Penny for Your Thoughts discussion

The dystopia is a dying art. Popularized by authors such as George Orwell (1984), Ray Bradbury (Fahrenheit 451), and Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. (Cat’s Cradle), dystopian literature sacrifices the popular feel-good storyline and happy ending for provocative commentary and an argument for social or political change. Works following the dystopian model make use of social outsiders, antiheroes, and intellectual misfits. They make examples of their characters. Good people die. The corrupt do their worst. The world as we know it comes to an end.

These days, however, people don’t want to read anything depressing. They want good news. They want happy endings. They want to escape.

And that is precisely the problem.

We all have our individual tastes in fiction, and that’s fine. Just the same, we must take a closer look at the social complacency current trends reflect. More specifically, we must ask if these trends reveal simply a population looking for mindless entertainment, or if they might instead be an indication of something much more nefarious and telling.

The 1984 Effect is the connection I see between social complacency and trends in literature, most notably, the virtual death of dystopia and similar genres. I argue that we as a society have been brainwashed into believing escapism is the key to a healthy, happy life, and with that we have sacrificed free, progressive thought and intellectual stimulation. Like the characters in Orwell’s 1984, society has been taught to go with the flow, do what it is told, and question issues just long enough perhaps to see the political backlash and fall back quickly into line. Occupy Wall Street is the perfect example. Many of us want change, but lack the initiative, the tools, or the backbone to manifest it. Moreover, our minds are in the wrong place.

This is not the time for escapism, as tempting the bait may be. This is the time for assessment, reflection, and problem solving. This is the time to be reading the literature about the times. It is time we reject complacency and once again begin looking toward the future.

Am I alone in this stance?

I seem to remember 451 having a definitively happier ending than The Hunger Games. Might have been a misreading on my part.

I think dystopian literature is on the rise, especially in young adult fiction. The Hunger Games, Delirium, Divergent, Matched, Gone, Uglies, and The Compound, to name a few.

I do agree, to an extent. Gone and the rest of the series is a fantastic set 0f Dystopia novels.

Back on subject: people want to read and consume things that won't remind them of the horrors about their life, which is why, I think, romance and such are so popular.

The problem that I have with a few of the more well-known dystopian novels (ie: The Hunger Games) is that they all end happily. The authors attempt a twist, but everything ends happily ever after. That's the same problem I had with Fahrenheit 451.

Does Gone count as dystopian? I mean, if it does then Lord of the Flies does.

Lord of the Flies is definitely dystopian in my book.

It is, technically speaking. I marked it as sci-fi, mainly for a challenge in my 8th grade lit and comp class.

F451 and The Hunger Games ended quite happily. Montag goes back to rebuild the city with books and whatnot. Katniss and Peeta live happily ever after. I hated The Hunger Games. There was hardly any character development.

Iviana (The Sign Painter) wrote: "I do agree, to an extent. Gone and the rest of the series is a fantastic set 0f Dystopia novels.

Back on subject: people want to read and consume things that won't remind them of th..."

I disagree with The Hunger Games ending part. It's ending is far from pleasant, and explores the idea of "We won the war, but at what cost?"

I might have a different idea of dystopian, however. I associate it with Sci-Fi and the future.

Actually, what I consider a dystopia is probably not the real definition of it. A dystopia is a Utopia gone wrong--something where they thought it would be perfect, but it ended up twisted and restrictive. :) *sheepish face* I can't believe I've forgotten about that--I just now remember an eighth grade definition of Dystopia.

Dystopian/Utopian can be in any time setting, I think.

I honestly just hated the characters.

I have been surprised by the number of reviews I've received for my dystopias in which the reader loved the book but hated the ending--and gave it a lower rating because of it. With few exceptions (I think they've all been covered here) dystopia typically has a tragic ending--but it is tragic with purpose and specific meaning. Perhaps not enough readers are familiar with the genre?

Probably. They've most likely grown up with "They all lived happily-ever-after." (imagine my voice mocking that). Personally, I think unhappy endings leads to much more intriguing thoughts about the ending.

Its stereotyped. Some people don't like sad endings. They begin to associate it with their own lives.
IMO, tragedies are as good as any other storylines out there. It is just not widely accepted. I like tragic endings to an extent.

What disturbs me is the thought that too many people would rather have their heads in the sand than think about the issues of the world. Escapism has its place, but it shouldn't be at the cost of provocative commentary and discourse.

You can't change the world unless you address what needs changing, right?

I would say that dystopia is on the rise, but it's sort of -- "happy ending" -ish. If that makes any sense. I mean that it's almost a different kind of dystopia, as illustrated by The Hunger Games, for example.

dystopia implies a not-so-happy ending.

An imagined place or state in which everything is unpleasant or bad, typically a totalitarian or environmentally degraded one

I know, but in more and more young adult "dystopia" novels, there is a happy ending. So I guess not dystopia, but perhaps like utopia-gone-bad?

Leigh wrote: "What disturbs me is the thought that too many people would rather have their heads in the sand than think about the issues of the world. Escapism has its place, but it shouldn't be at the cost of ..."

Random comment: The idea behind that phrase, about ostriches burying their head in sand because if they ignore danger then it doesn't exist? A provenly invalid fact.

The more you know.

The fact that these YA "dystopias" are changing the formula (i.e. happy endings) is just another sign of the times, IMHO.

Rudyards wrote: "Leigh wrote: "What disturbs me is the thought that too many people would rather have their heads in the sand than think about the issues of the world. Escapism has its place, but it shouldn't be a..."

I'm sure everyone here knows ostriches do not really bury their heads in the sand. It is a figure of speech, Rudyards.

Really? Alright. Fair enough.

Let's start over, Rudyards. I'm Leigh. I write dystopia and horror and have some pretty strong opinions about the genres. It's a pleasure to meet you.

Let's talk dystopia, the pros and cons, the trends in sci-fi, and what these trends mean to us as a society, hey? It's an important topic (in my humble opinion).

Perhaps we might come to some sort of common ground.

Just curious: Whats the point of this discussion?

I'm cool with starting over, Leigh. I'm Rudyards, or Rudy, and I tend to write urban fantasy or sci-fi. I'm more of a reader than a writer. I have a few opinions, but not a ton of strong ones. But I tend to be overly protective of my friends. It's good to meet you as well.

I'm cool with talking about dystopian fiction, but I'm not as avid of a fan of it compared to some. But I like "Do Androids Dream of Electronic Sheep" and "Gone" as much as just about everyone (other than some of the fangirls). The trends I don't think reflect our society as much as one might think, but rather "Our current readers".

And I will bend to opinions if they make sense. I'm not adamant about much (aside from the prior "friends" thing and the fact that Caine is a badass).

Hope for The Warrior wrote: "Just curious: Whats the point of this discussion?"

My point is trends in reading reflect modern complacency, and I would like to explore this further with other writers and readers. It is my opinion that the current desire for only "happily ever after" and at the very least "happy for now" is a reflection of society's desire to escape rather than deal with current issues.

@Rudyards: :-)

Θήρα (Thera) When insane, call me wrote: "I am proud to say that me and some friends are in the process of making a fairly dystopian movie- it's been decided that all the primary characters die. Thankfully (in some of the filmmaker's opini..."

Good luck with your film, Thera!

While I think Dystopia should be continued, I can't exactly say that I like it fully. Sure, maybe a realistic ending that might have sorrow and loss, but also a sense of that fiction, that despite that loss, he/she had won in some way.

Reality doesn't exactly make these scenes happen. The majority of people who like to read books like to have those happy endings, because, wouldn't you want to remember something that you succeeded in, instead of something that you did, and failed? Dystopia reminds us of the chains that bind us to reality. At least, in my way of thought. While it's not bad, it's still dying...

Oh, and, good luck on teh movie, Thera.

Dystopia is by definition "Opposite of Utopia". To characterize dystopian fiction in a nutshell is any fiction in which the political, social, or environmental factors have led to the opposite of utopia. This can be further broken down into such topics as totalitarianism,cataclysm leading to the destruction of either society or population, or dehumanization, etc. Dystopian fiction is not declared by the ending, I.E. whether it ends either on a good note or unhappily, but by the created world in which the writing is placed.

There is a growing trend right now towards totalitarianism type dystopian fiction, as fears about the economy, politics, and societal breakdown in general build.

Concerning complacency, I think you are right. From what I have seen, a great many people are getting scared. They seem to be hiding from their fears, instead of confronting and examining them. I think that everyone realizes that things are bad, in one way or the other, and are afraid of what might or even could happen. People prefer endings which allow 'a way out' of the dystopian mess; a light shining at the end of the tunnel, so to speak.

Over-all though, I think dystopian fiction is on the rise, not the decline. Certain styles of dystopia might be unpopular right now, but on the whole I believe dystopian fiction is alive and kicking.

I hope so, Paul.

Leigh wrote: "I hope so, Paul."

Truthfully I do think so. Dystopian fiction has always had it's place, as it tends to reflect reality more closely than other types. Also dystopia tends to cross genres easily. Numerous dystopian works fit more then one genre, as a writer chooses what 'world' to make dystopian.

The created world can be anything from science fiction to modern day reality. The work can be at heart a romance, or an action packed thriller. So stating that a work may be categorized as:

Dystopian, Science Fiction, Romance, Mystery, Thriller... is not out of the question. Most dystopian works I have read were cataloged under a different main genre.

Firstly, I'd like to state that I believe Dystopia is a theme, rather than a genre.

Any story, based at any time with any character can have dystopian themes - a fantastic example of this is the Takashi Miike movie, Shinjuku Triad Society, which was filmed and set in 1995. This doesn't focus on the traditional yet fantastical elements that make something a cliche reproduction of ideas that have been in circulation for over a hundred years - such as totalitarianism, futurism, science-fiction - it is a very realistic insight into a dark underworld that already exists, but painted in a bleak, perverse and offensive way.

Dystopian futurism (such as 1984) happens to be the easiest method of portraying our interpretation of "dystopia" - this is because the reader will not accept we currently live in a dystopia (for a variety of reasons) and wants to venture into something more unknown than historic dystopia. More often than not, I'd suggest that people read literature with dystopian themes out of curiosity and intrigue about the author's prediction of futurism.

I'd also like to point out that as far as I'm concerned, futurism and "sci-fi" are two totally different subjects. Futurism is a method of reflecting on history, comparing it with the present, and plotting an accurate (as far as the author believes) course based on every aspect of society. Sci-fi, on the other hand, is a fantastical and unrealistic hypothetical. Sorry to sound so angry there, I just happen to view one as an intricate art form and the other as light-hearted entertainment...

With regards to the questions and comments about happy endings - a dystopian theme doesn't mean it should be one or the other, so long as it is consistent with the feel of the story. People aren't disappointed in "happy endings", only when they are inconsistent with the story or break the flow of their feelings throughout - no-one likes the ending "it was all just a dream", for instance. Personally, I enjoy the intricacies of a well-crafted dystopian environment, and the ending usually comes naturally and doesn't seem too contrived.

Best of luck with all of your projects, I'd love to read them sometime, and looking forward to your feedback on this comment.

Meanwhile I'm going to sit in a dark corner with a bottle of vodka and cry until the world is a better place.

While one might argue that dystopian literature is a sub-genre of science fiction, I've always viewed it as a genre worthy of its own individual classification--one with a distinct style and its own unique set of criteria. I could be wrong here, but I feel that themes are much more generalized.

From what I know, most authors who write dystopian literature do so to express an important social or political issue. The genre serves as a venue through which to offer a warning about what may come to pass if society remains complacent about the given issue. The bleak or uncertain endings most dystopian authors choose to write work as final statements on that issue, warnings about the uncertainty or dark possibilities that actually exist should society continue taking a given direction.

I'm not going to presume historical dystopia does not exist simply because I've never heard of it, but it does seem counter-intuitive given the typical themes that underlie dystopian literature.

I would also argue that not all science fiction is lighthearted and fantastical; fantasy better fits that description. Much of the "pulp" sci-fi works of days past contain underlying themes and literary style, some very dark and/or serious. None of my sci-fi is lighthearted.

Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts on the matter. Should you have any other insights that might reinforce your stance, I'd welcome further discussion.

I've always been one that thought that having anything more than a bittersweet, sort of defeats the purpose.

In books I've read, the greater they fall the greater the warning of the society to come.

With that said, its perfectly possible for a contemporary setting. But it's sort of redundant to set it in the middle ages.

Thats why its called the dark ages.

Leigh wrote: "In books I've read, the greater they fall the greater the warning of the society to come."

True. They also tend to be a clear warning to the society that currently exists as well.