SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Group Reads Discussions 2008
>
Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom - Recurring themes in the book
date
newest »
newest »
I thought the choice of Disney World as a setting made the story. It's something we can all relate to - it took it from being abstract and turned the concepts in the story into things I could really understand.
I can definitely relate to Disney World as a setting. I was having weird flashback daydreams/memories to my visit there as a kid. It was almost creepy. The concept of rebooting was upsetting and reminded me of cylon downloading in the re-imagined Battlestar Gallactica. Or the avarice of the 6th Day movie.
This Bitchun society turns my core values on it's head and at times sparked loathing within me or pity. When death isn't permanent, murder is demoted to an unenforced misdemeanor, like littering. Family and friends, people I could never survive without, cease to exist.
Given how many people deadheaded, it seems like once they were granted the gift of immortality, they didn't REALLY want it. The whole Bitchun society really made life pretty pointless. Without a time limit on our time here, without jobs, people basically lost all purpose. I mean, the whole book centered around a feud between fans of two theme part attractions. They became idle and bored and became immature hissy-fit throwers. As Lil's parents pointed out, people who grew up only knowing a Bitchun society lacked passion. The castmember talk that everyone used just illustrated the mindnumbingness of the world they lived in. Everything would always be okay, nothing would go wrong.
Having grown up with at least one trip to Disneyland each year, one thing that comes to my mind is the brass plaque you see just before you pass under the arches and enter Main Street U.S.A. It says, "Here you leave today and enter the world of yesterday, tomorrow and fantasy." To me, that pretty much sums up what this book is about. Outside the Magic Kingdom, life is long and pretty dull from all appearances. In the Magic Kingdom, people have purpose. But they also have a nostalgia for a glorified past.
Did anyone notice that Tomorrowland was never mentioned? I think there was a mention of looking at Space Mountain from one of the other parts of the park, but that was it. Does the Magic Kingdom have a Tomorrowland? I only went there for a few hours once. I'm basing my comments on Disneyland.
Wikipedia lists the following lands in the Magic Kingdom:* Main Street, U.S.A.
* Adventureland
* Frontierland
* Liberty Square
* Fantasyland
* Tomorrowland
* Mickey's Toontown Fair
As I was reading, I was wondering about their desire to keep things the same; in real life, changes have been made at the parks as time has gone on. Mr. Toad's Wild Ride and the 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea are two rides I can think of off the top of my head that I rode on when I was little that are no longer there, and I know that at Disneyland, tons of things that were there when it opened have come down for more modern rides. Just recently, they've edited the Pirates ride to include elements from the movies, and every September-January in Disneyland, they now transform the Haunted Mansion into a Nightmare Before Christmas ride. At what point did the ad hocs start wanting to freeze it in time? When the Bitchun society started?
Brooke, I know a lot of die-hard Disney fans get very upset when the rides get discontinued or changed. I still miss the Carousel of Progress and Mission to Mars. Maybe the Ad Hocs desire to keep everything the same stems from a nostalgia for a simpler time when people weren't online 24-7 and had a limited amount of time on this Earth. It seems that immortality isn't all it's cracked up to be.
When I first heard about the Nightmare Before Christmas revision to the Haunted Mansion, I was horrified until I discovered it was a seasonal thing. Even now I'm torn between really wanting to visit during that time of year so I can see it and just not wanting to sully the Mansion in my mind.I've been thinking about the being-online-24-7 thing a lot since finishing the book; it really, really bothers me because I can't stand people who already need to be through their iPhones and text messaging and Blackberries and whatnot. I'm only 25, so I'm not one of those stereotypical old fogies who doesn't like changing technology, but the idea of always being connected and reachable sends me into a panic (my younger sister already lectures me when she can't get ahold of me within 10 seconds of trying).
I've been on call, basically, for the firm I work for for over a decade. My 12th anniversary with that firm was last Friday! In that entire time, my first real "vacation" where I was voluntarily offline and unavailable was this past first week of July 2008!It was heaven!
I swear, if my firm decides to merge again in the next decade, I will voluntarily dead head myself! :)
My daughter and I text alot, mostly because I won't pickup my phone during a meeting at work. My son's is off in his own virtual video game world so is nearly impossible to contact. I usually call my daughter to find my son. :)
My husband, being six years my senior (he turns 50 this year), is by far the one that struggles the most with technology and protests my willingness to be available to my employer 24/7.
I guess I'm an odd one - I love change. I definitely like it when amusement parks update their rides and themes and shows. The only time I don't want to see something change is if it's archaeological in nature and should be preserved.
Do you think the ad-hocs feel that way? That they are custodians and stewards of an archaeological site?
Isn't the use of the Magic Kingdom a social commentary on the kind of society we're becoming --more superficial, more gimmicky, less genuine? Isn't the concept of change in a make-believe world a satire on our current world's confusion of what is "real" and valuable? You just have to look at TV's reality shows, the Dr. Phils and Judge Paulas, the need for people to spread their misery, meanness or willingness to be publicly humiliated for their half-hour of fame (anyone's ever seen How to Look Good Naked?) to realize we've become a world of make-believe, too and that we love to feed on the sensational more than ever.
I think that's why the book works, because we're living in that world in a way. So the question is, can this book be really called science fiction?
M.D., I do think this book is more social satire than science fiction. Then again, isn't the best science fiction usually a social commentary on where we are now?
I don't think Mr. Doctorow would have any problems with his books being seen as more contemporary fiction than sci-fi -- in fact, at least Someone Comes to Town, Someone leaves Town definitely isn't futuristic in the slightest. But there is definitely technology in Magic Kingdom (and Eastern Standard Tribe, which I've also just finished reading) that pushes things at least slightly into the future, and solidly centers it in sci-fi from my POV.
I do think it's pretty standard for sci-fi authors to use their setting / 'advancements' to make a commentary on the world we live in now -- from H.G. Wells and Jules Verne onward, and probably even before their novels.
D. J.,You're right, of course. Heinlein was a master of social commentary behind his stories. It's simply that, in this case, technology seems to be a prop (I'm not quite finished the book) rather than an integral part of the story.
In fact, maybe that was the gist of my comment: there is very little science, but much made up technology --some of which is probably possible today or has happened in some other form.
I can see your point, but again I feel like there's a longstanding history of that in science-fiction literature. If we're going to insist on scientific accuracy and relevance, then someone needs to start by sending George Lucas back to school. ;) The tech definitely is a prop in Doctorow's novel, and I don't think that opinion is going to change for you by the end of the book. But again, I'm not certain that differentiates it from a significant proportion of what we consider to be 'sci-fi' out there.
Though to be fair, I may be a bit biased, as I'm a 'sci-fi' author without much scientific grounding myself ... ;)
It seems to me that what you're pointing out, M.d., puts Doctorow's novel closer to cyberpunk than to hard sf, that's all. They're both under the big tent of sci fi.I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say it's a "prop" as opposed to an integral part of the story. Isn't the elimination of scarcity through this mysterious "free energy" an important factor in the social changes we see? Isn't virtual immortality through backups and cloning central to the way society is in the novel?
Incidentally, these things aren't, of course, anywhere close to real science: both are probably impossible. Part of their interest, though, as I see it, is the way they extrapolate trends in modern society. Though it may not quite feel like it with fuel and food prices soaring, we have been and still are living in the most plentiful time in history--scarcity hasn't been eliminated, but it's sure been beaten back from the door a bit. We don't live forever, but our lifespans have sure been expanded remarkably. For that matter, we don't deal in whuffie yet, but the regard of those around us has always been important and here in the 21st century, the hunt is on for the proverbial 5 minutes of fame, however we can get it. Entertainers of all sorts--actors, musicians, athletes--already depend heavily on popularity, however it's measured, to make their living, whether it's through the next record deal or film role, or through product endorsements.
>>>>I still miss the Carousel of Progress and Mission to Mars.They're gone? Crap. I loved those rides.... (It's been 20+ years since I've been there, though.)
Mark.
>>>>My husband, being six years my senior (he turns 50 this year), is by far the one that struggles the most with technology and protests my willingness to be available to my employer 24/7.I'm almost 53 and I love technology. I have wireless broadband Internet at home (so I can work out by the pool) and I work from home three days a week. Between email and instant messaging with coworkers, I hardly ever use the phone. (I guess Skype is next for that.) Satellite TV, high-def TV, Blu-Ray DVD, I love that stuff....
Mark.
And what's even more ironic about my 50-ish husband - he plays electric guitar (he's a metal head) but he hates any of his foot pedals that are digital and don't have knobs! If he can't dial the setting, he won't use it! :)
Jon,I'm a guitar player too, and I can relate to your husband. There is something quite visceral about twisting a knob and changing the sound of your instrument. Personally, I like digital effects, but I'll always have soft spot for the analog stuff. Plus the digital stuff seems to wear out much quicker. I've had some of my old analog pedals for 15 years.
I think digital stuff is designed to wear out sooner. I'm finding that a digital camera is not only outdated in a year, but after 3 years or so the pictures aren't as good anymore. So, you're buying a new camera every 2-4 years. Back in the days of film, you'd get 10 years or more out of a camera.
John,If you're saying that Whuffie is the central theme of the story and a satire on our current society, then I completely agree. In a way, this is why I said the rest of the technology (which isn't really science) is a prop. One only has to watch the Olympics to see how important the popularity and the standing of an athlete are... translating into funding.
Sandi: Sure, the digital cameras wear out sooner, but they're using plastic now instead of steel. It's light and the cameras are $100-$300 instead of $500-$1,000. And think of how much you're saving a year on film!What I find ridiculous is that you can buy a low-end color inkjet printer on sale for less than the cost of a replacement ink cartridge. It's actually cheaper to throw away the printer when the ink runs out and buy another printer than it is to replace the cartridge!
It's getting that way with laser printers, too. Last Christmas, I bought a Brother laser printer for $99. It came with a limited-use toner cartridge (up to 1,000 pages only). When the toner ran out, I found that the cost of a replacement cartridge was $125. I'm debating whether to buy a cartridge or wait until another printer goes on sale for under $100....
Mark.
Printer manufacturers make all of their money on toner/ink, not on the hardware itself. It's really quite a racket.
M.D., thanks for clarifying the props comment in your last post. Now we don't have to debate whether the science in every SF story has to be completely plausible.
I would argue that free energy and reincarnation are more important to this book than whuffie. (Even if it is delightful with strawberries.) But that's because I think the book is as much about what our values would look like in the absence of scarcity than it is about the internet age. I haven't seen Wall-E, but I've heard that it comes to a different conclusion. The absence of scarcity is hardly a new theme to science fiction [see works like The City and the Stars], but I'd say that Doctorow's proposal is more realistic and less pessimistic than most.
I would argue that free energy and reincarnation are more important to this book than whuffie. (Even if it is delightful with strawberries.) But that's because I think the book is as much about what our values would look like in the absence of scarcity than it is about the internet age. I haven't seen Wall-E, but I've heard that it comes to a different conclusion. The absence of scarcity is hardly a new theme to science fiction [see works like The City and the Stars], but I'd say that Doctorow's proposal is more realistic and less pessimistic than most.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Rick has already started the discussion with the concept of the Whuffie as a replacement for money --a kind of brownie points system that either elevates or downgrades your social standing-- but there are two major themes in the book it might be interesting to discuss: the first, the amusement park as a stand-in for "real" life and eternity or longevity (in a Lazarus Long sort of way).
How do these two themes work for you? Does the choice of Disney World as a setting make the story or does it make it just weird? How about the fact that anyone can reboot themselves as many times as they can but that everything around them changes?