The word 'Dystopia' has become a landmark in the realm of teenage and young adult literature. It's arguably the most popular genre of books to the younger generation, with heartthrobs and young girls arguing over 'Gale and Peeta' or fluttering hearts over 'Tris and Four.' With so many modern dystopian novels taking the realm of young love and themes of rebellion and youthful innocence placed around teenage identity. In this case, we see a rising trend in the popularity of dystopian literature in the past couple of decades, and can trace the true fundamental reasons as to why they're so successful.
Dystopian novels are all over the place. In terms of subject matter there are dystopian novels that appeal to the heart, such as Atwood's 'Oryx and Crake' or Orwell's '1984,' there are dystopian novels that caused controversy beyond measure, such as MacDonald's 'The Turner Diaries' or Burgess's 'A Clockwork Orange,' there are dystopian novels that appeal to a scientific mind, like Crichton's 'State of Mind' or Huxely's 'Brave New World.' These novels reflect everything from romance and determination to racism to chaos theory.
Even still the system of dystopian identity has carried its way into the film world. With releases like 'Elysium' and 'Blade Runner,' there has been a surge of dystopian movies, especially in the early 80s, that reflect that same sense of stylization of a reflective society with some sort of negative implication. Because of there being so popular a realm of dystopian scenes, the surge of dystopian implication is only rising in the near future.
Dystopian novels reach into the human psyche of fear. There's a growing curiosity in the human mind that reflects the idea of what happens in the future.
According to the quantum theory of time and space, the physical systems of time (past, present, and future) are all happening at the same time, and we, being in the universe of the present, are unable to reach into the future to see it. Thus, the uncertainty principle exists for both the theory of quantum mechanics as well as the unpredictability of the future. Now, the American identity of freedom, liberty and equality lends itself towards a democratic state with not a large amount of change that could spark a dystopian society, and some of the ones mentioned above (primarily Turner Diaries, Brave New World, Handmaid's Tale) all seem relatively far-fetched in terms of their likelihood.
Nevertheless, the human condition of being curious as to what the 'future holds' is the foundation for what is represented in the realm of dystopian literature. Therefore, because we don't know for certain what's going to happen in the future, there's no feasible way for us to have any sort of ideological background to emphasize the understanding of what's most likely to happen. Thus, we can't say that 'Handmaid's Tale' is a guarantee because we have no complex understanding of either gender roles or their evolutionary development into the future of American society.
Now, some things are feasible in that sense. Much of the situations revolving around Orwell's '1984' are reflected with things like the PATRIOT Act and the creation and enforcement of the NSA, and speak volumes about the predicted world only 75 years prior. There are some dystopian novels that make sense: 'Life as We Knew It' revolves around a meteor crashing into the moon, which is a very catastrophic event that takes away the survivability of life on Earth. As well, it reflects the mannerism of uncontrollable devastation, because there is no way for us to reroute the path of the asteroid. Thus, the book, while personally not my favorite, reflects almost the most likely scenario that some sort of dystopian piece of fiction could take in the near future.
Now, there are other novels that take a more radical approach with a similar sense of likelihood. One of these is Crichton's 'State of Fear,' which reflects a global-warming group planning to commit acts of terrorism. Now, I believe in global warming, and I've addressed this numerous times in previous blogs. But the story in 'Fear' takes the more radical approach to describe the violent upheavals of social situations where the radical nature of certain groups becomes far more than people are able to understand. It's similar to groups like 'Al-Qaeda,' who commit the acts they do based upon social principles which they feel have been violated. As a result, the 'State of Fear,' whether religious or environmental, nonetheless exists and is a prevalent point of the dystopian scenario.
Is it possible that there can be a dystopian society within the next 20 years? No. Not with the mass institution of democratic ideologies that represent the concepts of open liberty and expression. But this also doesn't mean that that situation is completely impossible. There is always the chance that one political party could screw up so badly that the radical nature of the other side could come to power, and one country could end up with an institution similar to the Island States of the universe of '1984.' Or, there could be a radical right wing who wants to reinstitute the clauses and expressions of the Christian faith, and the Red, White and Blue of America becomes the gender-divided Atwood story of 'Handmaid's Tale.' I would go so far as to say that there could be a high-speed asteroid that collides with the Earth and wipes out all of humanity in a matter of months. While frightening and terrifying, the nature of the world, much like the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics, we simply just don't know.
And there's no way for us to find out anytime soon.
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Thursday, May 14, 2015
'The Road' and 'Mad Max'
'The Road' is a twisted vision of a strikingly near future. In Cormac McCarthy's epic, a young boy and his father wander a cross a scorched America, burned almost to the ground. There's a brooding greyness and sense of depression rampant across the novel,. which strikes a blistering mood of climactic anxiety and growing stimulations of just sheer anger and sadness. It's not a happy story by any means, and represents a story of survival and retribution by the father and son to survive regardless of the situation that arises.
In honor of one of my favorite film series coming back to modern cinema, the interesting comparison one can draw between the dystopia of 'Road' and the oil-barren dystopia of the 'Mad Max' franchise. While one is much more action-packed and action-y than the other, both stories at the roots of their conceptualization rely on concepts of retribution, survival and endurance.
'The Road' fathoms the dark sense of agony, depression and sadness by showing the father surviving alone with his only son, after his wife has given up on any chance of survival and killed herself. Thus, the story revolves heavily around the concept of retribution, as the father is taking any means necessary to protect his son. Hence, when there grows a sense of tension and danger with strangers running across America trying to find scraps of life and cannibalistic survival, it becomes all about the survival of the child.
While 'Mad Max' is not a heart-touching story of a father's journey across the country with his son, it nevertheless represents the same sort of survival identity. Max, when his wife and child are murdered by a group of savages in a dystopia hell-bent on stealing propane for their own personal use, there grows a heavy spirit of retribution and vengeance that forces Max to cross the rest of the burned nation to terminate those that have caused his suffering.
Interestingly, between the two stories there are similar ties of doing whatever is possible to ensure their survival. With Max, you have the parallel that the further and deeper he goes into hunting the people who hurt him so badly, he becomes equally as evil and cruel as the men he hunts. It's a philosophical issue that derives the concept of vengeance and survival, where Max is so angered with the loss of both his wife and his child that the sheer concept of hunting their killers alone is enough to drive him to the brink of insanity.
'The Road' is a different entity but revolves around the same concept of survival. For the father, the wife was the one constant he had when she was pregnant and was his way of ensuring his optimism promoting his survival. When she's gone, all of a sudden the only outlet that the father can carry is the son, and the whole story begins to revolve around ensuring that the boy can get to safety, protecting him from the evils and dangers of the surrounding world.
On paper the two stories don't share any sort of necessary similarity. But when a deeper analysis of the story is conducted, they both reflect similar concepts of total retribution and anger towards some sort of unstoppable force bearing the darkness inside of two individuals. While one focuses on the story of a mad man and the other about a father and son, they regardless reflect the symbolism of survival in very similar ways.
In honor of one of my favorite film series coming back to modern cinema, the interesting comparison one can draw between the dystopia of 'Road' and the oil-barren dystopia of the 'Mad Max' franchise. While one is much more action-packed and action-y than the other, both stories at the roots of their conceptualization rely on concepts of retribution, survival and endurance.
'The Road' fathoms the dark sense of agony, depression and sadness by showing the father surviving alone with his only son, after his wife has given up on any chance of survival and killed herself. Thus, the story revolves heavily around the concept of retribution, as the father is taking any means necessary to protect his son. Hence, when there grows a sense of tension and danger with strangers running across America trying to find scraps of life and cannibalistic survival, it becomes all about the survival of the child.
While 'Mad Max' is not a heart-touching story of a father's journey across the country with his son, it nevertheless represents the same sort of survival identity. Max, when his wife and child are murdered by a group of savages in a dystopia hell-bent on stealing propane for their own personal use, there grows a heavy spirit of retribution and vengeance that forces Max to cross the rest of the burned nation to terminate those that have caused his suffering.
Interestingly, between the two stories there are similar ties of doing whatever is possible to ensure their survival. With Max, you have the parallel that the further and deeper he goes into hunting the people who hurt him so badly, he becomes equally as evil and cruel as the men he hunts. It's a philosophical issue that derives the concept of vengeance and survival, where Max is so angered with the loss of both his wife and his child that the sheer concept of hunting their killers alone is enough to drive him to the brink of insanity.
'The Road' is a different entity but revolves around the same concept of survival. For the father, the wife was the one constant he had when she was pregnant and was his way of ensuring his optimism promoting his survival. When she's gone, all of a sudden the only outlet that the father can carry is the son, and the whole story begins to revolve around ensuring that the boy can get to safety, protecting him from the evils and dangers of the surrounding world.
On paper the two stories don't share any sort of necessary similarity. But when a deeper analysis of the story is conducted, they both reflect similar concepts of total retribution and anger towards some sort of unstoppable force bearing the darkness inside of two individuals. While one focuses on the story of a mad man and the other about a father and son, they regardless reflect the symbolism of survival in very similar ways.
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
'Handmaid's Tale' and Theocracy
In Margaret Atwood's 'Handmaid's Tale,' the main character Offred lives in a government state where she has all full limitations placed on her social mobility. Within the theocratic state, women from all walks of life are stripped of their basic fundamental human rights, treated no better than servants or slaves. Recognizing the traditional stature of women in pre-modern society, the religious, eerily Christian, theocratic government follows the route of traditional institution and as a result demonstrates one of the key problems with theocracy.
Theocracy, or 'theological government,' is a stylization of government, like democracy or aristocracy, where the commanding force is religion. Unlike democracy, which praises the concept of open voting, public opinion and free market, a theocracy instead forces the dominance of a singular religion and concept in the face and throat of the people in the nation. Therefore, the similar expressions of multiple religions often found in government institutions such as democracy no longer play an effect.
As of right now, there is no major dictatorial theocratic authority in the world. There is too much open religious expression in the West for there to be a single religious takeover, and in terms of most Asian nations, there isn't a major expression of religious ideology that fundamentally takes control over the minds of multiple individuals.
The only theocratic republic on Earth as of now is Iran. The bodies of government are religious officials appointed by a single theocratic leader, and much of the policies of Iranian government reflect the beliefs and expressions of the Islam faith. As a result, much of the moral ethics of the Iranian institutions rely on the sole concept of the individual faith and expression of the Qur'an, the holy scripture of the Islamic religion, and serve as a testament to the guidelines of faith.
However, there has been a rapid decline in the power of the theocratic authority present in the Iranian state. Therefore, it demonstrates a sense of weakness within the confines of what a theocratic government stands for. Because the Iranian government cannot maintain a pure sense of totalitarian rule the way the Republic of Gilead can in 'Tale,' the weakness of theocracy bleeds through.
So why?
Theocracy requires total commitment to religious faith regardless of what the institution says. It means sacrificing all of your values and opinions to a single regulated faith, the way much of the population had in 'Tale.' It's simply impossible to completely convince the entire population of a single nation to believe all of the same things, especially in the eyes of a divine being not everyone is able to agree on.
While the Republic of Gilead seems to be a real example of a theocratic state that fundamentally works, in actuality the 'Eyes' still exist, and the concept of the theocratic underground is still and active part of the state. As a result, the government cannot completely control the faith of every individual with respect to their fundamental ethics and morals; as a result the government does not have a true sense of expression and represents the truest flaws prevalent in a theocratic government.
So the consensus?
Theocracy, in it's truest form, like communism, is impossible.
Theocracy, or 'theological government,' is a stylization of government, like democracy or aristocracy, where the commanding force is religion. Unlike democracy, which praises the concept of open voting, public opinion and free market, a theocracy instead forces the dominance of a singular religion and concept in the face and throat of the people in the nation. Therefore, the similar expressions of multiple religions often found in government institutions such as democracy no longer play an effect.
As of right now, there is no major dictatorial theocratic authority in the world. There is too much open religious expression in the West for there to be a single religious takeover, and in terms of most Asian nations, there isn't a major expression of religious ideology that fundamentally takes control over the minds of multiple individuals.
The only theocratic republic on Earth as of now is Iran. The bodies of government are religious officials appointed by a single theocratic leader, and much of the policies of Iranian government reflect the beliefs and expressions of the Islam faith. As a result, much of the moral ethics of the Iranian institutions rely on the sole concept of the individual faith and expression of the Qur'an, the holy scripture of the Islamic religion, and serve as a testament to the guidelines of faith.
However, there has been a rapid decline in the power of the theocratic authority present in the Iranian state. Therefore, it demonstrates a sense of weakness within the confines of what a theocratic government stands for. Because the Iranian government cannot maintain a pure sense of totalitarian rule the way the Republic of Gilead can in 'Tale,' the weakness of theocracy bleeds through.
So why?
Theocracy requires total commitment to religious faith regardless of what the institution says. It means sacrificing all of your values and opinions to a single regulated faith, the way much of the population had in 'Tale.' It's simply impossible to completely convince the entire population of a single nation to believe all of the same things, especially in the eyes of a divine being not everyone is able to agree on.
While the Republic of Gilead seems to be a real example of a theocratic state that fundamentally works, in actuality the 'Eyes' still exist, and the concept of the theocratic underground is still and active part of the state. As a result, the government cannot completely control the faith of every individual with respect to their fundamental ethics and morals; as a result the government does not have a true sense of expression and represents the truest flaws prevalent in a theocratic government.
So the consensus?
Theocracy, in it's truest form, like communism, is impossible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)