Recently, I read the 1968 science fiction novel Stand on Zanzibar which came highly recommended to me by several people. The novel is considered the masterpiece of pulp sci-fi writer John Brunner and one of the most important works of “New Wave Science Fiction.” It is also considered one of the greatest works of Dystopian fiction ever written, which made me wonder if it really qualified as such a work.
Stand on Zanzibar portrays a fictional world of, then future, 2010 dealing with overpopulation. Brunner predicted a number of things about the future that actually came true, including twenty-four hour news and domestic terrorism. There are a few things that are off, or are exaggerations of things we already have, and like a lot of science fiction Brunner fails to predict a lot of things that we do have and have changed our lives significantly. (e.g. cell phones and the internet.) It borrows techniques and structure from John Dos Passos “USA Trilogy”, and as a result creates a futuristic world that feels like it has its own culture, politics and history.
Here is the thing though, it neither seems to fit the dictionary definition of a dystopia, (“An imagined place or state in which everything is unpleasant or bad, typically a totalitarian or environmentally degraded one.”) nor the more academic definition, which is roughly a failed attempt at a Utopia.
Using the broader dictionary definition most science fiction novels set in a future society could be called a dystopian novel. A story needs to have some level of conflict, and many science fiction stories do this by putting their hero in a future environment that is outright hostile to them. Looking through any list of sci-fi novels, I would say that 8 out of 10 that take place in the future do not portray the future as pleasant, if not outright totalitarian.
Of course, the dystopian novel that embodies this broad definition that everybody knows is 1984. George Orwell was writing an allegory about the Soviet Union, and his book was not meant to portray a future, per se, but to give a detailed critique of a totalitarian state and the methods that would be used to manipulate the populace and keep them in line. At this, Orwell excelled, and that is why the novel is considered to be a classic, but there is also a way in which the novel “failed”, if one is to look at the more specific definition of what a dystopia is.
The totalitarian government of 1984 seems to just want to crush freedom for “the hell of it” and isn’t the result of trying to fix a problem at all. Orwell himself was a socialist, and so the issues of Capitalism and Marxism are not really addressed in the novel, but Orwell’s book in general warns about the manipulations of an oppressive state. Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 is similar to 1984 in this respect, though it concentrates on the aspect of burning books and stopping free thought by manipulating the populace.
The world that Stand on Zanzibar inhabits is not like this. Western society has become a merging of state and corporation, with imperialism still a common feature, but while the details are different, one of the things that makes Zanzibar such a relevant novel to read still is that it does not differ that much from the world that we currently live in. Brummer’s whole point was that this world was fucked up, but it doesn’t differ much from a current US where money is speech, and the government spies on its own citizens. The only totalitarian element that is explicit is the government’s authority to approve the giving birth of children.
So here is the real question, with the popularity of dystopia fiction being on the rise throughout most of this century, do we live in a dystopia now? That is an interesting question. We live in a world much closer to the one in Stand at Zanzibar than 1984 or Fahrenheit 451, but we can see very clearly that our world has moved closer to each of these speculative societies since the works were written and while I am still free to write a blog criticizing this society as much as I want, there is only the slightest chance anybody will listen. Hell, there is a character in Zanzibar named Chad C. Mulligan who is a celebrated iconoclastic author, and his work is taught in college and his whole point is despite all the money and fame he has earned his work hasn’t encouraged anybody to actively fight the system one iota.
This reminds me of one of the other great works of dystopian fiction, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Huxley portrayed a future where society is manipulated through drugs and media to become increasingly hedonistic. The vision the ruling government has is purely Utilitarian, but Huxley shows the dangers of having a society that is completely dominated by the seeking of mindless pleasure. While Orwell and Bradbury were afraid of censorship, Huxley portrays a world where there really is no need for censorship because nobody really cares about anything but their own hedonistic pleasures in the first place.
Huxley’s vision is closer to that more nuanced version of dystopia where the attempt at a utopia has gone horribly wrong. When I look at that book now I see Huxley predicted a certain mindset that would be created in the middle class during late stage capitalism. Even with everything collapsing around them these people cannot be moved to action because the constant stream of entertainment, social media and self-medication keeps them perpetually distracted. The seeking of pleasure has taken over beyond all reason. Still, its hard to imagine anybody looking at a world like the ones Huxley, Orwell and Bradbury create and see them as ideal. Sure, authoritarians might look at these books and see the methods that could help them accomplish their goals, but in all three of these novels it is unclear what the ruling class actually values and how their authoritarianism is rationalized.
When I read Stand on Zanzibar I found myself thinking of Kurt Vonnegut when reading the Chad C. Mulligan bits. Not that Brunner could have been inspired by Vonnegut, since his breakthrough work Slaughterhouse Five would not be published until a year later, nor is Mulligan much like Vonnegut in terms of personality, with Mulligan being a swaggering extrovert, the exact opposite of Vonnegut’s personality. What I was reminded of was how Vonnegut had spent so much of his work trying to change his audiences whole worldview and been rewarded with practically nothing.
Vonnegut’s first novel. Player Piano, shows the effects of the world under automation. This world is a meritocracy, and it allows people with scientific jobs to flourish while those who do not have that education can only choose the military of low paying civil service jobs. Vonnegut’s novel warns us about automation in the exact way that it is relevant right now, and we still have not steered clear of the danger with literal decades of warning. The reason is because for some people this “dystopia” where the smart hardworking techies are rewarded and everyone else gets screwed just seems fine and dandy.
Vonnegut would write this kind of dystopian story again. In his short work Welcome to the Monkey House, a compromise over overpopulation between the people who “know science” and the people who “know morals” results in the population being robbed of their sex drives through drugs. In Harrison Bergeron, Vonnegut created a parody of a straw man for equality, where everybody with any kind of talent is handicapped. The story is a very sharp and subtle satire of the American mindset of the time, but goes over most people’s heads and it is largely seen as an endorsement of the very thing that it is mocking.
Perhaps the reason that Vonnegut abandoned this “dystopian” satire was because it was largely ineffective. His later books would steer clear of the sub-genre in order to make his points in different ways, but by the end of his life he was disheartened and thought that his work, while having made him a lot of money and made his name well known, had largely been a failure at changing the world.
Another example of a writer who uses this genre is Margaret Atwood. Atwood began a dissertation at Harvard University about dystopian fiction but ended up abandoning it. Parts of it can be read in her book In Other Worlds: Sci-Fi and the Human Imagination and it probably almost certainly inspired her most famous novel The Handmaid‘s Tale, which has already been adapted into both a movie and television series. Her dystopia is a result of a fertility crisis and as a result women who are fertile become “handmaids” and are forced to carry children for wealthy and powerful men. Once again, this is, while not an attempt at a utopia, a world that might seem great to men who benefit from it.
There has been an overlap between “feminist science fiction” and dystopia fiction since the beginning. The 1884 novel Flatland, by mathematician Edwin Abbott, uses a society based on geometric shapes, where men are higher status based on their number of sides and women are only single lines, to satirize both the class structure of 19th century England and sexism. A favorite example, Suzette Haden Elgin published Native Tongue in 1984, a dystpoian novel about women in a male supremacist future who develop their own language to fight back against the male dominated society. Both of these novels are satires of what women faced at the times they were written, and historically, and both probably seemed like drivel to many sexist men.
Margaret Atwood has attempted this kind of dystopia on other subjects as well. Her MadAddam Trilogy warns about the misuse of science by corporations and environmental issues. Her more recent novel The Heart Goes Last deals with the idea of the financial collapse, private prisons and objectification of women through “sex robots.” These novels are warnings about where we are headed, and would fall under the label of dystopia, but the question still remains, are we already there?
During the 2016 presidential election many people pointed out the similarities between the issues we are facing now and Octavia Butler’s dystopian novels The Parable of the Sower and the Parable of the Talents. Many people even pointed out the similarities between a certain fictional president and Donald Trump. Once trump won this didn’t seem as funny anymore. Butler wrote these novels in the 90s when the economy was booming, so her vision of an economically collapsed US, with heavy racial tensions seems incredibly prophetic.