Skip to main content

How to Live in a Dystopian Fiction

Albert Robida

A curious feature of most dystopian fiction is that it begins in medias res.  It’s a stylistic convention of the genre, and it applies to most dystopian lit that comes to mind, from Nineteen Eighty-Four to Brave New World to Never Let Me Go.  As pure narrative strategy, it makes sense.  After all, novels in general must hook a reader quickly, and there are few things hookier than unfolding disaster.  Emily St. John Mandel’s Station Eleven, for example, begins with twenty utterly gripping pages of the first hours of a superplague wiping out Toronto (and the world).  There is something compelling about this type of introduction—it carves narrative down to a brutal logic in which the only two options are survival or death.

The TV adaptation of Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, which will wrap up its second season in July, is the most recent popular example of this phenomenon. The viewer is dropped, from the first episode, into the fresh hell of Gilead, alongside Elizabeth’s Moss’s Offred.  We are given the broad strokes of how Gilead came to power (ecological disaster, plummeting birthrates, a coup in Congress), but only the occasional flashback to “normal life” before the coup, when the show’s world much resembled ours.  The first season was released in April, 2017, and Offred’s disoriented struggle felt topical, consonant with an American body politic waking up to the reality of the Trump era.  My wife and I watched it, as I know so many people did, with rapt, grim fascination. It showed our worst fears about the new government dramatized.

As time—and the show—has gone on, however, I found myself increasingly drawn to the scanty scenes of America before Gilead, the tender, doomed moments of Offred’s previous life.  The glimpses of that hazy, vanishing world are the most painful, and perhaps the most resonant with our own unfolding dystopia.  Because this is what all dystopias—fictional and real—specialize in:  erasure of what came before.

*

Too often, I think, we want our fictional dystopias to protect us against the real thing..  As Alyssa Rosenberg says in this Washington Post article, “Dystopian fiction—and any fiction, really—shouldn’t be judged by the extent to which it serves as a bulwark against actual, radical changes to American society. It is enough to ask that a story be entertaining and well-executed, and that its characters be rich and memorable.”

But while asking a piece of entertainment to be more than entertaining may be asking too much, baked into most dystopian narratives is an implicit claim to edification. After all, dystopias, like utopias, succeed or fail based on how convincingly and relevantly they correspond to the real world. Both words share the root topos, place in Greek, and purport to tell us about the possibilities of our own place through fictional exaggeration.  It therefore seems reasonable to expect that they might tell us not only about the mess we’re in, but how we got into it, and how to escape.

*

This instinct was shared by the droves of people who bought George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four during the 2016 election, increasing its sales by 9500 percent and sending a book published in 1949 to the top Amazon’s bestseller list.  These readers turned to a fictional account of life under a brutal mendocracy, not only because it was politically relevant, but presumably because they were looking for something—answers, of a sort; context, at least.

They may have been disappointed.  Nineteen Eighty-Four, for all its terrifying prescience, features the same basic structural lacuna as The Handmaid’s Tale—the world before Oceania.  We begin in the midst of things, following Winston Smith through his dire days in Airstrip One and at the Ministry of Truth.  And yet, as with Gilead, despite the Party’s ubiquity, we are never given too much information about how they came to power.  A nuclear conflict in the fifties seems to have set the stage for the merging of the U.S. and Britain into Oceania, and its subsequent usurpation by Ingsoc.  But the book spends no significant time on life before the war.

The same is true of It Can’t Happen Here, another older-yet-newly-bestselling political dystopia namechecked heavily during the 2016 election due to the novel’s Trumpian thug, Buzz Windrip.  Like Trump, Windrip wins the presidency, but again, we aren’t privy to the historical context leading up to his win and ensuing reign of terror.  Likewise, Brazil, Oryx and Crake, The Hunger Games, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? all begin after the worst has already happened. The recent past is already a distant memory.  John Gardner describes good fiction as an unbroken, continuous dream; good dystopian fiction is an unbroken, continuous nightmare.

Like nightmares, dystopias have a certain hermetically sealed quality.  By their nature, they are inescapable—a dystopia you can escape from is not a dystopia, it is the third hour of Love, Actually.  The circumstances that create any brave, new world simultaneously cauterize its edges and destroy memories of the world before.  In Nineteen Eighty-Four, as near as Winston can recall, “He had first heard mention of Big Brother… at some time in the sixties, but it was impossible to be certain. In the Party histories, Big Brother figured as the leader and guardian of the Revolution since its very earliest days.  His exploits had been gradually pushed backwards in time until already they extended into the fabulous world of the forties and the thirties, when the capitalists in their strange cylindrical hats still rode through the streets of London… ”  To an extent, this is also how history works, as unlikely ephemera like Donald Trump fluke their way into awful existence and, in doing so, retroactively annihilate our former, lingering sense of other possibilities.  For instance:  remember when it seemed inevitable we’d have our first female president?  Remember when public racism resulted in an exile from public life?  Remember when we still had a functioning EPA?  Disasters are amnesiac in nature.

*

Dictatorships, real and fictional, use this psychological fact to their advantage. When a human being’s nervous system is in a state of constant bombardment, constant anxiety, they lose the ability to form narratives that link coherently with the past.  This trauma is not incidental to political aims—to destroy memory is an aim in and of itself. As in most dystopian fictions, the sudden brutality of the new order throws people into a visceral and panicky now, with only the very occasional reprieve allowing a fractured memory of then.

From a tyrant’s point of view, memory—both personal and cultural—must be wiped as cleanly and as quickly as possible.  If it is not, it remains possible for the populace to tell an ongoing story in which the present moment is an aberration, something to be written out in future revisions.  Both Mao and Stalin understood this — arbitrary, brutal violence or the threat thereof was useful not only for silencing dissenters and political opponents, but for birthing a new society, snipping the umbilical cord of memory from the old mother of national history.

Philip Roth’s The Plot Against America presents both a counterfactual in which Charles Lindbergh defeats Roosevelt in the 1940 presidential election, and  a counterexample of the typical dystopian structure.  The book not only begins with fifty pages prefatory to Charles Lindbergh’s inauguration, but it also takes its time with the aftermath.  The true locus of its dystopian dread is what Lindbergh’s presidency enables:  the normalization of American antisemitism.  The Roth family endures a series of mounting indignities in their Newark neighborhood, until the novel’s midpoint, when the father receives a letter informing him of the government’s plan to “homestead” urban Jews to the Midwest.  This is approximately the place where most dystopian fiction would begin, and it’s telling that a Jewish writer with living memory of the Holocaust would be so keenly interested in a fine-grained portrayal of existence during the liminal period, when everything has fundamentally changed yet life, with all its vital rituals and ceremonies, goes on much as it had before.  Life goes on, is one of the book’s central, implicit claims, one taken from the lessons of the Holocaust—life must go on and it must go on in connection with the past.

*

“History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake,” says Stephen Dedalus in Ulysses, in refutation to Mr. Deasy’s sense of history as a grand, inevitable unfolding.  Whether dystopian or utopian, the course of history—time itself—has a tyrannical aspect.  It moves in one direction, and what has happened is unchangeable.

The desire to “awake” from this onslaught—to maintain a consciousness of what was and what might have been, and an awareness of the present moment’s contingency and unlikeliness—is, I think, the psychological basis of this era’s progressive call to arms:  “This is not normal.”  Yes, the phrase aptly captures the craziness of Donald Trump and Trumpism, and in doing so asserts the need to resist.  But in a deeper sense, it implies that the best, maybe only, way of resisting dystopias, is to keep in mind that it was not always thus.  What has happened is an aberration, and the world worked a different way for a very long time.  Dystopias—fictional and real—are perhaps unavoidable, but not irreversible.  The cliché goes that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Maybe it would be truer simply to say that those who forget the past are doomed.

 

Adam O’Fallon Price is a writer and teacher living in Carrboro, North Carolina. His short fiction has appeared in The Paris Review, Vice, The Iowa Review, and many other places. His new novel, The Hotel Neversink, will be published in 2019 by Tin House Books.



from The Paris Review https://ift.tt/2Ktizfi

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Sphere

Photograph by Elena Saavedra Buckley. Once when I was about twelve I was walking down the dead-end road in Albuquerque where I grew up, around twilight with a friend. Far beyond the end of the road was a mountain range, and at that time of evening it flattened into a matte indigo wash, like a mural. While kicking down the asphalt we saw a small bright light appear at the top of the peaks, near where we knew radio towers to occasionally emit flashes of red. But this glare, blinding and colorless, grew at an alarming rate. It looked like a single floodlight and then a tight swarm beginning to leak over the edge of the summit. My friend and I became frightened, and as the light poured from the crest, our murmurs turned into screams. We stood there, clutching our heads, screaming. I knew this was the thing that was going to come and get me. It was finally going to show me the horrifying wiring that lay just behind the visible universe and that was inside of me too. And then, a couple se

The Rejection Plot

Print from Trouble , by Bruce Charlesworth, a portfolio which appeared in The Paris Review in the magazine’s Fall 1985 issue. Rejection may be universal, but as plots go, it’s second-rate—all buildup and no closure, an inherent letdown. Stories are usually defined by progress: the development of events toward their conclusions, characters toward their fates, questions toward understanding, themes toward fulfillment. But unlike marriage, murder, and war, rejection offers no obstacles to surmount, milestones to mark, rituals to observe. If a plot point is a shift in a state of affairs—the meeting of a long-lost twin, the fateful red stain on a handkerchief—rejection offers none; what was true before is true after. Nothing happens, no one is materially harmed, and the rejected party loses nothing but the cherished prospect of something they never had to begin with. If the romance plot sets up an enticing question—Will they or won’t they? — the rejection plot spoils everything upfront:

On the Distinctiveness of Writing in China

Yan Lianke at the Salon du Livre, 2010. Photograph by Georges Seguin, via Wikimedia Commons . Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 DEED . When I talk to non-Chinese readers like yourselves, I often find that you are interested in hearing about what distinguishes me as an author but also what distinguishes my country—and particularly details that go beyond what you see on the television, read about in newspapers, and hear about from tourists. I know that China’s international reputation is like that of a young upstart from the countryside who has money but lacks culture, education, and knowledge. Of course, in addition to money, this young upstart also has things like despotism and injustice, while lacking democracy and freedom. The result is like a wild man who is loaded with gold bullion but wears shabby clothing, behaves rudely, stinks of bad breath, and never plays by the rules. If an author must write under the oversight of this sort of individual, how should that author evaluate, discu