Day 30: Dystopian Fiction

Dystopian fiction has always been one of my favorite genres, but for the longest time I wasn't able to put my finger on exactly why that is. I remember when The Hunger Games exploded in popularity, a story about a dystopian society featuring teenage characters, aimed at young adults. I wasn't even a teenager myself then, but I still distinctly remember wondering why the series had such a grasp on me and seemingly all of my friends. The characters, in retrospect, are admittedly kind of bland all things considered. Katniss does some cool stuff, and makes some hard choices for the ones she loves, but I can't even recall the names of most other characters. Even back when I first read it, I don't think it was any of the characters that actually kept me reading. What really got my attention was the world Susan Collins built based around control. Eventually, Katniss and the others do take center stage as the uprising occurs, but without that world of control in the first place, there would be no compelling uprising. First there has to be a machine. Only then can the cogs take up arms against the controller.

Every autocrat has to grapple with the issue of bending the population to their will. Be it by creating death games to distract everybody like Collins came up with, or by using the power of state surveillance and propaganda as in 1984, the minority in power has to have some way of controlling the many. Even dystopian societies that aren't strictly autocratic still feature a small class of elites that profit from controlling all or parts of society. In the tabletop game Cyberpunk, and the more recent videogame adaptation Cyberpunk 2077 for example, there are "free" elections, freedom of choice, and upward mobility ... but of course one has to side with the massive military megacorporations in order to benefit from any of it. All of these rulers have essentially rigged the game of life in their favor. There's no way for characters in these worlds to have what they truly want without grappling with the rulers, and so conflict is bound to ensue. It's part of why the dystopian genre is so compelling (because you know something is going to happen), but I don't think that's the whole story.

I need to take a step back. Conflict is compelling, sure, but a dystopia is obviously not the only way to generate it. It has a particular flavor, man vs society, but a dystopian world isn't the only way to achieve that kind of conflict in particular either. In fact, the opposite kind of setting can have the same man vs society conflict. Look at Star Trek, The Next Generation for example. This is about the only peak utopian society I can think of in fiction. Poverty and famine have been erased, people work the jobs they find most fulfilling, an education (one that can lead to commanding a starship I might add) is freely accessible to anyone who is capable of achieving it, and the best part is that none of this seems to come with any downsides. There are no slaves to base the economy on so everybody else can live happily, or mind-controlling shadow governments to keep everybody in line, instead the society just works. Man wouldn't that be nice? Not only does it merely function, but it produces powerful, insightful, just characters, like Captain Picard, Riker, Crusher, and my favorites, Data and Geordi La Forge. This is a society that retains the benefits of leadership and rank where applicable, while simultaneously maintaining equality between those separate ranks when it is not applicable. Everything seems as perfect as possible, but even given these utopian standards, there are still moments when the individual comes into conflict with society. Data's status as a lifeform is brought into question more than once, Star Fleet leadership sometimes makes questionable decisions, and some characters become disillusioned with their place in society like Wesley Crusher does. The same kind of conflict can exist in both utopian and dystopian settings.

So what's the difference? Why do we keep pumping out dystopian worlds when a utopian setting can address the same issues? Wouldn't people rather read about a society where everything is as good as possible, and see humanity at its peak, rather than seeing humanity struggle with the same issues at their lowest? Well that's just the question isn't it? There is a perfect quote that sums up the point I'm trying to make here, and it's this:

"What is better? To be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort?" - Paarthurnax, Skyrim

This quote is from the mentor figure in the video game Skyrim, and while he's referring more specifically to his own, personal evil nature, I think it applies well to society as a whole. When people at their prime overcome great adversity, there can always be some nagging doubt about whether they really would have succeeded had the situation been different. If Captain Picard had grown up in a dystopian version of Star Trek, would he really be such a capable leader? Would he still have been able to defeat the Borg? In other words, how much does his perfect society prop up Captain Picard as a character? On the other hand, in a world that is already terrible, it's incredibly uplifting to see characters succeed anyway. There's no questioning the success of Katniss, who comes from the worst possible scenario and overcomes the cruelty of the Hunger Games anyway. (Well ok, there is, because she's just kind of a figure head later in the series, but not in the first book!) Ironically, the most intriguing characters like Captain Picard and crew end up under more scrutiny than a character as bland as Katniss because they come from different backgrounds. Humanity at its lowest overcoming the great power of an evil ruling elite is an extremely compelling, and even optimistic take on the base nature of humanity, regardless of the actual merits of the characters achieving these things. Those corrupt few might try to control us, but life uh, finds a way. The dystopian setting allows for a weaker character to shine bright, whereas in a utopia, you have to be able to write a character as compelling as Captain Picard in order to garner the same level of interest.

So to answer the question, I personally find overcoming one's evil nature through great effort to be more compelling, and that's why I keep coming back to the dystopian genre. Soon I'll finish up Brave New World and have one more dystopian novel to review, so hopefully today's post can give some context for how I tackle that. Look for it on Monday, and have a good weekend!

Thank you for reading,

Benjamin Hawley