I have been reading novels of dystopian genre recently (unintentionally): Orwell's 1984 and Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. A dystopia is the opposite of an utopia. So instead of fairy-tale paradise that society aspires to be in, novels of this genre take place in alternate world, in the future or otherwise, where things have taken turn for the worse.
Well, then suddenly it occurred to me: What exactly is a dystopia? How bad things should be to qualify as a dystopia? This train of thought came when I recalled about a short piece of work whose title I can't remember. The plot is very simple. But the setting is unforgettable -- it's a world where the sky is ash-gray and not blue and birds no longer exist.
For the two protagonists, who set on a journey without clear destination, there no longer exists the metaphor of flapping one's wings with the vast blue sky as one's backdrop. They don't have wings and even if they fly, it is suffocating to fly in dull gray sky, forever longing for the blue sky.
So now, what is dystopia? Without birds, can you still survive? Yes you can. It's not like humanity will die out or something. But you see, for these two characters, the absence of birds symbolises the absence of their own freedom. Free as a bird -- free as a what? A something that no longer exists.
So I'm concluding that everyone has his/her own version of dystopia. And one way to look at it is that a dystopia is lacking something. Something is absent; perchance a thing that we usually take for granted. In 1984, the language itself is eroded -- truths and thoughts are bent to the Party's will. In Handmaid's Tale, the ability to reproduce is reduced. But the thing is, to the people that are not the protagonists, these kinds of situation may not be dystopian. Winston realises how the Party is manipulating historical records and so conflict arises. Had he mastered doublethink (as he did at the end, unfortunately), then he would have accepted the situation as it is. Then there is no dystopia. Offred, one of few women still able to bear children, is exploited as a baby-making machine; she is barely treated as human being. Had she been the Commander or the Wife, she would be in a more favourable position. Then there is no dystopia. But there is no story to write about of course.
A world without something, of course, is an oversimplification of a dystopia. But isn't it an eye opener to know that taking something seemingly insignificant away can cause so much misery?
Well, then suddenly it occurred to me: What exactly is a dystopia? How bad things should be to qualify as a dystopia? This train of thought came when I recalled about a short piece of work whose title I can't remember. The plot is very simple. But the setting is unforgettable -- it's a world where the sky is ash-gray and not blue and birds no longer exist.
For the two protagonists, who set on a journey without clear destination, there no longer exists the metaphor of flapping one's wings with the vast blue sky as one's backdrop. They don't have wings and even if they fly, it is suffocating to fly in dull gray sky, forever longing for the blue sky.
So now, what is dystopia? Without birds, can you still survive? Yes you can. It's not like humanity will die out or something. But you see, for these two characters, the absence of birds symbolises the absence of their own freedom. Free as a bird -- free as a what? A something that no longer exists.
So I'm concluding that everyone has his/her own version of dystopia. And one way to look at it is that a dystopia is lacking something. Something is absent; perchance a thing that we usually take for granted. In 1984, the language itself is eroded -- truths and thoughts are bent to the Party's will. In Handmaid's Tale, the ability to reproduce is reduced. But the thing is, to the people that are not the protagonists, these kinds of situation may not be dystopian. Winston realises how the Party is manipulating historical records and so conflict arises. Had he mastered doublethink (as he did at the end, unfortunately), then he would have accepted the situation as it is. Then there is no dystopia. Offred, one of few women still able to bear children, is exploited as a baby-making machine; she is barely treated as human being. Had she been the Commander or the Wife, she would be in a more favourable position. Then there is no dystopia. But there is no story to write about of course.
A world without something, of course, is an oversimplification of a dystopia. But isn't it an eye opener to know that taking something seemingly insignificant away can cause so much misery?
1 comment:
Well most of us actually do have a lot of "doublethink"...especially over simple things that are conflicting each other...
Post a Comment