What It Means to be A Utopia
Almost all of the books we are reading in this class are Dystopian fiction, and in general, there is just more dystopian fiction than utopian fiction. This made me think about the reasons for this, and why dystopias are so much more interesting than utopias.
Firstly, I tried to determine a central theme or connection between various dystopias, and one thing that most, if not all, dystopian fiction takes one, or a few, elements of modern society, exaggerates them, and combines them to make a new type of society, a dystopia. For example, Huxley did this in Brave New World, with the increasing consumerism and industrialization, as well as the Freudian ideas, of the early 20th century. Additionally, Margaret Atwood has also said that she only drew on real events when writing The Handmaid’s Tale.
After seeing this pattern in dystopian fiction, why does it make for a compelling story, and why is there a lack of utopian fiction that follows the same pattern? I think this way of drawing upon the real world, and real events, makes for a compelling story because it plays on our fear of, or dislike of those events, and makes us imagine a world where those events are front and center, and the defining aspect of that society.
However, there is a definite lack of utopian fiction that follows this pattern. If, rather than taking some bad, or generally, disliked aspect of the modern world, instead, take a well liked part of society, and make that a defining feature of a society. I think that rather than defining a utopian society as one that is perfect in every way, we should define it as a society that is built around and focused on, a good part of modern society. I think this broadens the definition of a utopia so that an interesting story can still take place in a utopian society.
-Dominick Long
Firstly, I tried to determine a central theme or connection between various dystopias, and one thing that most, if not all, dystopian fiction takes one, or a few, elements of modern society, exaggerates them, and combines them to make a new type of society, a dystopia. For example, Huxley did this in Brave New World, with the increasing consumerism and industrialization, as well as the Freudian ideas, of the early 20th century. Additionally, Margaret Atwood has also said that she only drew on real events when writing The Handmaid’s Tale.
After seeing this pattern in dystopian fiction, why does it make for a compelling story, and why is there a lack of utopian fiction that follows the same pattern? I think this way of drawing upon the real world, and real events, makes for a compelling story because it plays on our fear of, or dislike of those events, and makes us imagine a world where those events are front and center, and the defining aspect of that society.
However, there is a definite lack of utopian fiction that follows this pattern. If, rather than taking some bad, or generally, disliked aspect of the modern world, instead, take a well liked part of society, and make that a defining feature of a society. I think that rather than defining a utopian society as one that is perfect in every way, we should define it as a society that is built around and focused on, a good part of modern society. I think this broadens the definition of a utopia so that an interesting story can still take place in a utopian society.
-Dominick Long
I think what makes a book a good one is the fact that there is some sort of dystopian situation in a utopian-sh society (idk if that made any sense). Basically, there should be some type of problem that a couple of characters have to deal with, aka the plot, and then the book describes how the people or things deal with that problem. Every story has a dystopian element, so I really like how you brought up the point of having a totally utopian story. What would that look like, and how could you keep the reader pulled in? What kind of dystopian situation could you have to solve, when the point of almost every story is to reach for a utopia?
ReplyDeleteI think part of the reason dystopian fiction is popular is because it effectively illustrates aspects of our own society that we may often be too uncomfortable to address. Utopian fiction reveals what we as a society want, but it may or may not reveal where and who we are. Dystopian fiction, on the other hand, can do so by taking the other extreme. I think reading about dystopias gets us to think about the dystopias in our own world, and then about how we want to address them, and finally how we want our world to look like and how we should get there.
ReplyDeleteI think taking a good aspect of society and exagerating it would definetly make for something interesting, and I agree that it would be called a utopia by some, as it is probably the closest we can get to one. However, as other blog posts have covered, the notion of a utopia just seems impossible due to there being no such thing as true equality and freedom at the same time. On top of that, cetain features of a society might be more appealing to some than others. Because everyone is so unique in their ideals, utopias can be dystopias, and dystopias can be utopias. For example, capitalism vs. socialism. Even though capitalism is clearly the better option to me, others might disagree. For this reason I would have to say even though you make a good point, you are wrong because what we consider dystopias could just as well be utopias for others.
ReplyDeleteI personally define a utopia to be a perfect world. Which means that if one was to write a book about utopia, they would write about a perfect society without any sort of problem. Naturally this would be extremely hard to write and boring to read, as there wont be any conflict to build up and resolve.
ReplyDeleteIf we instead do your idea to exaggerate an ideal aspect of society, (perhaps freedom?), it would certainly still leave room for problems (Such as possible anarchy-related ideas). It could serve as good Utopian fiction, but I fear that if the write writes too negatively, people might as well just consider it a dystopia instead. Its hard to say where people would draw the line between a Utopia with problems vs a Dystopia.
I think one reason dystopia is more popular than utopia is that full utopia, a world which is perfect in every way, is very difficult to build in a realistic way. Creating a world that would seem plausible enough for a reader to remain engaged in it, while still paying attention to the details of individual's preferences and ideals would be extremely difficult if not impossible. Dystopia, on the other hand, is not that hard to imagine. Simply taking details from history and exaggerating them if necessary, can create a dystopia (as we see with HT).
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I think the reason why there is no literature on a true utopia is because it's so hard to create a realistic, perfect world. If we could actually imagine something like that, we could implement that sort of society in the real world - but we cant. Additionally, I think people are generally better at looking at the bad-side of things, and coming up with disturbing concepts and stories. Rarely is anyone overly optimistic, which partially explains why no one writes in that manner.
ReplyDeleteYou're right about how there aren't really utopian novels and I think that it can be partially explained by the fact that dystopian pieces are much more interesting. Imagine reading a book that is just filled with how perfect the world was. Nothing really interesting there. But with a dystopia, we follow the struggles of a character and how they think and react to adverse situations and I think that is what makes dystopian novels more compelling. Conflicts make for good grounds for character development. One final point is that dystopias might leave the reader feeling better about their current life. By presenting what extreme bad our world could be it could leave the reader more content.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to fiction in general, readers want to be entertained. A novel focused around the idea of a "perfect" society would struggle to find a plot that would appeal to an audience. Dystopian novels, on the other hand, are able to replicate worst case scenarios that can be directly linked to our society and follow a character's struggle through said society, which is much more intriguing of a novel than the "nothing ever goes wrong; everything is perfect" utopia. Publishers will choose prospective novel ideas based on their profitability and in this society utopias do not share that with their dystopian counterparts, leading to the sharp distinction between our exposure to them.
ReplyDeleteAs readers, we want to read a plot that has conflicts. I'd assume it would be harder to create such a conflict or problem in a story if the setting was a utopian setting. In a dystopian setting, however, it's easier for the readers to sympathize with the protagonists because they live in a dystopia. In order to create an interesting story, there has to be some type of problem that the book centers on. Without a conflict, it's hard to make any serious progress in terms of character development in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI think that utopias are fundamentally boring. Mostly because perfection is boring. Personally, I wouldn’t enjoy reading a book about how everything in a society is ideal. However, I would be interested in a utopia going wrong and its imperfections. After all, to me utopia is just as cliche as a happy ending. Sometimes things are simply more interesting in a book when everything’s going the wrong way. It’s why dystopias are more common than utopias.
ReplyDeleteI think conflict is an essential part of books. In a utopia there isn't really conflict. The whole point of a utopia is its a perfect society and perfect societies don't have conflict. plus many people have different opinions on what a perfect society is. Most people wouldn't interpret your society as a utopia and just a boring place where things are generally good. Dystopias can also serve as better critiques than Utopias can making them more appealing to write than utopias.
ReplyDelete