subconscious fears?

In Caverns Below By Stanton Coblentz has some dystopian elements to it though it's more in the vein satire.

 

[Parson]

This is something I've said for quite a while. --- I'm sick of dystopian novels. --- I don't need to see the dark side of people and society, that's everywhere obvious. What I really like are stories that are set in wonderful fantastic futures. Places where people are honorable, sympathetic to those in trouble, courageous, not snarky, live by a moral code, self-sacrificing, humble --- I've probably rattled on long enough. I'm not looking for a Nirvana, I'm looking for progress and good people.

 

[Extollager]

Let's start with the definition of Dystopia from the Merriam Webster:

Definition of dystopia​

an imagined world or society in which people lead wretched, dehumanized, fearful lives.


Personally, around 50% (or more) of sci-fi books that I read are dystopian. That is about as likely as flipping a coin to find whether a sci-fi book I picked was dystopian or not. (Even including sci-fi shows and movies). If you were to immediately ask me a sci-fi book, movie or show that is not dystopian then it would be rather hard for me to come up with one on the spot. (Not to say there aren't any, like Star Trek, Hitchhiker’s Guide to Galaxy, Dr. Who) The common theme seen is, if the protagonist of the story is introduced as being part of a futuristic society with no initial conflict, then there is a very high odds for it to be a dystopian novel. (i.e., hunger games, divergent, Dune, Do Android's dream of electric sheep). Even books like "The Giver" by Lois Lowry started with a utopian premise (which I really liked) before immediately transitioning into a "dystopian society pretending to be a utopian society". Again, I am not saying there does not exist non-dystopian sci-fi books especially classics like "Invisible man", "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea", "Time Machine" etc.

What I am saying is that the new dystopian sci-fi books have managed to saturate the sci-fi genre. I understand the appeal of dystopian novels and the premise they offer but I am curious to know if it really is the defining element of the sci-fi genre? I want to know if you had the option of reading a dystopian sci-fi novel or a normal sci-fi book, which would you choose? If you are writing a sci-fi book, would you write a dystopian novel or something else? Would you ever read a completely utopian novel? Or in the end is classifying books as dystopian just arbitrary? What are your thoughts on the matter?

Erythr, in my opinion this was excellent as a first posting, one of the best I've seen at Chrons. You must have taken pains over composing it. It should evoke good discussion.

 

[Extollager]

Do you think it is the hope that draws us to read it or confirmation of our subconscious fears?

Good question -- or even fears that are very conscious indeed.

I'm not qualified to comment on current sf, though, as I read none of it. Perhaps The Martian was the last (then) new sf novel I have read.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

This is something I've said for quite a while. --- I'm sick of dystopian novels. --- I don't need to see the dark side of people and society, that's everywhere obvious. What I really like are stories that are set in wonderful fantastic futures. Places where people are honorable, sympathetic to those in trouble, courageous, not snarky, live by a moral code, self-sacrificing, humble --- I've probably rattled on long enough. I'm not looking for a Nirvana, I'm looking for progress and good people.

But all these things can be found in dystopia. Grimdark, for me, is more problematic in terms of people and societies that are dark, as opposed to broken , potentially mended.

 

[Erythr]

But all these things can be found in dystopia. Grimdark, for me, is more problematic in terms of people and societies that are dark, as opposed to broken , potentially mended.

I 100% agreed, I do prefer Dystopia over its ugly counterpart Grimdark. I feel people new to the genre may mix up the two. Dystopia does in fact focus on finding the "light within the dark" whereas Grimdark highlights the suffering and the harsh realities of the people living in that circumstance. (It's really just in the name Grim"dark") Dystopias, like how the previous comment had stated, offers hope for the protagonist as well as the readers. All I can say is Grimdark is a masochist's wet dream. It is hard to read a book when we can't even come to like the protagonist who basically has no ideals or motivations.

 

[Erythr]

Erythr, in my opinion this was excellent as a first posting, one of the best I've seen at Chrons. You must have taken pains over composing it. It should evoke good discussion.

Thank you for your kind words. I am glad you find it interesting. The idea for the thread came after I had finished with three sci-fi dystopian books in a row and I started to question whether or not I had actually found them interesting. Do not feel reluctant to contribute even if you hadn't read any sci-fi books recently because dystopia is not a stranger to other genres like fantasy. It was hindsight on my part for not generalizing the discussion a bit more.

 

[Swank]

All realistic futures are "wretched" from the contemporary viewpoint. Change is never just improvement.

 

[KGeo777]

Or in the end is classifying books as dystopian just arbitrary?


Maybe.

It's tied to background factors and politics and circumstances.

Nineteen Eighty-Four
The Camp of the Saints
Fatherland

How you view the society described depends on your audience.
There must be more people now who think the idea of Big Brother is not scary if not wonderful.
When the novel was written, I assume a lot more people would have viewed it as alienating and scary.
In the case of Camp, the author states that he hopes the book does not become subversive as the predictions
on demographic transformation come true.

Maybe dystopia is something of a misnomer because it implies the dysfunctional society can function. But can it really, beyond an imaginary glimpse?
Because if it can function, it must be a utopia to those who designed it, unless they are inclined to be always disappointed and self-critical.

Perhaps Big Brother hates himself.

 

[Extollager]

Would you ever read a completely utopian novel?

Austin Tappan Wright's Islandia has been called a Utopia and has been recommended to me, but I haven't read it yet.

I don't believe in Utopias from the get-go because they are based on a fundamentally flawed idea of human nature. Efforts to make utopias lead to results that may be funny (bickering hippies and imploding communes, let's say) to unspeakable (the French Revolution, 20th-century history). I just could not take seriously a fiction that was based on a notion of human beings constructing a thoroughly good society.

The civilization of the Martians in C. S. Lewis's Out of the Silent Planet is thoroughly good, but the Martians are unfallen or (if you prefer) "unfallen"; they're not human.

Thus it makes sense to me to assume that, as humans gain ever more power over nature and ourselves, the results will tend to the bad even while some genuine improvements in the condition of some, at least, may occur.

I've read a number of dystopias and accounts of dire futures, like everyone here. Has anyone else here read Wilson Tucker's The Year of the Quiet Sun?

 

[Bick]

Why's there a lot of dystopian SF?
Because much of the best art and literature has always reflected the follies and sadness of life. And if SF is to look forward and speculate and aim to be taken seriously, how can it not - if its honest - conceive that the greed and intolerance of our species won't lead to significant problems? SF is not especially maudlin in its supposed negativity, as most literature of any quality has some form of tragedy at its core, and is all the better for it. In SF that tragedy can come in the form of speculation, of course, and in the envisioning a dystopian future.

Many great writers have felt an element of sadness and tragedy was central to the aims of the form:

Perhaps it's good for one to suffer. Can an artist do anything if he's happy? Would he ever want to do anything? What is art, after all, but a protest against the horrible inclemency of life?
― Aldous Huxley

The core of literature is the idea of tragedy... You don't really learn much from the good things that happen to you.
― Cormac McCarthy

 

[Extollager]

Utopians, I suppose, always want to start over. They see the past as the source of all our troubles (rather than ourselves), as the rulers think in Fahrenheit 451. The past must be obliterated (as in 1984). Because I know that the past is where the human treasures, the treasures of civilization, are or are from, I know a utopia, with its campaigns against the past, must lead to loss and misery.

 

[Bick]

Utopians, I suppose, always want to start over. They see the past as the source of all our troubles (rather than ourselves), as the rulers think in Fahrenheit 451. The past must be obliterated (as in 1984). Because I know that the past is where the human treasures, the treasures of civilization, are or are from, I know a utopia, with its campaigns against the past, must lead to loss and misery.

One man's utopia is another's dystopia, disguised.
Lafferty suggests (quite possibly apocryphally), that Thomas More's Utopia was actually an ironic treatise about the unobtainable.

 

[Bick]

I'm trying to think of a single decent SF novel that doesn't have an element of dystopia (or at least pessimism over an aspect of the future), and I'm coming up empty handed. The only entirely positive novels I can think of are popcorn and fluff, no serious works.

Dune was suggested as an example of dystopia by the OP, but if anything, its farther from being dystopian that most other books that come to mind. It posits that some innovations were leading to the degeneration of mankind (such as our reliance on machine intelligences; i.e. computers) and so did away with these advances in the Butlerian jihad, which I actually see as a positive outlook by Herbert - it imagines a future where mankind has solved a major issue, perhaps for the better.

 

[Parson]

But all these things can be found in dystopia.

This is true. And there is no story without conflict. That's also true. But it seems like a lot of S.F. these days begins "after the fall." I guess that's more precisely what bothers me. Humans will be human and part of being human is ugly (and by my reckoning sinful) but why not settings where there has been advancement? Why not settings where hope is more than just a spluttering candle? Why not stories of vast cooperation? Why not stories where enemies become allies and then friends? These are the kinds of stories which I want to read. These are the kinds of stories which might connect and perhaps stimulate humanity's more admirable attributes. Stories must be entertaining, or they are not stories. But a true story speaks truth and a challenge to it's readers. I really want that truth to be something which is hopeful, admirable, and life fulfilling.