Favorite kind of apocalypse? > Likes and Comments
Kristen wrote: "I hope this is in the right place! Anyway, I love apocalyptic fiction, especially since it comes in a ton of varieties. I'm curious about everyone's opinions on it.
First, do people prefer a hop..."
I like stories where there is hope of recovery, where if people work hard and stay smart, they will form the basis of a new, stronger society. Zombies simply don't do it for me because I can't suspend disbelief and convince myself that's possible. Same goes for alien invasion because I find it ludicrous that all aliens would come in, guns blazing, determined to wipe out if not all of humanity, then certainly the USofA. Same goes for paranormal and biblical stuff. Natural disasters (if they're worldwide) interest me most, but manmade disasters, which, because we are a large part of nature strike me as being the same thing, are also appealing.
I prefer darker stories, but I agree with Judy about the zombies, aliens, etc.. I like reading about things that I think could actually happen.
I quite like the dark stuff but I think I prefer the more hopeful type - the surviving & rebuilding aspects especially.
I don't have a preference for light or dark. If anything, I like to be surprised. One of the best types of tension that we can get from an apocalypse story is that we don't know if the characters are going to make it. We need to read on because we don't know how it ends.I'm also not too worried about how the apocalypse happens. Plagues, zombies, aliens, nuclear war ... frankly it's all good. They say that every story is allowed one big lie. That one big lie could be how the WAWKI (world as we know it) ended. I generally start from the presumption that the story really only begins when the you know what has hit the fan.
But what I do insist on is that there must be believable characters. I can put up with almost anything as long as the characters are three dimensional. It is how they react to the end of the world - that is what matters. How the world ended and why is simply a story device to get us to the point where we invest in the characters.
I think I have two main types. Rogue AI and fantasy (not the zombies really). You don't see a lot of fantasy based apocalyptic stories though. They tend to all be set in the middle ages.And supervillians - stories told from the viewpoint of the bad guy (something like Global Domination for Beginners (yes, by Wil, but I loved it).
Judy wrote: "Kristen wrote: "I hope this is in the right place! Anyway, I love apocalyptic fiction, especially since it comes in a ton of varieties. I'm curious about everyone's opinions on it.
First, do peo..."
I agree with Judy. Don't like zoombies nor aliens (unless I'm playing RPG, lol). I prefer darker plots. Perhaps because I think we all feel some kind of discontent with civilization (Freud's "Civilization and its discontent") and with a darker story we can sort of channel our frustrations and dissatisfaction into it. (Laplatia is all about it)
I don't care how the apocalypse happens, as long as the story is populated with believable characters making realistic decisions based on their particular apocalypse.So if it's a rapture story, I want those left behind to behave as they would if 41% (by a 2010 Pew Research Poll) of Americans disappeared one day, not as cardboard warning signs against fire and brimstone. And something I have yet to read, and would love if anyone could point me in that direction, is clever interpretation of Revelation's prophecies as modern phenomena viewed in the religious ecstasy of first century revelators.
Alien apocalypse can be a good read too, as long as all parties are acting on believable motivations, and, most importantly the aliens have believable weak points. Their not inventing raincoats should never be why we are able to fend off interstellar invaders, ever. Also, far too many aliens come to earth to attain something easily attainable without stirring up a hornet's nest of squirt-gun wielding hominids. (Going to Venus or Io to mine a molten core comes topically to mind.)
I'm with Will on the One Big Lie formula.
There are surprisingly few apocalypse books that have happy endings or even comfortable endings. If you count 1632 as a sort of apocalypse book, it is uplifting for the most part, but it is really more of a castaway book. Castaway books tend to be more uplifting. I've gotten to the point of calling mine "non-dystopian." The problem with apocalypse books is the same with all science fiction. The writer asks us to believe the impossible or the extremely unlikely, and that's okay. But then so many writers ask us to also believe that people will react in ways people never react. Of course this is true in almost every genre. An example would be a romance with a hero who is always noble, a mystery with a detective who can't figure out who-dun-it when every reader has figured it out, or a western gunfighter with a Colt 45 who can shoot a gun from the bad man's hand at a 100 yards.I should point out that many readers feel my book is equally guilty of having people act in ways people don't act.
Chip wrote: "I think I have two main types. Rogue AI and fantasy (not the zombies really)."I confess that I really love Rogue AI stories, even though I've repeatedly said that I don't believe it'll ever happen. I firmly believe that when we achieve AI, it'll just take off and leave us behind. It'll care about us exactly as much as we care about rats and cockroaches—it'll stomp us if we get in its way, but otherwise just assume that we're the sort of minor annoyance that can never be completely eliminated. One of my early apocalyptic faves was Colossus—sadly I've lost book two of the trilogy over the years; not so sadly I reread some of it last year, and it's really not that good ;-)
I was done with zombies before they really caught on.
S. K. wrote: "So if it's a rapture story, I want those left behind to behave as they would if 41% ...of Americans disappeared one day."
I read a good one of those either for an AW group read, or just because people were talking about it here—Last Light. Unfortunately, everybody else was reading a different book with the same title :-( But I found it surprisingly believable (except, of course, for the One Big Lie.
And something I have yet to read, and would love if anyone could point me in that direction, is clever interpretation of Revelation's prophecies as modern phenomena viewed in the religious ecstasy of first century revelators.
I'm sure I've read something like that... naturally I can't remember it. There's a really good thriller based on the biblical plagues: The Eleventh Plague
I don't have any examples really (I am simply awful with names)but I like ones where there is an actual struggle. I've read and seen many theories where its all too convenient.
I want to see people actually fight to survive.
That being said I think they all have their own challenges. zombies, artificial intelligence, disease, war and the rest of the huge list haha.
I wish there were more stories in places other than America. like many of us brits are unarmed in every way. I know people who have never shot a gun etc. How would that affect the story? I couldn't just start shooting into a hoard of zombies, it'll be more hands on.
I don't care how the end happens. I have to agree with Will and S.K. , give me good characters and I am in for the ride. Although, I am partial to plagues and Aliens...or and if that end happens in a different country other that the US, I will read it , for that alone. Shannon : I suggest Apocalypse Z: The Beginning of the End, a zombie novel that takes place in Spain.
I agree with Will-being surprisedis always the best part. I am looking for something different.
Thank you Jennifer :) I've added it to my to-read :D
Shannon wrote: "Thank you Jennifer :) I've added it to my to-read :D"
You might like this as well : The End of the World Running Club. It was a group read. I enjoyed it . I think most of the group did.
Derek wrote: "Chip wrote: "I think I have two main types. Rogue AI and fantasy (not the zombies really)."Zombies have been overdone, IMO. I read a few zombie stories early on but they started to become too similar.
David wrote: "Derek wrote: "Chip wrote: "I think I have two main types. Rogue AI and fantasy (not the zombies really)."Zombies have been overdone, IMO. I read a few zombie stories early on but they started to ..."
There is this series, I have read two so far and enjoyed both :
My Life as a White Trash Zombie
Derek wrote: "One of my early apocalyptic faves was Colossus—sadly I've lost book two of the trilogy over the years; not so sadly I reread some of it last year, and it's really not that good ;-)"Oh, dear. Talk about synchronicity. The Fall of Colossus is on sale from Amazon today for $0.99. So, do I pony up a buck to re-complete my trilogy? 'coz, it's really not that good ;-)
This is a question I've always wondered myself. There's been a lot of overdone zombie and plagues, I think. And I'm tired of alien apocalypses or nuclear war just because those have been done and redone time and time again too. But don't get me wrong, if a story is good, I will love it regardless. A plague is a lot more plausible, as is nuclear war. Sometimes I think I've jumped off the deep end when I think about my own story, which is about a solar apocalypse. But since it has a darker plot - post-collapse/civil war/corruption/dystopian twist to it, I try to incorporate a more realistic approach, even though there is a lot of government conspiracy involved. It's typical for science fiction to require readers to suspend from their disbelief so to speak, but that's why I love to read. Honestly, I'd read them all if they have a strong storyline and characters. :)
I think my favorite kind of apocalypse would be something believable. Something that is actually happening maybe like running out of fossil fuel, pollution and ozone depletion leading to unbreathable air, increasing surface temperatures causing ...too many problems to list ;-)
Anne (sweetie) wrote: "I think my favorite kind of apocalypse would be something believable. Something that is actually happening maybe like running out of fossil fuel, pollution and ozone depletion leading to unbreathab..."A change in the path of ocean currents might be believable.
I was thinking more along the lines of something happening that humans unthinkingly caused to happen. Do you know what I mean?
J.M. wrote: "It's typical for science fiction to require readers to suspend from their disbelief..."That's nothing special about SF. If you didn't have to suspend your disbelief, it wouldn't be fiction.
Anne (sweetie) wrote: "I was thinking more along the lines of something happening that humans unthinkingly caused to happen. Do you know what I mean?"A change in the course of ocean currents ;-) It's totally possible that we're already doing it (and a good part of what we're doing at my current job is trying to find evidence for or against it).
It really is time for a good North Atlantic Gyre apocalypse. The only one I'm aware of is The Day After Tomorrow (I never realized Whitley Streiber wrote it), but the movie is so over the top it pretty much seems to have been produced by climate change deniers. I might have to read the book, now.
My favorite kind is the economic apocalypse because that sort of thing could actually happen.
Derek wrote: "J.M. wrote: "It's typical for science fiction to require readers to suspend from their disbelief..."That's nothing special about SF. If you didn't have to suspend your disbelief, it wouldn't be fiction."
That's not quite the same definition of "suspension of disbelief" that most of us work to. Here's the wikipedia definition:
"The term suspension of disbelief or willing suspension of disbelief has been defined as a willingness to suspend one's critical faculties and believe the unbelievable; sacrifice of realism and logic for the sake of enjoyment."
In other words, "suspension of disbelief" generally means to believe the unbelievable. This might be a concept like faster than light travel, zombies, time machines, etc.
A contemporary novel with believable characters and real-world physics usually doesn't require the suspension of disbelief. If the novel is sufficiently realistic there is no disbelief to suspend.
Derek wrote: "That's nothing special about SF. If you didn't have to suspend your disbelief, it wouldn't be fiction."Nonsense. Only one of the following is true:
"Francis asked me to buy her a book today."
"Hilda asked me to buy her a book today."
"Barb asked me to buy her a book today."
Which is the truthful statement? Should be easy to answer if fiction requires you to suspend a disbelief...
Will wrote: "That's not quite the same definition of "suspension of disbelief" that most of us work to. Here's the wikipedia definition"Really? Then a whole succession of high-school English teachers were wasting their time? The "willing suspension of disbelief" is at the heart of ANY novel, even ones with believable characters and real-world physics. I love to quote wikipedia too, but it isn't always right.
In your case Randy, I simply have to suspend my disbelief that any of them are true. Logical fallacies don't advance the argument.
...besides which suspension of disbelief doesn't imply its opposite. You're not required to "believe the unbelievable", only to let the unbelievable slide.
Will wrote: " If the novel is sufficiently realistic there is no disbelief to suspend."Sufficiently realistic is a matter of perspective. A medical drama may ring truthful to a layman, but not to a medical professional. I know cold weather stories often ring false to me, because I grew up in Minnesota.
I watched one movie that took place in the Minneapolis airport. The story claimed a blizzard was so bad that the airport was down to ONE runway. LOL. And, then, some people were complaining their flight to Chicago was postponed until the next day. One says to the other, "We could drive to Chicago faster than that." LOL. If the blizzard is that bad, they won't even be able to get their car out of the airport parking lot in that amount of time.
Derek wrote: "...besides which suspension of disbelief doesn't imply its opposite. You're not required to "believe the unbelievable", only to let the unbelievable slide."That would apply to many non-fiction books as well.
Sometimes, truth CAN be stranger than fiction. Just read Snopes or the Darwin Awards some time. :)
Last year, one of the cities in Europe had their police calls posted to a blog. Boring overall, but there were some hilarious entries. People DO the strangest things.
PS: Only the first statement was true. The book arrives on Friday.
Again, you're saying if A implies B, B implies A. Just because one may have a hard time believing fact, doesn't mean there's any need to suspend your disbelief. As Ripley used to say, "Believe it or not."
You didn't imply anything. You made the statement:"If you didn't have to suspend your disbelief, it wouldn't be fiction."
That seems pretty straight forward.
I'm sure I could read some fiction that didn't require me to suspend any of my disbeliefs.
I'm sure I could read some truthful accounts that do require me to suspend some of my disbeliefs. "That can't happen. Can it?"
Actually, that's almost the definition of a prejudice. Anything that supports our prejudices, we accept as truthful and a confirmation of them. Anything that goes against our prejudices, we classify as either a fictional item or an exception to the rule.
And, consider the Bible. The Word of God to some. Pure fiction to others. A matter of perspective. All of our beliefs are not truth. So suspending them doesn't necessarily imply anything about truth or fiction.
There is a huge difference between something being true and the willing suspension of disbelief. The phrase "willing suspension of disbelief" originally came from Samuel Taylor Coleridge who was writing poetry with gothic supernatural themes, such as the Rime of the Ancient Mariner. He intended it to mean that, for the sake of enjoyment, we could put aside our cynicism about the fabulous and uncanny and just enjoy the story.
If you don't like wikipedia, then try googling "willing suspension of disbelief" and you'll come across sources like these:
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/su...
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/susp...
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php...
How can I put this gently? The phrase "willing suspension of disbelief" means to believe in the unbelievable. It does not mean to believe in something which is not true.
This is not an occasion where you can make up your own definition because of what you think the words sound like or what, in your opinion, they logically ought to mean. It's a technical term with a very long and very specific history. You either know it or you don't.
Randy wrote: "You didn't imply anything. You made the statement:"No, the "A implies B, B implies A" thing was about your comment that you have to suspend your disbelief for some non-fiction. I'm merely saying, you don't. You may if you wish. You don't even have to suspend your disbelief for fiction, but it's part of the implicit contract between the author and the reader: "I'll write things that aren't true; you have to be willing to accept them as given—or you're not going to have a very good experience". So because the one thing holds true for fiction doesn't mean that its opposite necessarily holds true for non-fiction.
Will wrote: "How can I put this gently? The phrase "willing suspension of disbelief" means to believe in the unbelievable."
No, it doesn't. You put it too strongly. Only one of those three sources actually says that. "The temporary acceptance as believable...", does not mean that you must believe it, but only that you must accept that it could be believed.
I totally agree with Coleridge, but the fact that he was applying it to his own fantastic work doesn't mean (and all of my English teachers agree) that his insight doesn't apply to fiction in general. btw, the phrases.org.co.uk citation says "The state is arguably an essential element when experiencing any drama or work of fiction." What I 'argued' ;-)
And I haven't claimed, anywhere, that "willing suspension of disbelief" means to believe in something which is not true. It's Randy who's been saying that "truth" enters into it, and I've been trying to demonstrate that that's a read (sic) herring.
Okay, "believe in the unbelievable" is too much short-hand (although it is often used). "Willing suspension of disbelief" is more accurate. I personally don't believe that Coleridge's ancient mariner was cursed by spirits for shooting the albatross, but I am willing to put my disbelief to one side for a moment in order to enjoy the story.It's funny - all the lecturers in my English degree agreed on this too. Coleridge invented the term in the early 1800's because he wanted to write supernatural stories in an age when the industrial revolution was turning many readers off from the supernatural and more towards the scientific and rational.
That's where the term came from. That was its original meaning, long before the internet and armchair experts deciding what they think it ought to mean. That is still its primary meaning for many people.
But it is one hell of a stretch to go from that to saying that it applies to all fiction.
I found that phrases.org citation that you referenced.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/su...
But instead of cherry picking one sentence to make a point, let's quote its main definition of "willing suspension of disbelief".
"Meaning
The temporary acceptance as believable of events or characters that would ordinarily be seen as incredible. This is usually to allow an audience to appreciate works of literature or drama that are exploring unusual ideas."
In other words:
"Events or characters that would ordinarily be seen as incredible"
"works of literature or drama that are exploring unusual ideas."
Does that sound like science fiction to you?
Yes, the article does go on to say that "arguably" there is an element of willing suspension of disbelief in all fiction - we must accept that the things we see on a screen are not real. But the primary meaning is about fiction exploring hard to believe ideas.
Such as science fiction.
I wasn't cherry picking. It seemed you were. I didn't originally cite phrases.org.uk (which is why I also didn't give the URL), you did. So I pointed out that it said exactly what I did!And my English teachers are also long before the Internet and not armchair experts.
Except it didn't say exactly what you said. It said that the primary meaning of "willing suspension of disbelief" was connected to the incredible or unusual, which is exactly where we came in. Science fiction and the willing suspension of disbelief are inexplicably linked.The sentence that you cherry-picked came from the end of the article, after the main definition, saying that "arguably" there is an element of willing suspension of disbelief in all fiction. We have to accept that the printed word or the actions on a screen represent reality. That in no way allows for an interpretation of "willing suspension of disbelief" that it has nothing to do with science fiction or whether fiction is true or not.
I suspect that the issue isn't with what your teachers taught you - it is how you are remembering it and interpreting it. This one is very clear cut.
I repeat, nowhere did I equate "willing suspension of disbelief" with truth. Nor did I say it has "nothing to do with science fiction". I said "there's nothing special about science fiction". The need for a suspension of disbelief may be more obvious, but it's still there in all fiction.It's NOT clear cut when sources you quote actually say exactly what I said, even if you want to consider it cherry-picking.
As for whether I'm misremembering what I was taught: they didn't actually teach SF or any kind of fantastic fiction when I was in high school, other than Fahrenheit 451, so not all of my teachers could possibly have been referring to SF.
Ha, wow you guys have gotten off into quite a tangent. It's a good topic, I wish it had its own thread but you've all used up most of your thoughts on it by now.
We sure do, and we usually get back on track again eventually. I don't mind the tangents since it's still discussion, though sometimes when a point comes up that people get passionate about, it's too bad it's buried in a seemingly unrelated thread.
Stan wrote: "Anne (sweetie) wrote: "I think my favorite kind of apocalypse would be something believable. Something that is actually happening maybe like running out of fossil fuel, pollution and ozone depletio..."Sorry Stan. You are right. Send me info on your book ? I am interested. And I am following you :)
Derek wrote: "Anne (sweetie) wrote: "I was thinking more along the lines of something happening that humans unthinkingly caused to happen. Do you know what I mean?"A change in the course of ocean currents ;-) ..."
Thanks Derek. I added it to my to-read list. It is just what I was thinking .
Olivia wrote: "My favorite kind is the economic apocalypse because that sort of thing could actually happen."I< completely agree, Olivia. Something WILL happen, and that is very believable.
Actually, right now I am thinking that there will be a political apocalypse.
I'm going to bump this topic, it's a good one.
Shannon wrote: "I don't have any examples really (I am simply awful with names)but I like ones where there is an actual struggle. I've read and seen many theories where its all too convenient.
I want to see peop..."
Have you read The End of the World Running Clubin the UK. It’s a great read.
In answeer to the question...I enjoy nuclear holacaust and alien invasion.
Anyway, I love apocalyptic fiction, especially since it comes in a ton of varieties. I'm curious about everyone's opinions on it.
First, do people prefer a hopeful outlook or darker stories? Think something like Ashfall (people working hard to survive) vs Walking Dead, where lots of really dark stuff happens. Do you like lighter fare or more despair?
Second, what's your favorite apocalypse scenario? Natural disasters? Manmade disasters? A combination of both? What about alien invasions, or paranormal/biblical stuff? What is the apocalyptic scenario most likely to catch your attention?
Let's discuss!