Megan Thomason's Blog - Posts Tagged "controversy"
The Controversy of Dystopias
I’ve had a couple excellent critical reviews of my YA dystopian novel daynight recently that make me chuckle, and more importantly think about the controversies caused by dystopian novels (not just mine). Every time I see someone rant about The Hunger Games promoting violence, I think "Really? That was your takeaway?" But every reader will interpret a piece of writing differently, and the fact is that every opinion is valid.
More than a few readers think that daynight should be renamed Cleaving or Hormones. I love the fact that the book is causing such controversy, and will say that a) it was fully intended, and b) I’m not apologetic for it in the slightest :). Sorry if that offends anyone, but it's the nature of writing a dystopia. Any well written dystopia will, by nature, be controversial.
I’ll have to admit that I’m a dystopia purist. The very best thing about dystopias is that the author will dial a certain element to its most extreme to see how those subject to the dystopia will react. The extreme could be lack of food or resources, or zero individuality or personal choice. I would hope that no one would be fully comfortable with such extremes. The bigger questions are whether the reactions presented are realistic to the extreme presented and how the extreme parallels our current society.
Note that I’m going to borrow heavily from a guest post I did on my recent blog tour on “dystopias”, but will extensively elaborate on the dystopia used in daynight: Reader Girls. I was originally asked: What draws you to the dystopian genre and what are some of your favorite books (in this genre)?
Dystopian governments-the real star?
The dystopia category is pretty broad these days. By definition a dystopian world must have extremely bad living conditions due to deprivation, oppression, or terror. I personally prefer dystopias that explore interesting societal and moral dilemmas to catastrophic conditions/survival stories (though, if the entertainment value is high, I’ll still read the latter).
The very best dystopias, in my opinion, have a well formed government enforcing extremes. I’m fascinated by these entities, and in particular:
- What events drove them to shift the way they governed? In The Hunger Games the government instituted the games to punish and remind the districts of their former rebellion (and failure to succeed).
- What results are they looking to achieve? In 1984, the desired result was control over every action and thought. In Brave New World the government desired peaceful coexistence and happiness for its citizens.
- What methods do the governments use to achieve the desired result? The capitol in Hunger Games uses the games to terrorize its citizens into subservience, and tightly controls resources by segregating districts and limiting what each could produce. In 1984 the Inner Party uses surveillance (telescreens, microphones everywhere), controls information (in fact, rewriting history to support claims in the ultimate form of censorship), and all citizens are indoctrinated to be whistle-blowers on those committing “thought crimes” (any thought contrary to the government. In Brave New World, the government breeds and then conditions (through their sleep) citizens to be in (and only desire to be in) a certain caste, to be sexually promiscuous, hate solitude, and to down the drug “soma” if any contrary thought occurs.
Character development in the dystopia
Equally interesting is how the characters in the novel react to the dystopian government. Do they acquiesce? Do they rebel and in what ways? Outwardly? Inwardly? Each well done dystopia will have characters that question the status quo and their actions will cause us to reflect upon our own, and how we would react in a similar situation. Katniss in The Hunger Games defies authority by bringing out a handful of berries and in essence, depriving the Capitol of a winner—and ultimately, forcing her desired outcome on them. Winston and Julia in 1984 both commit thought crimes and engage in an illicit affair, but are outed by an informant and tortured into both subservience to Big Brother and ratting out each other. John (the Savage) in Brave New World is so disgusted when he caves to societal immorality that he takes extreme measures to escape.
daynight’s dystopia and the controversy of “Cleaving”
The Second Chance Institute reigns supreme on Thera, the main setting for daynight. The SCI is an interesting entity, being in the business of providing second chances. But instead of nurturing and fostering the downtrodden, they use the Second Chancers as science experiments for new political ideas they want to push on Earth. Book one explores one idea they are testing-Cleaving (in Garden City, Thera). Cleaving is an extreme enforcement of morality. In Garden City, anyone who reaches the age of 18 (without having previously Cleaved), will be “Cleaved” for life. “Cleaving” refers to a lifetime union between two people that cannot be broken. The Cleaving is consummated by having sex. Thus, if two people have sex prior to 18 they are automatically Cleaved for life. Violation of Cleaving results in exile or death.
This contrasts Brave New World’s approach, where the government conditions people to be immoral. Although, interestingly enough… as the SCI desires everyone to be Cleaved, they push immorality to get people to Cleave, but then expect the newly Cleaved to adopt a strict moral code thereafter.
The main characters in daynight are thrust into an environment where they are surrounded by almost 18-year olds. These almost eighteens are bombarded with reminders that if they don’t pick their Cleave, that the government will pick for them. So, Cleaving is top of mind for these kids. They either choose for themselves (that’s a lot of pressure at that age to pick a lifetime mate) or have the government choose for them (equally, if not more scary). This also brings out some rather reprehensible behavior it in some of the guys, who want to “sample the waters” so to speak, so that they can choose “the best” Cleave for them. Many readers have mistaken all the Cleaving discussion for pushing sex. On the contrary, it is all about who you end up with for life. Yes, there are two ways to achieve a Cleaving (have sex and end up Cleaved; or be Cleaved by the government and forced to have sex immediately to consummate), but Cleaving in and of itself, is not equivalent to sex. Obviously, had the main characters been living amongst adults it would be as if they were around a bunch of normal married people (with the exception that any violation of the marriage would result in death or Exile… there definitely is no divorce or adultery allowed in Garden City).
Seventeen year old, SCI Recruit Kira Donovan thinks that all the “Cleaving talk” is ridiculous. At one point her friends are chanting “Cleave, Cleave, Cleave” and she thinks quote-unquote:
Find some friends for the singular thought in your brain, people. I know their eighteenth birthdays are all staring at them in the face and the prospect of a lifetime with one person is huge, but honestly, I’m done with the Cleaving talk. Even if they are referring to the “lifetime commitment” instead of the “consummation” it still makes them sound like a bunch of freaking sex-starved robots.
The question is, given the dystopian concept of Cleaving, are these teens a bunch of “hormonal” nightmares or are they reacting as they would? In Brave New World “everyone belongs to everyone.” People are expected to have sex with anyone and everyone, and ostracized if they don’t. Those who have feelings for and want to pursue a relationship with “one person” are ridiculed. Author Aldous Huxley dialed the societal morality meter to “extreme” on the promiscuous front to shed light on our increasingly promiscuous society.
Extremes are extreme by nature and intended to shed very bright light on societal parallels and make the reader think, feel uncomfortable even. There might be a few people who’d like to live in Aldous Huxley’s world, but I think most people would be a little disgusted by the expectation of having “no choice” in the matter, especially if attraction is taken out of the equation. In the case of Cleaving in daynight, I wanted the reader to think about (note that the idea is to get people thinking… not to get everyone to come to the same conclusion):
- How would behavior change if the equivalent of Cleaving was introduced (if there were extreme consequences for commonplace actions)? What would the impact be on marriage and divorce rates?
- All actions have consequences. On Thera, if two people have sex, they are Cleaved for life. How is this different from making the same decision, getting pregnant, and being responsible for a child for life?
- How does the use of mind-altering substances affect judgment?
- How prevalently is sex discussed amongst teens today? Is the level appropriate? If the phraseology were as obvious as Cleaving, would it seem as ridiculous as it does in daynight?
- How does our current societal focus on sex (whether by action, books, pornography, music, TV, movies) affect our perceptions?
- Is there a cautionary tale here?
Did I have to pick "Cleaving" to focus on? No, nor will the follow-on books to daynight focus on Cleaving (The Second Chance Institute has many controversial agendas they are testing on Thera, and in the case of book 2, arbitrate bringing to Earth). Did I know it would be controversial? Yes, though perhaps not to the extent it has been. In my mind, Cleaving meant "irrevocable lifetime union". Because many readers equated Cleaving with sex, that obviously caused more issues than I intended. But, the general principles still apply. Extremes bring out the very worst in society and shed light on the "worst" happening in our own society.
Is the level of focus on "Cleaving" ridiculous or amount of talk about it over the top? Well, yes, but isn't that the point? (again, it is meant to be extreme, jarring, disturbing, unsettling & to piss people off)
Some of the other things that went through my mind that I intended readers to think about while reading daynight with regards to The Second Chance Institute and its dystopia were:
- Freedom of being able to do whatever we want vs. consequences of our choices
- When is it appropriate for the government to intervene in moral issues?
- How should the government enforce rules? What is acceptable/not acceptable for enforcement?
- When does “research” cross the line? Is it ever OK to have test groups, when subjects don’t know they are a part of the research? Does our government “use” certain segments of our population to press their agendas?
- Can altruistic purposes get so skewed they are no longer altruistic? The SCI claims to be giving people a second chance at life. Despite this being true and seemingly noble, is it ok if they are only do it to further their own agenda, and not to truly benefit the Second Chancers?
- Is there ever an appropriate time for a government to play Big Brother (as in 1984)? Does our government do this to us? Where’s the line between societal protection and personal violation?
Of course, Cleaving merely scratches the surface of what the SCI is up to, what they are testing & how far they are willing to go to push their agendas on Earth. The SCI’s actions and agendas in book two of the daynight series will have a lot of real world parallels-but will not focus on Cleaving.
In addition to the dystopia itself, daynight explores a lot of personal behavioral extremes intended to have readers think about what they would do if placed in a similar situation. As I wrote daynight, here are some of the things I thought about:
- At what point is it appropriate to forgive?
- If a person has no memory of an action, can you still hold them accountable?
- How would we personally react when in difficult circumstances or around people making bad decisions?
- Kira is extremely loyal. Loyalty is an admirable quality, but how does her loyalty affect her negatively?
- Is revenge ever appropriate?
- How does a child maintain respect for and obey their parents while still making their own choices? What if their parents expect them to do things inconsistent with their own moral compass?
- When should we toe the line versus make a stand?
- Are second chances truly a second chance if we can’t learn from our mistakes?
You can read a sample of daynight here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00A6NG014. (I always recommend reading a sample first to make sure you like the writing style and direction a book is headed. Not every book is for every reader. In the case of daynight the reader has to glean clues as they read along, much like the TV show "Lost", though not near as confusing... though I am the first to admit to having "lost" some readers along the way :). The vast majority of readers have liked the approach, but not everyone will and I respect that.)
What does the dystopia ultimately communicate?
This is where author intention and reader interpretation can vary immensely!
Suzanne Collins intended The Hunger Games to show how deplorable violence can be, yet if you go read the reviews of The Hunger Games a good chunk of the reader think that it promotes violence. There's also excellent enlightenment in The Hunger Games about food, fashion, class structure, governments not being black or white good or evil, and dozens of other topics (love it!).
Aldous Huxley intended Brave New World to show how disgustingly promiscuous our society was getting, yet many think it promotes promiscuity.
George Orwell shows not only the extremes of excessive government control and surveillance with 1984, but the dangers of mob mentality. Yet there are haters who think it promotes "pessimism" and "shock value".
The point is, that because the intention of a dystopia is to make people think, that vastly different interpretations should be expected and encouraged. While one person may think I am promoting "teen drama" and "sex" with daynight, another reviewer may "get" the intention of the dystopia (a cautionary tale). Foreword Reviews "got it" as I intended, but that doesn't mean it is the only appropriate interpretation:
"Thomason’s description of Thera’s totalitarianism will make fans of Brave New World shiver. The author is adept at creating situations in which the bravest thing the protagonists can do is acquiesce to preserve their sanity. Such situations paint courage in a new light by showing that going along with the enemy may be the most courageous thing one can do... SCI, her fantasy corporation, has disturbing parallels to actual companies and regimes that claim to do good while harming people."-Foreword Clarion Review
Dystopian novel recommendations
Any great dystopia will not only provide an entertaining story, but cause you to reflect. The Hunger Games (a personal favorite) has a full book of essays written on the underlying themes. Some other exceptional dystopias I recommend are Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, 1984 by George Orwell, The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood, Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, Wool by Hugh Howey, and The Giver by Lois Lowry.
Some contemporary dystopias with considerable merit are Divergent by Veronica Roth, The Maze Runner by James Daschner, The Ask and the Answer by Patrick Ness, The House of the Scorpion by Nancy Farmer, Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card, Legend by Marie Lu, Delirium by Lauren Olivier, and Under the Never Sky by Veronica Rossi.
I also did a guest post on “How to survive a dystopian society” which can be found at http://brookeblogs.com/?p=2023.
Comments always welcome!
More than a few readers think that daynight should be renamed Cleaving or Hormones. I love the fact that the book is causing such controversy, and will say that a) it was fully intended, and b) I’m not apologetic for it in the slightest :). Sorry if that offends anyone, but it's the nature of writing a dystopia. Any well written dystopia will, by nature, be controversial.
I’ll have to admit that I’m a dystopia purist. The very best thing about dystopias is that the author will dial a certain element to its most extreme to see how those subject to the dystopia will react. The extreme could be lack of food or resources, or zero individuality or personal choice. I would hope that no one would be fully comfortable with such extremes. The bigger questions are whether the reactions presented are realistic to the extreme presented and how the extreme parallels our current society.
Note that I’m going to borrow heavily from a guest post I did on my recent blog tour on “dystopias”, but will extensively elaborate on the dystopia used in daynight: Reader Girls. I was originally asked: What draws you to the dystopian genre and what are some of your favorite books (in this genre)?
Dystopian governments-the real star?
The dystopia category is pretty broad these days. By definition a dystopian world must have extremely bad living conditions due to deprivation, oppression, or terror. I personally prefer dystopias that explore interesting societal and moral dilemmas to catastrophic conditions/survival stories (though, if the entertainment value is high, I’ll still read the latter).
The very best dystopias, in my opinion, have a well formed government enforcing extremes. I’m fascinated by these entities, and in particular:
- What events drove them to shift the way they governed? In The Hunger Games the government instituted the games to punish and remind the districts of their former rebellion (and failure to succeed).
- What results are they looking to achieve? In 1984, the desired result was control over every action and thought. In Brave New World the government desired peaceful coexistence and happiness for its citizens.
- What methods do the governments use to achieve the desired result? The capitol in Hunger Games uses the games to terrorize its citizens into subservience, and tightly controls resources by segregating districts and limiting what each could produce. In 1984 the Inner Party uses surveillance (telescreens, microphones everywhere), controls information (in fact, rewriting history to support claims in the ultimate form of censorship), and all citizens are indoctrinated to be whistle-blowers on those committing “thought crimes” (any thought contrary to the government. In Brave New World, the government breeds and then conditions (through their sleep) citizens to be in (and only desire to be in) a certain caste, to be sexually promiscuous, hate solitude, and to down the drug “soma” if any contrary thought occurs.
Character development in the dystopia
Equally interesting is how the characters in the novel react to the dystopian government. Do they acquiesce? Do they rebel and in what ways? Outwardly? Inwardly? Each well done dystopia will have characters that question the status quo and their actions will cause us to reflect upon our own, and how we would react in a similar situation. Katniss in The Hunger Games defies authority by bringing out a handful of berries and in essence, depriving the Capitol of a winner—and ultimately, forcing her desired outcome on them. Winston and Julia in 1984 both commit thought crimes and engage in an illicit affair, but are outed by an informant and tortured into both subservience to Big Brother and ratting out each other. John (the Savage) in Brave New World is so disgusted when he caves to societal immorality that he takes extreme measures to escape.
daynight’s dystopia and the controversy of “Cleaving”
The Second Chance Institute reigns supreme on Thera, the main setting for daynight. The SCI is an interesting entity, being in the business of providing second chances. But instead of nurturing and fostering the downtrodden, they use the Second Chancers as science experiments for new political ideas they want to push on Earth. Book one explores one idea they are testing-Cleaving (in Garden City, Thera). Cleaving is an extreme enforcement of morality. In Garden City, anyone who reaches the age of 18 (without having previously Cleaved), will be “Cleaved” for life. “Cleaving” refers to a lifetime union between two people that cannot be broken. The Cleaving is consummated by having sex. Thus, if two people have sex prior to 18 they are automatically Cleaved for life. Violation of Cleaving results in exile or death.
This contrasts Brave New World’s approach, where the government conditions people to be immoral. Although, interestingly enough… as the SCI desires everyone to be Cleaved, they push immorality to get people to Cleave, but then expect the newly Cleaved to adopt a strict moral code thereafter.
The main characters in daynight are thrust into an environment where they are surrounded by almost 18-year olds. These almost eighteens are bombarded with reminders that if they don’t pick their Cleave, that the government will pick for them. So, Cleaving is top of mind for these kids. They either choose for themselves (that’s a lot of pressure at that age to pick a lifetime mate) or have the government choose for them (equally, if not more scary). This also brings out some rather reprehensible behavior it in some of the guys, who want to “sample the waters” so to speak, so that they can choose “the best” Cleave for them. Many readers have mistaken all the Cleaving discussion for pushing sex. On the contrary, it is all about who you end up with for life. Yes, there are two ways to achieve a Cleaving (have sex and end up Cleaved; or be Cleaved by the government and forced to have sex immediately to consummate), but Cleaving in and of itself, is not equivalent to sex. Obviously, had the main characters been living amongst adults it would be as if they were around a bunch of normal married people (with the exception that any violation of the marriage would result in death or Exile… there definitely is no divorce or adultery allowed in Garden City).
Seventeen year old, SCI Recruit Kira Donovan thinks that all the “Cleaving talk” is ridiculous. At one point her friends are chanting “Cleave, Cleave, Cleave” and she thinks quote-unquote:
Find some friends for the singular thought in your brain, people. I know their eighteenth birthdays are all staring at them in the face and the prospect of a lifetime with one person is huge, but honestly, I’m done with the Cleaving talk. Even if they are referring to the “lifetime commitment” instead of the “consummation” it still makes them sound like a bunch of freaking sex-starved robots.
The question is, given the dystopian concept of Cleaving, are these teens a bunch of “hormonal” nightmares or are they reacting as they would? In Brave New World “everyone belongs to everyone.” People are expected to have sex with anyone and everyone, and ostracized if they don’t. Those who have feelings for and want to pursue a relationship with “one person” are ridiculed. Author Aldous Huxley dialed the societal morality meter to “extreme” on the promiscuous front to shed light on our increasingly promiscuous society.
Extremes are extreme by nature and intended to shed very bright light on societal parallels and make the reader think, feel uncomfortable even. There might be a few people who’d like to live in Aldous Huxley’s world, but I think most people would be a little disgusted by the expectation of having “no choice” in the matter, especially if attraction is taken out of the equation. In the case of Cleaving in daynight, I wanted the reader to think about (note that the idea is to get people thinking… not to get everyone to come to the same conclusion):
- How would behavior change if the equivalent of Cleaving was introduced (if there were extreme consequences for commonplace actions)? What would the impact be on marriage and divorce rates?
- All actions have consequences. On Thera, if two people have sex, they are Cleaved for life. How is this different from making the same decision, getting pregnant, and being responsible for a child for life?
- How does the use of mind-altering substances affect judgment?
- How prevalently is sex discussed amongst teens today? Is the level appropriate? If the phraseology were as obvious as Cleaving, would it seem as ridiculous as it does in daynight?
- How does our current societal focus on sex (whether by action, books, pornography, music, TV, movies) affect our perceptions?
- Is there a cautionary tale here?
Did I have to pick "Cleaving" to focus on? No, nor will the follow-on books to daynight focus on Cleaving (The Second Chance Institute has many controversial agendas they are testing on Thera, and in the case of book 2, arbitrate bringing to Earth). Did I know it would be controversial? Yes, though perhaps not to the extent it has been. In my mind, Cleaving meant "irrevocable lifetime union". Because many readers equated Cleaving with sex, that obviously caused more issues than I intended. But, the general principles still apply. Extremes bring out the very worst in society and shed light on the "worst" happening in our own society.
Is the level of focus on "Cleaving" ridiculous or amount of talk about it over the top? Well, yes, but isn't that the point? (again, it is meant to be extreme, jarring, disturbing, unsettling & to piss people off)
Some of the other things that went through my mind that I intended readers to think about while reading daynight with regards to The Second Chance Institute and its dystopia were:
- Freedom of being able to do whatever we want vs. consequences of our choices
- When is it appropriate for the government to intervene in moral issues?
- How should the government enforce rules? What is acceptable/not acceptable for enforcement?
- When does “research” cross the line? Is it ever OK to have test groups, when subjects don’t know they are a part of the research? Does our government “use” certain segments of our population to press their agendas?
- Can altruistic purposes get so skewed they are no longer altruistic? The SCI claims to be giving people a second chance at life. Despite this being true and seemingly noble, is it ok if they are only do it to further their own agenda, and not to truly benefit the Second Chancers?
- Is there ever an appropriate time for a government to play Big Brother (as in 1984)? Does our government do this to us? Where’s the line between societal protection and personal violation?
Of course, Cleaving merely scratches the surface of what the SCI is up to, what they are testing & how far they are willing to go to push their agendas on Earth. The SCI’s actions and agendas in book two of the daynight series will have a lot of real world parallels-but will not focus on Cleaving.
In addition to the dystopia itself, daynight explores a lot of personal behavioral extremes intended to have readers think about what they would do if placed in a similar situation. As I wrote daynight, here are some of the things I thought about:
- At what point is it appropriate to forgive?
- If a person has no memory of an action, can you still hold them accountable?
- How would we personally react when in difficult circumstances or around people making bad decisions?
- Kira is extremely loyal. Loyalty is an admirable quality, but how does her loyalty affect her negatively?
- Is revenge ever appropriate?
- How does a child maintain respect for and obey their parents while still making their own choices? What if their parents expect them to do things inconsistent with their own moral compass?
- When should we toe the line versus make a stand?
- Are second chances truly a second chance if we can’t learn from our mistakes?
You can read a sample of daynight here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00A6NG014. (I always recommend reading a sample first to make sure you like the writing style and direction a book is headed. Not every book is for every reader. In the case of daynight the reader has to glean clues as they read along, much like the TV show "Lost", though not near as confusing... though I am the first to admit to having "lost" some readers along the way :). The vast majority of readers have liked the approach, but not everyone will and I respect that.)
What does the dystopia ultimately communicate?
This is where author intention and reader interpretation can vary immensely!
Suzanne Collins intended The Hunger Games to show how deplorable violence can be, yet if you go read the reviews of The Hunger Games a good chunk of the reader think that it promotes violence. There's also excellent enlightenment in The Hunger Games about food, fashion, class structure, governments not being black or white good or evil, and dozens of other topics (love it!).
Aldous Huxley intended Brave New World to show how disgustingly promiscuous our society was getting, yet many think it promotes promiscuity.
George Orwell shows not only the extremes of excessive government control and surveillance with 1984, but the dangers of mob mentality. Yet there are haters who think it promotes "pessimism" and "shock value".
The point is, that because the intention of a dystopia is to make people think, that vastly different interpretations should be expected and encouraged. While one person may think I am promoting "teen drama" and "sex" with daynight, another reviewer may "get" the intention of the dystopia (a cautionary tale). Foreword Reviews "got it" as I intended, but that doesn't mean it is the only appropriate interpretation:
"Thomason’s description of Thera’s totalitarianism will make fans of Brave New World shiver. The author is adept at creating situations in which the bravest thing the protagonists can do is acquiesce to preserve their sanity. Such situations paint courage in a new light by showing that going along with the enemy may be the most courageous thing one can do... SCI, her fantasy corporation, has disturbing parallels to actual companies and regimes that claim to do good while harming people."-Foreword Clarion Review
Dystopian novel recommendations
Any great dystopia will not only provide an entertaining story, but cause you to reflect. The Hunger Games (a personal favorite) has a full book of essays written on the underlying themes. Some other exceptional dystopias I recommend are Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, 1984 by George Orwell, The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood, Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, Wool by Hugh Howey, and The Giver by Lois Lowry.
Some contemporary dystopias with considerable merit are Divergent by Veronica Roth, The Maze Runner by James Daschner, The Ask and the Answer by Patrick Ness, The House of the Scorpion by Nancy Farmer, Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card, Legend by Marie Lu, Delirium by Lauren Olivier, and Under the Never Sky by Veronica Rossi.
I also did a guest post on “How to survive a dystopian society” which can be found at http://brookeblogs.com/?p=2023.
Comments always welcome!
