|
Boatswain posted:Why even use the term dystopia? Depicting systems of class and gender doesn't make your novel dystopic.
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 07:33 |
|
|
There's a case to be made that if a dystopia is the negative equivalent of a utopia, the 'outopia' part of it should still hold true. That is to say, a key characteristic is that it's about a place that doesn't exist as it is portrayed. In that sense, not nearly all works critical of society are dystopian.
Lex Neville fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Feb 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 19:19
|
|
|
I always thought dystopian actually stood for an imagined society with a veneer of perfection secretly propped up by existentially horrifying decisions like in Brave New World. We just became intellectually lazy and labeled anything future and bad as dystopic
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I always thought dystopian actually stood for an imagined society with a veneer of perfection secretly propped up by existentially horrifying decisions like in Brave New World. Spoiler alert all futures are bad A.k.a "you best start believing in dystopias, Missy: you're in one"
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
gorbonic posted:Let us know if Mansfield Park portrays a good place for people like Fanny Price, who has extremely limited tools to survive. Or maybe our assumptions should be that back then (1) the systems of class and gender that Austen depicted were not human-made garbage piles that chewed up women, and (2) Austen was kewl with everything and thought it would just be fun to write some light rom-coms for the O book club. It's not just totalitarian SF that counts as dystopian. As other's have argued futurity is an essential part of dystopia. Dystopic fiction offers us a warning and Austen's an etiology? I'm not saying Austen is bad, calling her fiction dystopic is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
Boatswain posted:As other's have argued futurity is an essential part of dystopia. Dystopic fiction offers us a warning and Austen's an etiology? I'm not saying Austen is bad, calling her fiction dystopic is. Alright, I'm trying to pull these thoughts together. From Mel Mudkiper: dystopia has "a veneer of perfection secretly propped up by existentially horrifying decisions." Basically, I think that means the inhabitants of the fictional bad place are cool with it and it's ideologically stable, more or less. I like that idea. From Lex Neville: a dystopian world is a satirical fiction (again, that's how I read you). That sounds good to me, too, as long as it's clear that the satire is about our world, a la Margaret Atwood. But then Boatswain's rule that all dystopias are set in the future doesn't fit (and sounds kind of arbitrary) unless we take a more philosophical approach and argue that any counterfactual (read: fiction) has futurity. (Dystopian steampunk? Dystopian historical fiction? Why not!) Along those same lines, I'm not sure what's helpful about distinguishing between fiction that warns us about stuff and fiction that paints a picture of a crappy world. Presumably, a fictional portrayal of a broken system has some implicit warning in it? So now I'm just more convinced that Jane Austen fits the bill.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 00:22
|
|
|
It's really great to bicker pedantically over whether something fits the definition of a word while ignoring that word's typical connotations and the entire history of its usage. e: Which is why Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, a novel whose conflict stems partly from unjust societal expectations, is a dystopian novel, because dystopias are societies that are bad, from the Greek δυσ- and Eugene V. Dubstep fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Mar 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 00:27
|
|
|
gorbonic: Catch-22 is a sentimental novel, because it made me feel things
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 00:34
|
|
|
gorbonic posted:Let us know if Mansfield Park portrays a good place for people like Fanny Price, who has extremely limited tools to survive. Or maybe our assumptions should be that back then (1) the systems of class and gender that Austen depicted were not human-made garbage piles that chewed up women, and (2) Austen was kewl with everything and thought it would just be fun to write some light rom-coms for the O book club. It's not just totalitarian SF that counts as dystopian. this is a really stupid post just fyi
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 00:37
|
|
|
My favourite dystopian author is Emile Zola
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 00:39
|
|
|
Jane Austen is dystopian because reading her is like a boot stomping on a human face forever
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 00:45
|
|
|
gorbonic posted:Alright, I'm trying to pull these thoughts together. What defines a dystopia is a little less clear than what defines a utopia because, obviously, it's a derivative of the latter. What defines a utopia first and foremost can be found in the root of the word; it's both a 'eutopia' (= a good place) and an 'outopia' (= a place that doesn't exist) - there are several other traditional characteristics, such as history ending in a true utopia as a result of change becoming obsolete, but that's not always applicable and not really relevant. A dystopia in the sense of a negative utopia, which is how they're most often seen, would still have to remain true to that latter characteristic. Many words, but yes, satire would work as a description - albeit lacking, imo, for reasons I won't get into now - but it definitely doesn't have to be set in the future. There are many reasons why the narrative world cannot exist; it can take place in the future, the past, a fictional place, a real country in contemporary times but in which our laws of physics aren't at play, etc. As for your example categories, the first Bioshock videogame is often mentioned as being the former, and there's many that fit the latter category. So no, Pride and Prejudice isn't a dystopian novel, because dystopias by definition take place in a world that does not exist as we know it. They don't just features societies that are bad, that's just social criticism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 01:15
|
|
|
when you think about it *coughs* when *coughs* when you think about its like, society is the real dystopia
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 01:24
|
|
|
the best dystopian novel is the kjv
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 06:14
|
|
|
gorbonic posted:Presumably, a fictional portrayal of a broken system has some implicit warning in it? So now I'm just more convinced that Jane Austen fits the bill. This is a good point. My attempt at a definition was too coarse. I still think that it is wrong to call Austen a dystopian writer, and that doing so devalues the term as well as her fiction. Are all books that depict a political system either dystopian or utopian? I don't think so but you seem to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 06:53
|
|
|
if u (the reader) r looking for a dystopian novel, might i recommend checking out ur own post history
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 06:56
|
|
|
There are 3 types of novel: dystopian and those that can't
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 06:59
|
|
|
gorbonic posted:Presumably, a fictional portrayal of a broken system has some implicit warning in it? So now I'm just more convinced that Jane Austen fits the bill. the exception to this is Ayn Rand, where everything bad is how she wants it to be IRL. but she was a terrible human being and a horribly awful writer, so maybe not the best example here
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 09:56
|
|
|
ulvir posted:the exception to this is Ayn Rand, where everything bad is how she wants it to be IRL. but she was a terrible human being and a horribly awful writer, so maybe not the best example here Atlas Shrugged describes how the socialists manage to corrupt the US and how John Galt and a few other libertarian savants save the union by staging a strike of the capitalists. It would qualify as a dystopia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 16:51
|
|
|
Boatswain posted:
Yeah, I'd agree with that statement. Especially because Austen novels almost definitionally have happy endings: they (all?) end in weddings. Ultimately for Austen, while society has very real problems, those problems are solvable, at least capable of being addressed; reconciliation is achievable; at the end, most everyone gets what they deserve. Men and women have their issues but ultimately happy marriage is possible. Her world isn't one of *topia at all; it's not a pollyanish utopia because the world is not perfect, but it isn't a dystopia because the world is perfectable, or at least improvable: at the end of each novel the world is a better place than it was at the start, and reliably so. Even modern YA "dystopias" don't really have happy endings in the sense of an Austen novel: even something like Hunger Games ends with the protagonist in a relatively unhappy marriage and scarred by PTSD, and the world is still broken and awful at the end, it's just relatively less awful than it was at the start. Blade Runner doesn't end with a happy marriage, it ends with "It's too bad she won't live, but then again, who does?" -- i.e., the world is a horrible broken place inherently, and the best the protagonists can do is snatch a moment of happiness. There is no "happily ever after" in a dystopia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
Boatswain posted:Atlas Shrugged describes how the socialists manage to corrupt the US and how John Galt and a few other libertarian savants save the union by staging a strike of the capitalists. It would qualify as a dystopia. Is this ironic or just dumb
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Is this ironic or just dumb Neither.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
I like that idea of "It doesn't matter when the author was born, but the reader" I might throw that statement at my students next week as a thought exercise since we're trying to talk about canon and the appalling whiteness of it all
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 00:47
|
|
|
There's no such thing as a reader
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 00:55
|
|
|
Carlosologist posted:I like that idea of "It doesn't matter when the author was born, but the reader" I might throw that statement at my students next week as a thought exercise since we're trying to talk about canon and the appalling whiteness of it all Cheers
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 02:36
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Cheers yeah, fantastic thing that I've always thought but was never sure how to phrase. and you did it in a concise statement!
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 02:59
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/969406163669327872
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 05:35
|
|
|
Bukowski is a woke Rupi Kaur
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 05:39
|
|
|
Carlosologist posted:yeah, fantastic thing that I've always thought but was never sure how to phrase. and you did it in a concise statement! have you read/studied Gadamer? he speaks of a work's Wirkungsgeschichte (the effectual history of a text) which i think could be a good addition to the lecture/discussion
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 10:20
|
|
|
ulvir posted:have you read/studied Gadamer? he speaks of a work's Wirkungsgeschichte (the effectual history of a text) which i think could be a good addition to the lecture/discussion I have not. Do you mind pointing me in the direction of an essay/text of his? I'd love to expand my knowledge, especially since i'm doing a short thing on epistemology and this sounds like it would fit nicely into the discussion
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 15:46
|
|
|
I'm not Bukowski's biggest fan, but come on. quote:if he wants Eugene V. Dubstep fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Mar 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 15:50
|
|
|
Carlosologist posted:yeah, fantastic thing that I've always thought but was never sure how to phrase. and you did it in a concise statement! Yeah, one of my big frustrations, which I have butted heads with people in this thread about, is the idea that we should treat literature as a historical document. This especially seems to be the way a lot of students in high school are told to approach a work of fiction from the past. We are expected to learn about the author, learn about the time period, and then connect the dots of the text with what we have been told to think about the author's era or personality. We are supposed to judge the book on the author's terms. It seems like a way of rendering the text dead. I feel its much better to consider literature a living document that you can interact with as a contemporary reader. You shouldn't be reading Dickens from the assumption of Dickens' time, you should be reading Dickens as a person in your own time and body.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 15:50
|
|
|
a capable reader should have a number of tools available for approaching a text and it is crucial that historicism be central among them, albeit not the only one
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
chernobyl kinsman posted:a capable reader should have a number of tools available for approaching a text and it is crucial that historicism be central among them, albeit not the only one Why? Why does the text as history have to be a "crucial" reading other than the fact that its routine at this point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
Carlosologist posted:I have not. Do you mind pointing me in the direction of an essay/text of his? I'd love to expand my knowledge, especially since i'm doing a short thing on epistemology and this sounds like it would fit nicely into the discussion I’ve mainly read a Norwegian translation of Truth and Method (his main work), but I think any good introductory book of hermeneutics would be a good starting point. Again, I have primarily read Norwegian books, but after looking around this seems to be recommended https://www.amazon.com/Hermeneutics-An-Introduction-Interpretive-Theory/dp/0802866573/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=1TY92D01SAEPR7JCG0B2 edit: I recommend starting with secondary sources before taking on Truth and Method on its own. ulvir fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Mar 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 16:27
|
|
|
because works of literature are not extratemporal documents which speak timelessly to all peoples but contextualized products of very specific historical and cultural circumstances & making no effort to engage with or appreciate that fact gives you a weird, distorted, abortive view of the work
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 16:29
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Yeah, one of my big frustrations, which I have butted heads with people in this thread about, is the idea that we should treat literature as a historical document. . . . We are supposed to judge the book on the author's terms. It seems like a way of rendering the text dead. Mel Mudkiper posted:Why? Why does the text as history have to be a "crucial" reading other than the fact that its routine at this point. I get where you're coming from Mel but I'm really wary of "Should"s in reading. There's value in both approaches. If you try to read Chaucer, Austen, or (to a lesser extent) Shakespeare without putting in some effort to understand the time and place and society they're writing in and for, you're leaving a lot of value on the table. Like, you literally need to learn a [slightly] different language to read Chaucer properly, and ideally you want to learn how to speak that other language because without understanding the differences between modern and Middle English diction you'll miss half the poetry. In an example I've used before, if you don't put in the time with Austen to learn things like the differences between a gig, a phaeton, a curricle, a barouche, and a landau, you'll miss three-quarters of her jokes. For a lot of older authors, trying to read them without putting in some degree of work to understand the contemporary milieu in which they were produced is roughly equivalent to trying to read an untranslated work in a language you don't speak. You might get something out of it -- maybe you'll be able to deduce a few meanings from common roots, or get a sense of the sound, or something -- but it's quite likely to be a giant waste of your time. I think this is the root cause of a lot of people getting turned off from literature in school. They're told they "need" to read various "great authors" but nobody gives them any help understanding the context, so it's just a waste of their time and everyone else's, and they come away thinking that literature is dumb because nobody gave them enough context to understand why it isn't. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Mar 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 16:32
|
|
|
ulvir posted:have you read/studied Gadamer? he speaks of a work's Wirkungsgeschichte (the effectual history of a text) which i think could be a good addition to the lecture/discussion there's a very short rundown of his idea here, which is where I first came across it (in the context of NT studies). Kermode also touches on this in, iirc, chapters 1 and 2 of his Genesis of Secrecy
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 16:32
|
|
|
chernobyl kinsman posted:because works of literature are not extratemporal documents which speak timelessly to all peoples but contextualized products of very specific historical and cultural circumstances & making no effort to engage with or appreciate that fact gives you a weird, distorted, abortive view of the work It seems as if you are asserting there are a limited number of "correct" readings of a work which is a premise I find difficult to accept
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 07:33 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I get where you're coming from Mel but I'm really wary of "Should"s in reading. Well yeah but you are partially making an argument of syntax not an argument of context. We're not talking about the physical realities of actually reading the text, but the interaction of the reader to a text that they can presumably understand. As for missing things because of not understanding gig vs phaeton, for example, my initial response is "who cares?" The idea you have to train yourself to appreciate a work of art or else you are not interacting with it correctly seems like a sort of cultural gate-keeping
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 16:36
|
|