Vanilla 1.1.8 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Depends on what you are aiming for, I guess. It’s important to remember that Dystopian novels were written as a counter-point to Utopian novels, where the “point” of the book was to illustrate how we could live in Utopia. Utopian novels made for fairly lousy reading in my opinion, because they were closer to textbooks on the application of Marxism, or whatever the latest panacea is. Because Utopian novels were so pointedly about the ideas involved, and not the stories, you end up with a lot of dystopian novels that are the same way. Most people consider Brave New World to be a very important fiction, but not an especially well written story, because the characters are 1-dimensional illustrations of what Huxley wanted to symbolize.
1. If the point of your dystopian novel is to illustrate an important idea, then go with the Brave New World approach. If you are trying to create a well-written immersive story, then go for the subtle route.
2. Again, the inclusion of this sort of scene is to illustrate the “point”. This is strictly optional if that isn’t what you are going for.
If you haven’t read The Handmaid’s Tale that’s another masterpiece of the genre.
Slyshy said it very well. There is a difference between a dystopian novel and a novel with a dystopian setting. Blade Runner, for example, is set in a Crapsack World. Or Repo! the Opera or Escape From New York or basically any of those heavy-handed 80’s action movies.
Dystopianism as political theory evolved from a disillusionment with the late 1700s fascination with constructing ideal societies on paper. These were uniformly written by the sort of people who thought that shouting “PROGRESS!” and “SCIENCE!” would actually accomplish something. Unfortunately, this means that dystopian novels were written by the sort of cynical people who really enjoy crushing the dreams of idealists.1984, then, is really not a novel. It’s an anti-Communist political rant. It’s a lot like early science fiction in that the emphasis is on ideas, big bold ideas that readers will think about and toss over. The ideas and imagery of the novel are really big, and really memorable, and that is to Orwell’s credit. As Sly already said. However, I always advise people to read only the first two chapters, where all these ideas are presented, and then skip the rest.
I usually judge fiction, oddly enough, by whether or not I would want to live in the world the author creates. And I would never want to live in the world of either Brave New World or 1984. From the moment you’re born, you’re screwed. Dystopian political novels like these are uniformly bleak, grim, and desperate. I hate reading a novel where the protagonist is crushed under the merciless weight of the Novus Ordo. That’s just me.
451, on the other hand, is not a heavy-handed political allegory at all. It does have a dystopian setting, treated in a sort of wistful, dreamy way, but it is really one long extended in-joke about books, with punchlines directed toward book-lovers. And that book I love to death. In 451 there is hope. The whole point of 1984 and New World is to be monolithically grim and terrible, but that doesn’t mean they are enjoyable stories or even particularly realistic ones. That’s basically the reason I posted, because I want to make clear that Fahrenheit 451 is not really the same kind of novel.
So if you are writing a dystopian novel, then good luck to you sir. If you’re writing a novel set in a dystopia, then good luck with a bit more warmth. :D
I’m glad I didn’t offend you, to begin with. That I actually helped with anything is double bonus points! :D
Well, the old one was creepy as all hell. And squicky. I’m not gonna say I liked it, but it is a good example. You can put Minority Report in there if you want instead.
1 to 5 of 5