Tag archive for "Ally Condie"

Writing

Dystopia Blog Series, Day 3: Elements of Dystopia

3 Comments 25 May 2011

At the recent Storymakers conference, I taught a class on Writing Dystopia. This week I’ll be turning that class into a series of blogs:

Monday: Defining Dystopia
Tuesday: History of Dystopia
Wednesday: Elements of Dystopia
Thursday: Elements of the Dystopian Hero
Friday: Social Commentary in Dystopian Fiction

We’re now diving into some of the more specific elements of the dystopia genre. Obviously, not all of these elements are present in every dystopian, but, generally, these are so common/important in dystopian fiction that they almost define the genre.

Warning! There will be a couple of minor spoilers as I give examples, but they’re almost all from classics of the dystopian genres that you’ve all likely read or heard about.

  • The society/social structure plays an enormous role in the story. I would say that, of all the elements listed here, this one is the most essential to a true dystopia. A society in a dystopia is never merely a backdrop; it is a driving force to both character and plot. I’d go so far as to say that if you’ve created a society that isn’t a central element to your story, then your book probably isn’t dystopian: it’s likely sci-fi, or post-apocalyptic, or cyber-punk or something else.
  • Strong elements of control, and lack of certain freedoms. As we talked about on Monday, a true dystopia is a utopia with a fatal flaw. Generally, it is that flaw that allows for the utopia: constant surveillance (lack of privacy) ensures complete safety; lack of individual choices allows for the society to make decisions that benefit the group as a whole. In The Hunger Games, the lack of freedom came in the form of mandated entry into the games, and the games were used as a propaganda machine to control and dominate the outer districts.
  • Restricted information. This is more obvious in some dystopians, like 1984, where the protagonist’s job is to edit and alter history, or in Fahrenheit 451, where the firemen burn books for the “good of humanity”. But while other dystopias may not be as overtly concerned with censorship or historical revisionism, almost all of them control information, often hiding it from the public. The title character in The Giver is one of the only people to know the history of their society. In Uglies, characters don’t know the negative consequences of what happens when they are made into Pretties (and those negative consequences only increase the society’s ability to hide information).
  • Citizens/characters are dehumanized to some extent. In many dystopias, not only are freedoms taken away, but many of the elements of humanity are taken away as well. In The Giver, the citizens have lost the ability to experience pleasure or pain. In Brave New World, citizens are encouraged to take drugs to pacify and distract them. In The Hunger Games, teens are forced to kill. In We, citizens wear identical clothes and have numbers instead of names, losing much of their personal identity.
  • Conformity. Individuality and dissension are bad/immoral/illegal. In all of these societies, the state/government acts with totalitarian control. While some citizens may ostensibly have more freedom than others, none can freely oppose the philosophies of the regime. The government will act swiftly to ensure that one bad apple doesn’t rule the entire barrel, either through “re-education” (as in 1984),  imprisonment, execution, or something similar (characters in We get lobotomized for speaking out).
  • There is the illusion of a perfect world. The ultimate goal of the society, through all of the above elements, is to create a world that is peaceful/stable/equal/etc. And in most dystopias, there is a large portion of the population who believes that the society has succeeded, that this is a utopia. One of my very favorite elements in Matched is that, unlike many dystopians, even until we get to the last few chapters (of the first book) the main character really doesn’t see the society as evil and wrong. It’s the only world she’s known, and though she may be discovering disturbing truths, it takes a long time for her to even conceive of the idea that the society as a whole might be bad (rather than have a few isolated problems). Even in The Hunger Games, which starts from an outsider’s (Katniss’s) perspective, we can see that the people in The Capitol view their society as idyllic–they don’t even recognize how horrible the games are.

Again, not all of these need to be present to have a dystopia, but these are all very common and important to the genre. (Going back to definitions, I think using these elements as a guidepost, rather than the vague “bad place” definition, will be much more useful if you’re thinking of writing a dystopia.)

You know what isn’t an illusion of a perfect world, but the REAL THING? My Kindle giveaway. Go enter. I promise that entering this contest does not automatically commit you to being a citizen in my totalitarian society. Pinky swear. (Click here for more info.)

Writing

Dystopia Blog Series, Day Two: The History of Dystopia

4 Comments 24 May 2011

At the recent Storymakers conference, I taught a class on Writing Dystopia. This week I’ll be turning that class into a series of blogs:

Monday: Defining Dystopia
Tuesday: History of Dystopia
Wednesday: Elements of Dystopia
Thursday: Elements of the Dystopian Hero
Friday: Social Commentary in Dystopian Fiction

Yesterday we talked a little about the definition of dystopia, and today we’re going to talk about where dystopian fiction came from.

Before dystopia, we had utopia. Although the term comes from Thomas More’s book, Utopia, and is translated in that context as “no place”, utopian fiction had been around long before he put his name on it–all the way back to The Garden of Eden (and other paradise legends). Essentially, utopian fiction is stories of places where life and society are significantly better than the real world.

It was Plato who took it a step further, purposely creating a hypothetical society that ran according to his philosophical ideals. This concept is reflected in both Plato’s Republic, and his Timaeus and Criteas (both about Atlantis). I’ve read all three of these–The Republic for school, and the Atlantis books for a writing project that didn’t go anywhere–and let me tell you: DELIGHTFUL.

The problem with reading utopian fiction, from a modern perspective, is that it lacks one crucial element to good (modern) storytelling: conflict. These books–even More’s Utopia–are essentially academic. They present a theoretical world as a social commentary.

It’s not surprising then that dystopia is a reaction to utopia. In the 1500s and 1600s, utopian stories were the hot trend, and most followed a simple formula: a traveler gets lost, finds an unknown civilization and learns how they live, and then the traveler comes back home to tell everyone about great it was. It was in about 1605 when Joseph Hall wrote Mundus Alter Et Idem, the first dystopia, which used the same formula but with very different results: the traveler visited the lands of Crapulia (gluttons), Viraginia (nags), Moronia (fools) and Lavernia (theives). The book was satire, pointing a finger both at utopian fiction but also at many of the current social conventions.

And really, that’s the whole point of both utopian and dystopian fiction. Utopian fiction looks at current social problems and imagines how they could be fixed. Dystopian fiction looks at current social problems (and social “successes”) and imagines how they could get horribly worse.

It’s worth noting that even in the modern era, dystopia continues to be a reaction to utopian ideals. Some cases are very specific: Brave New World, a classic of modern dystopia, was written almost as a parody of H.G. Wells’ utopian novel Men Like Gods. But really, almost all dystopian novels take an idea that many might consider new and innovative and great and show how it could go wrong. Take Ally Condie’s Matched, for instance: her society is based on technological advances in psychoanalysis and genetic testing, positing that science can understand us so well that it can make better choices (about who we marry, or what career we pursue) than we can. Ally takes that ostensibly positive idea and illuminates the dark consequences.

I’ve speculated a few times on the blog about where the current rise in dystopian fiction is coming from and, while I’m not ready to commit to a firm theory, if there’s one thing that’s been historically clear about dystopia: it’s a reactionary genre for a dissatisfied audience.

Did you notice I’m giving away a KINDLE!? And also $125 in Amazon gift cards!? With complete satisfaction like this, you’ll never want to write another dystopia! (Click here for more info.)

Media Consumption

Matched, by Ally Condie

5 Comments 07 June 2010

This book hasn’t actually come out yet–it’s not scheduled to hit the shelves until November, but Ally is a friend of mine and was gracious enough to lend me an ARC.  In other words, I got to read it before you did, neener neener neener.

The premise is, on its surface, very straight-forward: In a 1984-esque future society, where everyone is controlled and all choices (even who you marry) are made by the state, a seventeen-year-old girl falls in love with someone she isn’t supposed to.

Now I would guess that, having read that premise, you already have a thought as to whether or not you’ll like this book. Right there in one sentence it combines two particularly polarizing concepts: dystopia and love triangles.  I know many people who have a blanket dislike of dystopia (I think those people are nuts), and I know even more people who hate love triangles (I think those people are: me).  However, I would suggest that, regardless of your opinions of dystopian love triangles, you should give Matched a try. As Roger Ebert has declared, it’s not what a movie is about, but how it is about it. In other words, I’m personally tired of love triangles (having recently read Catching Fire, The Forest of Hands and Teeth, and The Dead-Tossed Waves), but I’ll never be tired of fantastic writing–and that’s what Matched is.

Matched paints a world in which all choice is restricted; every decision, from big things (like who you’ll marry and where you’ll live) to small things (like what food you’ll eat or what clothes you’ll wear or what you can learn) is decided by The Society. Unlike some less-well-written dystopian stories, however, there truly appears to be reasoning behind it all: every aspect of a person’s life is studied and measured and the decisions made by The Society truly seem to be the best life for that person. You’re placed in the job your best suited for, you marry the person who is the best match (both psychologically and genetically), and you will die a pleasant, pain-free death at the end of a long life, knowing that you contributed well to Society.

The specifics of the worldbuilding are subtle: we don’t see a lot of wild new technology or objects or anything else we might expect in a futuristic dystopian, but don’t let it fool you. The world is rich and detailed in far better ways than lists of high-tech cars and weapons and monsters. Instead, our sense of this world comes from the structure of the mundane and the perceptions of the characters. Just the description of the characters’ home life–how they sleep, how they wear clothes, how they throw things in the garbage!–is foreign and interesting by itself, and the completely natural way in which the characters understand and discuss these things makes it both realistic and unsettling.

One major complaint I’ve had with a lot of other dystopian (and fantasy and science fiction) is when the main characters seem to already have elements of a modern, Enlightenment-style sense of freedom and individual rights. I think this is a cop out in many ways, as those authors don’t truly need to show the state as a realistic entity–we see it from an outsider/free-thinker’s perspective, so they highlight the flaws in the society and, generally, the society is only ever seen as a villain.  What I find so refreshing about Matched is that we are so firmly ensconced in the world that even when chinks appear in The Society’s methods, the characters don’t immediately jump to the conclusion that The Society must be overthrown. After all, this is a book about a teenage girl, not a revolutionary philosopher.  In the words of Christof in The Truman Show, “We accept the reality of the world with which we are presented.”

All of that said, this is a book about realization, change, and, ultimately, choice.  But even here, these themes are not dealt with simply and obviously–we don’t see characters merely fighting for the right to decide who to love–but the themes are much deeper: do we really have choices at all? Does our very nature and genetics determine who we are and how we will act? (And, if The Society can perfectly analyze our nature and genetics, and make predictions of our behavior, are they wrong to do so?)

There is so much going on in this book, and I was delighted to find that none of it is there by chance. Little details–conversations and actions that seem like romantic fluff or setting flavor at first–wind their way together into a powerful, satisfying conclusion.

Dutton is betting a lot on this book–the back of the ARC listed a dozen impressive promotional plans–and I think they’ve got a winner. I loved it.

Coming Soon!

United States
October 18, 2011, HarperTeen

France
Fall 2012, J C Lattès – Editions du Masque

Germany
Fall 2012, Fischer Verlag GMBH

Norway
Summer/Fall 2012, CappelenDamm

Poland
Release Date TBA, Wydawnictwo Amber

Portugal
Fall 2012, Planeta Manuscrito

Spain
Summer 2012, Destino

Taiwan
Winter 2013, Sharp Point Press

Turkey
Fall/Winter 2012, Artemis Yayinlari

Rob's Tweets

© 2012 Robison Wells. Powered by Wordpress.

Daily Edition Theme by WooThemes - Premium Wordpress Themes