Dystopia Land discussion
General and Chat
>
Dystopian versus Pessimistic Utopian
date
newest »
newest »
I have a 1959 German edition of 1984 and the subtitle reads "A utopian novel". See my tweet from the other day: https://mobile.twitter.com/MiasBeck/s...
Mod
Matt, do you think Orwell didn't see a difference between a 'good' utopia or a 'bad' utopia, or do you think labeling '1984' as a utopian novel was tongue-in-cheek?Ellie, the 'History' part of that link was fascinating. But it makes it sound like the term 'dystopia' was around when Orwell wrote his books and was a term he would have known about. Very odd that he didn't use it if that was the case.
Interesting! I don't know the answer, but I'm curious as to what insights others may have.
I think the label "utopia" for "1984" was a mistake made by the German publisher. I don't think Orwell had anything to do with it (apart from the fact that Orwell was dead for 9 years when this edition was published).Perhaps a "bad" utopia is a utopia that has gone wrong. Someone, like a government, *really* wants to build a utopian society for its people. But it doesn't work out, in the sense of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", or maybe an accident no one is to blame for caused the problems. This is, of course, different from a dystopian world, intentionally brought on by a gov (like in '1984', or your THETA TIMELINE). Does this make sense?
So the difference between dystopia and pessimistic utopia would be the intention behind the society in the story? I think it could be interesting to use this to categorize dystopian stories.
Hákon wrote: "So the difference between dystopia and pessimistic utopia would be the intention behind the society in the story?"Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to say.
I didn't read BRAVE NEW WORLD yet, so I don't know if this definition would apply.
I think the difference is much like "six to one and half a dozen to another". They mean the same thing. I liken it to insulting someone either bluntly (you are stupid) or cleverly (you sir are not one of the intellectually gifted). They mean the same thing, but get there by a different route. Remember a utopia is literally an ideal place. Dystopia means bad or hard place in its Greek base word. A Pessimistic utopia is not ideal, thus, it may be a bad place. I tend to look at this way and the quote as saying it may have started out as an ideal, but didn't end up that way. The society is flourishing, but it doesn't mean it is good either.
Papaphilly wrote: "I think the difference is much like "six to one and half a dozen to another". They mean the same thing. I liken it to insulting someone either bluntly (you are stupid) or cleverly (you sir are no..."Exactly and perfect example!
Hákon wrote: "So the difference between dystopia and pessimistic utopia would be the intention behind the society in the story? I think it could be interesting to use this to categorize dystopian stories."Exactly. But that still leaves the question of what the other category would be called. If a 'pesseimistic utopia' is one where the intent was good but the world turned out bad, what would it be called when the intent was never for the outcome to be good?
Matt wrote: "I didn't read BRAVE NEW WORLD..."It's a perfect example of what Orwell is talking about. Maybe the best example I can think of of a dystopian world that is the result of a misguided utopian ideal.
Papaphilly wrote: "I think the difference is much like "six to one and half a dozen to another". They mean the same thing. I liken it to insulting someone either bluntly (you are stupid) or cleverly (you sir are no..."I agree with what you're saying and it makes sense. But it still creates a second category that he hasn't named. Using your example:
stupid by birth versus stupid by choice
=
pessimistic utopian (utopian gone awry) versus dystopian all along (still unnamed by Orwell's standards).
I think this is being over thought. It is dystopian. Utopia gone awry is dystopia. My point is that is calling dystopia by another name. I think most people think dystopian is the most horrible way to go, but it is not. Dystopia is an idea that it is not right. It can be a place that flourishes. Brave New World looked at a society that was doing well by all accounts, except everything was predetermined from before birth. Dystopia is what we define it as compared to how we see the world.
But the real question remains : did Orwell distinguish between the two definitions or were/are they synonyms? Personally, I feel there's a slight difference between a pessimistic utopia and a dystopia, but I'm not Orwell;-).
Talitha wrote: "[...] Personally, I feel there's a slight difference between a pessimistic utopia and a dystopia, but I'm not Orwell..."So do I (see #6 above), and, neither am I :)
But I propose "unoptimistic utopia" instead of "pessimistic utopia", and "unutopia" for "dystopia". We really don't need that many different words, do we? ;-)
Talitha wrote: "But the real question remains : did Orwell distinguish between the two definitions or were/are they synonyms? Personally, I feel there's a slight difference between a pessimistic utopia and a dysto..."Exactly. The difference seems important to me because they are two different types of dystopian worlds.
And, even if the term 'dystopia' was around when Orwell wrote about 'pessimistic utopia', was it used for cases like this? If not, was 'pessimistic utopian' the go-to term for what we refer to today as dystopian?
I don't know if we can get answers, but the questions are interesting to me.
Mod
Well, yes, but I think it's only a surface difference.
In a pessimistic utopia basically everything is satisfactory -- everyone is happy and content -- and yet some essential component of humanity is missing. In the case of Brave New World, it's freedom of choice. Everyone has a nice life, but it's programmed from birth, and people are basically kept sedated by soma and the feelies. Things are not obviously bad, in fact they seem quite pleasant.
But "pleasant" isn't what real life is about. Real life is about ups and downs, about passion. Brave New World has no passion.
Neither does 1984, of course, but that world is clearly dystopian since so much is forcibly suppressed and everyone is misled, lied to, about what's going on, probably for the advantage of a small few. People are unhappy, all the time.
So I'd say that the difference between a pessimistic utopia and a dystopia is just in the trappings. How happy people are with their chains, how pretty the surrounding climate is.
Matt wrote: "Talitha wrote: "[...] Personally, I feel there's a slight difference between a pessimistic utopia and a dystopia, but I'm not Orwell..."So do I (see #6 above), and, neither am I :)
But I propose..."
You would do just fine in Orwell's world, creating all kinds of combi words for Newspeak :p.
An excellent article here!! One of my favourite genre's!! So much to wonder about..http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016...
"The key question, of course, is whether one’s response to that call leads to killing or to compassion."
Brave New World might be a dystopia from one perspective and a utopia from another. I personally consider Brave New World as a "another form" of utopia.Why must utopia look the same for everyone? My utopia which consists of a world with chocolate growing from the land, ice cream rivers and abundant cake flakes need not necessarily coincide with anyone else's.
In a similar vein, Brave New World gives a glimpse of a world where people are happy at the expense of individuality. A world like ours (real world) where we value individuality over collectivism might not see it quite favourably but that does not make it a dystopia.
If we ever meet a complex alien life form in the universe, we should not be surprised if they have a society like the one described in Brave New World.
Writing about a utopian society does that mean it is perfect, perfect for the majority, or just nice for the majority. 1984 would be utopian for the leadership, the big-brothers, just like a dictatorship is pretty good for the dictator and direct supporters.Here and now, if there was no disease, starvation or conflict would that be utopian? If we gave up our individual freedom for that would that be dystopian?
claire wrote: "An excellent article here!! One of my favourite genre's!! So much to wonder about..http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016......"
Great article, Claire! Thanks for posting it.
claire wrote: "An excellent article here!! One of my favourite genre's!! So much to wonder about..http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016...
..."
Lots to consider for real life as well as fiction.
I meant to add 'The Circle' by David Eggars to the list here too..!
Consider also the possibility that what is Utopia for one segment of society is disastrous - dystopian - for others. That's the way it emerges in my own novel. Ah, those lovely shades of gray...
We are getting wrapped around the axle on definitions. Utopia is an imaginary place where everything is perfect. That is the definition. Imaginary and perfect. The place does not exist except in the mind. Anything that is not perfect is not Utopian by definition. Pessimistic utopia is not Utopia. It is something else but it is not Utopia.
Dystopia Land
Books mentioned in this topic
Brave New World (other topics)The Road to Wigan Pier (other topics)
Brave New World (other topics)
It got me to thinking:
- Was Orwell distinguishing between dystopian and what he calls pessimistic utopian, or had the term 'dystopian' not caught on yet?
- If he was intentionally distinguishing between 1) a world that was supposed to be utopian but became the reverse (Brave New World) and 2) a world that was never intended to be utopian and ended up being an unhappy future (1984), what was his term for the equivalent of what we today refer to as 'dystopian'?