12 thoughts on “Book Review: Dystopia: a Natural History (Oxford, 2017)

  1. This sounds like a good read. One of my two English electives in college was “Intro to Fantasy and Science Fiction” and covered the broad strokes of how utopian and dystopian fiction came to be a thing. (but didn’t go nearly as far back as this work seems to – the start point in the course was “Looking Backward”)Report

      1. I don’t think I realized he directly inspired people. I just thought it was the case that his ‘Everything is Awesome!’ vision so sharply contrasted with the bulk of works that came later, that in hindsight (irony), he’s historically notable.Report

  2. Dystopia is science fiction of the sort that asks “what if some thing we see today were carried to a fantastic conclusion?” (As opposed to the sort that asks “what if some idea were true, how would the world be different?”)Report

      1. @rufus-f
        No, it doesn’t. At least good SF doesn’t. During our symposium, kicking around in the back of my mind when I wrote my piece were two of my favorite SF dystopia’s Sheltered Lives and The Final Circle of Paradise, the former taking its cues from the AIDS epidemic, while the later is a fantastic piece of soviet SF that accurately predicts smart phones (in my eyes.)Report

      1. Yes, some of those do sound fantastic.

        On top of being science fiction (or just fiction), there’s the added element of coming from a very different culture with a very different history and perspectives.

        Science fiction we commonly encounter is very rooted in “us”. It transports us to another reality, but one that we’re still pretty comfortable and familiar with. Despite perhaps being set on a different planet in the year 2350, the protagonist is more recognizably thinking like “us” than the fisherman in “Old Man and the Sea.”.

        Interestingly, one of the Egyptian authors points out that a lot of Muslim writers turn to science fiction because it would be dangerous to obviously criticize present reality.Report

  3. What made both Huxley’s and Orwell’s dystopias so terrifying is that they were inexorable and, it seems, infinitely sustainable.

    Sure, you’d get a dissenter from time to time, but there’s no way that they could stand up to The Machine.

    The Machine worked, worked well, and could withstand the Johns and the Winstons. (Orwell’s Machine was robust enough to take Winstons and remake them into parts of the machine that worked. Huxley’s… well, most people can withstand hard times (especially after a couple of generations). Hedonism is much harder on the person.)Report

Comments are closed.