Speaking of which, I re-read Fahrenheit 451 a few years ago, and was amazed at how prescient some of the predictions of society were. Probably time to read it again…
Sometimes, you just want to see people that have it worse off than you do.
Plus, a lot of the times, the good guys win in the end, so you get some good feels at the end. More than in a “regular” movie when the good guys win.
I kind of like dystopian stuff, but NOT if it’s a downer the whole way through.
Good point there. Post-apocalypse chaos is not per se dystopia except insofar as the expectation has been created that an ordered lawful condition is the norm. IRL many oppressive societies have been quite ordered – too much rule of law, rather than none – and not necessarily causing a precarious subsistence mode in much of the population.
When the situation is clear that the social order is not just wrong but deliberately and systematically harmful, you could bring about the older term “cacotopia” (learned it from Anthony Burgess, who preferred it for describing works such as Nineteen Eighty-Four). Not just a “bad place” but an “evil place”. (And, yes, “utopia” really means etymologically “no place”, *not *“good place”, but hey, 4 centuries of literary license…)
Dystopian speculative fiction has the advantage that it allows you to remove yourself from the obvious “known bad things that already happened” and allows for introducing controlled conditions and nonevident risks and following specific what-if threads to their extremes. You can then consider things like “what can go wrong if we decide our goal is to make everyone feel happy with their life?” or “what are we willing to live with in order to have X?” and bring in an outsider view or a character that sees through the curtain, to get us thinking of what’s our answer.
This is also one of the standard psychological theories of the appeal of horror films, and I agree. It’s a way to work through your own fears in a relatively safe space.
The appeal of rollercoasters is somewhat similar.
That’s a very interesting distinction you’ve made, and I agree.
To me, the post-apocalyptic scenario is more frightening, because the question of survival vs death seems more more front and center. The dystopian scenario is less frightening, because I’m sure I could (physically) survive under most relatively stable (if highly unpleasant) social/political systems. On the other hand, the dystopian scenario can be more psychologically complex for me, as the focus becomes grappling with the moral/ethical compromises I might need to make in order to prosper and/or ensure my security.
In my view, the vast majority of end-of-the-world fictional scenarios are largely about the question, “What would you be willing to do to survive?” Also: “if you lose your humanity in order to survive, is it really worth it? Is it really ‘survival’ if we become like animals?”
It’s Uncle Fester
Interesting. I tend to think, for various reasons, that I’m one of the people who under such systems would either not survive, or be treated so terribly that survival might not be the better option.