Books I Loathed discussion

I recently re-read Huxley's Brave New World (I read it in 1989, so about time) and was absolutely flabbergasted by the mere banality of it. It's downright unintentionally comical most of the time. This certainly surprised me, since I find some essays of his quite good.
A couple of weeks later I read Atwoods post-apocalyptic Oryx and Crake (or whatever it's called) and it was such a déjà vu: I started playing trope bingo after a while (I.e. wrote down the obligatory themes of dystopian literature I expected to be dealt with by Atwood; the demoralization of the common man (INTERNET PORN!!!), the transgression of man into God's domains (controlling procreation), the removal by "them" of our cultural heritage (OMG, they don't read Shakespeare??? Or Homer? The horror!), the dissolved heteronormative family structure, the confinement of the people to designated areas, presuppositions of "free" areas suggested; well, you catch my drift. And then I realized that the scaffold for the dystopian novel IS brave new world, and perhaps that is a reason as good as any for it to be read today. But then I thought of the soma parties and wished for THEM to erase at least my memory of Brave new world.
I think 1984 is a tolerable book, but trope bingo may very well be enjoyed while reading it too. Rand's Anthem I presuppose no one takes seriously, but am I wrong in general here in my eye rolling an entire subgenre? Wait! I just realized that Ishiguro really does a good job in Never Let Me Go, by being subtle and plausible. Or is the world of that novel not dystopian?

I am a bit confused today, so I'm not expressing my point with any desirable clarity, sorry about that, but I really want some input here...

Hi Nanci

I've read 3 of the books that you mention in your post - incidentally it was for a university module on dystopian fiction.

I can see from what you've read so far why you might think the dystopian novel is an unnecessary genre. However, it is one of those genres that presents a world similar to ours but different in some way in order to make a statement about society. It has been a while since I last read Brave New World - but if you consider the time Huxley was writing in (the 1930s I think?) he was writing about a future not too distant from his own time. I think of Brave New World as a critique on where Huxley thought society was moving to. You can see this in the soma parties, how the characters don't need to fear child birth, a form of eternal youth they possess. The irony of this situation is the characters we would consider and identify with as 'normal' - (the male character who is interested in Shakespeare and his ageing mother) have no place in this society. I think what I'm trying to say is the dystopian genre is valuable for showing the alienation and isolation a person can go through when there are greater society and dictatorship forces at the top that destroy an individual's self knowledge of themselves which prevents them from forming their own identity and why everyone seems to be the same on one level.

And I really liked your game of 'trope bingo' - I must try it myself one day;)

I can see why you would be unimpressed by Brave New World and/or Oryx and Crake (I liked both, but neither are my favorites by a long shot), but I would never say that any genre is "unnecessary." Every genre has got its own cliches, but also their own specific powers. Dystopias are the ultimate "man vs. society" narratives, because they make that conflict the most literal.

No doubt there are LOTS of terribly-written ones (that's true of any genre), but let's not write off the entire category with one fell swoop.

Thank you both for the input! I just wanted to relate a

...a discussion about Huxley that I recently heard on BBC: in fact, he was a proponent of eugenics, and was not himself originally publishing the novel as a not very complex dystopian vision. Many of the Ideas that we interpret as obviously negative were actually subject that Huxley intended to present as matters to which there were no obvious moral answers . This information further confused my reading of Brave New World...
And of course, I'm posing a rhetorical question; no genre is to be obliterated in this the Best of All Worlds!
Thanx guys. Valid points from both of you!

I feel that only the dystopian novel presents socio-political commentary in a way that truly asks the reader to apply it to themselves. In non-fiction, people recognize the author's opinion, but it remains someone else's words in their mind. In a dystopian novel however, the reader juxtapositions the dystopic world over what they know of their own (because it is a mirror of it intentionally).

We see tropes and cliches because the issues being dealt with are universal and have been considered for decades, if not hundreds of years (the fear of future change, not the details). It is not a dystopian novel's purpose to present things we have never seen or thought about before; it is to act on stagnant problems that we refuse to face despite seeing them every day. If you prefer to read more fresh or novel ideas, than dystopia is probably not for you. And that is okay. There are enough other people who LOVE it that the genre still has a right to continue.

(p.s. I don't read westerns, romance, and mystery because they are so formulaic and predictable. However, I recognize that the familiarity and patterns of the genres are exactly what brings other people satisfaction and joy, so I applaud their existence despite their absence on my shelves)

I for one really like a good dystopian novel. But so many you see these days are 1984 clones--can anyone say Clockwork Orange?--that I don't run across many good ones. I really liked Brave New World and 1984 itself, but I've run across no other good dystopias, because so many follow those themes: one is an outsider introduced to a strange dystopia, another is a man who attempts to rebel and is reconditioned. And they were great, I thought they were deep explorations into social issues--New World was a bit comical in points, perhaps, but I think it was deliberate, in order to show how silly the overriding desire for instant gratification really is.
Not every issue, particularly in New World more than in 1984, has an easy solution, as Mary said. Each good dystopian novel is more a lens through which the reader can see the social issues in a different light than he may be used to, to help him or her make his own decisions as to morality.

I also found Brave New World banal and a little juvenile while Oryx and Crake felted dated. However 1984 is one of my favourite books.
I think this is because although I love dystopian fiction it is not so much for the insights the dystopian society gives about our present society but the actions of the citizens trying to free themselves from it.
I don't like being preached at so I'm not that interested in the author's critique of modern society and I think you can play trope bingo with just about every genre. For me it is the quality of the storytelling that is important.

If you want a true dystopia read Child 44. The genre is detective but the dystopia it describes is the USSR in 1953 and it is horrifying.

I think the only reason people question this genre is because there are so many coming out right now, but the ones that came out before it became popular were actually really good. if you are looking for a dystopian novel ,read Little Brother.

Hey everyone: since many have mentioned 1984 I just wanted to toss out a title I love, that you also might enjoy, and nobody ever seems to know about this book:
We


From what I understand, "We" was Orwell's inspiration for 1984. I personally think it's much better.

I liked Snow Crash. It is more about a world where the boundaries of real and digital lives are blurred; I'd say that its about people who live dystopian lives. I found the main characters to be very enjoyable and the various settings to be interesting.

Its not a dystopian novel like some of the others mentioned and doesn't necessarily leave a grim view of a future that has been based upon ideas of eugenics or normalization. However, the author's vision of America is very dystopian.

Overall, I found it to be a fun book. And not a little bit of foreshadowing of the potential influence of digital communities.

I think a lot of people hate dystopian novels because they're always forced to read them at school, haha. I had to read Handmaid's Tale for uni and I couldn't finish it. Years later I read it again and it was actually pretty good, haha. Same with Lord of the Flies. Gave up on Brave New World for the same reason - getting forced to read stuff just leaves a bad taste.

Esther wrote: "I also found Brave New World banal and a little juvenile while Oryx and Crake felted dated. However 1984 is one of my favourite books.
I think this is because a..."

Haven't read Child 44 but I read the follow up, The Secret Speech. It was pretty awesome for about 3/4s but I thought the Hungarian uprising bit was a bit drawn out.