As a kid, I cut my teeth on dystopic fiction.

[conuly]

It's kinda remarkable how much of that there is for kids. (Add that to the Holocaust-lit I read, and it's a wonder I didn't grow up more strange than I am!)

I read straight-out dystopias, like "The Last Book in the Universe". I read fake-out utopias, like The Giver. I read post-apocalyptic fiction, like "The Girl Who Owned a City". (That was supposed to introduce Ayn Rand to kids. It fails miserably, which is probably why it's so readable.) I read the sort of post-apocalyptic fiction that's all hopeful and all, like Outside (which has the distinction of being pretty close to the first chapter book I ever read). And, of course, I read The Transall Saga, which is so far from the apocalypse that I'm not sure it qualifies as "post-apocalyptic". (And at the end of the book the main character is returned to his own time and makes it his life's work to avoid the future he was in, which is weird to me. It wasn't a bad future, several thousand years removed from our own time, and he does it in memory of the wife he had there... but if he succeeds in stopping that future she'll never exist, though I suppose it makes sense to avoid suffering now at the cost of people whose grandparents' grandparents haven't even been conceived yet.)

It's the fake-out utopias that tend to interest me the most. They can be subdivided in two categories, which probably vary a lot according to reader: The ones that are more like real life, and the ones that are less like real life.

In the first category we have... oh, This Perfect Day certainly qualifies to an extent, and a new one I read (for pre-teens, I should think), The Other Side of the Island (it's a good intro to the theme for kids in that age range, but it could've been more tightly written so the ending is clearer... or at least, clearly ambiguous. Ambiguous is good, but only if you know it's supposed to be that way, you know?). The Giver and Brave New World would be in the latter category. Basically, the first two feel creepily realistic, and the last two feel creepily incredibly different from anything I've ever lived. It's a matter of opinion, though.

The fake-out utopias are also really fond of controlling how people name their children. Either every kid is named from a book (The Giver) or they only have a few names to choose from (This Perfect Day) or - and this one is novel and makes some logistical sense - they're named in alphabetical order according to age group (The Other Side of the Island), but naming is a Big Deal. (There's probably a TV Trope entry on this.)

**************

But no, what interests me is the end of these books. The fake-out utopias (especially those written for kids) always seem to end on a high note - the main character gets away, or they free everybody from their gentle chains, hallelujah.

But I always wonder. IS it a happy note? The people in these bland, perfect worlds aren't very free, but they don't know it. They may not be very happy, but neither are they sad or scared or angry. And when the machine is broken and the drugs are gone and the elaborate social order is destroyed - do they like it? They know nothing else, they're usually generations in by this point. How do they live? What happens the first time they go hungry? The first time they get cold? The first time they feel truly, deeply angry, or lustful? Maybe just sad, or lazy, or bored? How do they cope?

We're made to think that this is a happy ending, and sure, it reinforces what we already believe, but is it happy? Maybe in several generations, but right now? Maybe the rebels like it, the idealists, the children who never could quite fit into their conformist world (there's always that emphasis on sameness. I'd love to see an equally dystopic one with an emphasis on a certain controlled amount of diversity), but what about the ones that fit perfectly and never wondered or cared to? There's a lot about freedom of choice, but only if they choose not to go back to that? Not that they could.

I always imagine that the END of the end is a bunch of hitherto repressed people turning on each other and showing to their children why, exactly, their ancestors chose to live in this dull and stable way in the first place. Which isn't inspiring or uplifting at all, and probably why we're not shown those scenes.

I wish we were, though. I wish authors thought through the consequences of their protagonists' actions. I'm not saying I want to live in any of those worlds (ye gods), but if I already did I would be careful before I smashed it. (Or so I think. Maybe I wouldn't if that were *really* the case.)

Oh, and Lois Lowry? When I was 11, I argued that Jonas wasn't *really* dead, that the sled he found was *real*. Even at 11, I was doing this because I was sentimental and because I was contrary. Keeping him literally alive for two more books was a cop-out and not cool at all. Even if you felt you had to do it, you could've done away with the sled and had it as a fever dream. That would've been less jolting and weird. I'm just saying.

Comments

[xianghua.livejournal.com]

I never could decide if Jonas was dead or not. (Wait, is he not? I've read Gathering Blue but not the third book- I'm assuming he shows up again?) I hated the ambiguity, though- either kill him off and let me be honestly sad about him, or give me a real place that things stop. (I hate this type of ending now, too, though. :P)

Have you read the book that City of Ember (I think it's the same title) was based on? I saw the movie and thought it was an interesting concept and have had the book on my 'to pick up' list for a while- apparently there is a sequel that deals with the points you've raised above.

It's amazing how end-of-the-world-depressing some kids books are and were. When i was in 4th grade, one of my favorite books was called something like "The Missing Persons' Society" (I can't remember the exact title) and it was in a dystopian future where the earth was in the middle of ecological collapsing in on itself- the world was going to run out of oxygen and everyone was going to die, it was well known but no one knew how long. People were randomly disappearing - the main character's mother and sister were among them- and no one really knew why, but because the government rationed things so closely, you pretended that your missing relatives weren't missing, just away somewhere so you could keep getting enough power and food to live on. There was something about a jewelry store and at the end it turned out that a secret group was taking Good Everyday People and hiding them from the government and putting them into suspended animatoin (or something like that) and it was a really cool book.

[conuly]

(Wait, is he not? I've read Gathering Blue but not the third book- I'm assuming he shows up again?)

He definitively shows up again, with his literal sled in the museum that holds all the things the various villagers used to get to the village. The third book is a complete waste of trees, with all sorts of badly done Christ-metaphors and anvillicious Aesops.

Have you read the book The City of Ember (I think it's the same title) was based on? I saw the movie and thought it was an interesting concept and have had the book on my 'to pick up' list for a while- apparently there is a sequel that deals with the points you've raised above.

I've read all four books - The City of Ember, The People of Sparks, The Prophet of Yonwood (a prequel, and kinda iffy on whether it's good or not), and The something-or-other of Darkholm. The People of Sparks is a good enough book (although to read it you have to believe that the town of Sparks routinely puts up three times as much food for the winter as they anticipate eating in a whole year), but I wouldn't qualify that in this group because I don't think that The City of Ember counts as a fake-out utopia. Nothing about it seems very utopic at all, and the city was going to grind to a halt with or without our heroes. Indeed, they definitely made things better in the short-term instead of dubiously doing so in the long-term only.

I never read that one you mention. Funny, I keep thinking I've managed to read them all (except that one by H. M. Hoover I never got to), but there's always a new one that turns up :)

[xianghua.livejournal.com]

Oops, I didn't mean it as a fake out utopia but as a dystopia - but it's interesting as a thematic compliment to The Giver because of some of the similarities (Assigning jobs/coming of age at 12, etc) and differences (TG is such a pleasant society on the face of it, whereas CoE is all falling apart and there's lots of corruption, but there's also a great deal of personal freedom (the kids SWAP jobs).

I love YA lit, but I hate trying to find new stuff to read in it. (I love, love,love when you post book reviews, and I wish you would post some reading lists. :P)

[conuly]

Thank you :)

I'd post reading lists, but the truth is that I will read just about anything. It's rare for me to come across a book and be like "Yo, this book SUCKS". And as I read fairly quickly... well.... A book an hour means that my standards are even lower, because I literally cannot afford to be picky! My reading lists largely consist of "Everything on this shelf, minus that one book".

[xianghua.livejournal.com]

Yeah, me too, which is the problem. :P At the same time though, when I'm BUYING my own books, I can't go quite that crazy, and my local library is pretty small.

List of "Ooh, I really liked that!" books? Pretty please?

[conuly]

It's 5am. Gimme a bit, maybe a few days :)

(Interlibrary loan? Used bookstores? Your money definitely goes further when buying used.

[xianghua.livejournal.com]

Definitely used bookstores. Our interlibrary loan is EXPENSIVE though. (It's cheaper to buy in the case of most fiction books!) :P Few days is fine - I've just been hoping for a while and keep meaning to ask and forgetting.

[(Anonymous)]

Okay, maybe you know a particular book then that I have never been able to find a second time.

What I remember most is the author's description of how she wrote the book: In her head she suddenly saw two boys who looked a lot like her sons, only they were bald. She followed them down a corridor in her head, and wrote what happened.

I think the boys do eventually get outdoors or above-ground or generally outside of whatever place they're living in.

The genre is post-apocalyptic, I can't remember if it was utopian, dystopian, or neither. Everyone tells me it's probably Andre Norton but when I actually read Andre Norton I can't find that book anywhere.

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

If no one here knows the book you mean, try this:

http://www.loganberrybooks.com

[conuly]

Try whatwasthatbook.

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

The best fake-out utopia we ever read was Zilpha Keatley Snyder's Green-sky trilogy, on which the Below the Root computer game is based. The third book deals with what the societies do after the big secret is discovered and she wanted to make it clear there were no easy answers.

Her only mistake was the insertion of a dangerous maguffin and what happens to the guy who takes it to Mount D-- uhhh, well, anyway, she actually wrote the game to let readers know what really happened. We've been reading her books since 1966 and she's always had a problem with how to end the stories.

[conuly]

We've been reading her books since 1966 and she's always had a problem with how to end the stories.

*thinks*

The only one I can think of the ending for is The Egypt Game... come to think of it, that one had a weird disconnected (pedophile!) ending, you're right.

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

Actually we thought that was one of her better endings. It was a fairly nicely-worked-in subplot that had run through the entire book, setting up conflict and changes as to when, how and where (and with whom) the children could be in Egypt. It also addressed typical "he's a loner so he must be the murderer" prejudices when you find out who the real murderer is.

(We like to give this book to people who think there was a time when children were "safe", or rather that they are "not safe" now, and that it all started with Adam Walsh.)

Season of Ponies and The Changeling, now... you talk about sucky endings...

[leora.livejournal.com]

Having just read The Giver, I still can't understand why Jonas left. The Giver should have suicided. It's the obvious solution, and I don't get why he didn't.

I'm also not convinced that our world is better than theirs. I feel like it'd only take a small number of tweaks to make their world actually good, mainly not killing quite so easily. And the Giver had it within his power to have probably gotten that and he wasted his chance.

I also have a problem with calling it evil, because it could just be religion. Assume they have a belief that when a person's body dies their essence is released to a better world. This may seem bizarre, but it's actually the dominant belief in the US culture. Now, if we assume that, then assume they do not view release as killing (which they don't seem to, and they view it as different from a loss from a natural death), but as the best way to ensure that the person's essence is released into the proper happy afterlife.

If we assume that then they stop looking heartless or evil. And that's just so close to most human societies.

I loved The Girl Who Owned a City though. Also, I loved The Silver Crown, but probably mainly because I was young when I read it. It's not actually a great book. It's just a lovely sort of horrible place.

I usually assume anything that looks like a utopia is a dystopia story, so I'm not usually faked out. I'm simply waiting for how it is horrible. The Giver just turned out not to be as horrible as I expected it would be. Especially reading it as an adult and with a knowledge of what our world is like.

I've also read Utopia... weird place. I wouldn't want to live there. Besides, it doesn't age well; the lack of technology alone makes it unappealing, which wouldn't have been an issue when it was written as the technology I want didn't exist yet.

[conuly]

Having just read The Giver, I still can't understand why Jonas left. The Giver should have suicided. It's the obvious solution, and I don't get why he didn't.

Hell, Jonas could've lied and threatened to do so. Or told the truth (that Gabriel had a number of the memories) and then threatened to not receive any more if anybody went to harm him.

But he was a 12 year old kid not accustomed to thinking deviously. I don't blame him for taking the dramatic way out.

[leora.livejournal.com]

Yeah, Jonas was a kid raised in a culture that doesn't educate kids to think creatively. But the Giver was old, experienced, and had the memories of countless generations. Surely he could have figured out better solutions, even if he was raised to be ignorant and uncreative.

[conuly]

But Jonas didn't go to him for help. If he had, things would've been different. Kids in these books NEVER go to grown-ups for help, though, unless the grown-ups are going to say "go it alone".

[leora.livejournal.com]

The Giver actually created the initial plan that involved Jonas running away into a completely unknown terrain. Jonas modified it to a much worse plan when circumstances changed such that any delay to see the Giver again would have led to Gabriel's death. However, the initial plan was created by the Giver and Jonas working together.

[conuly]

See? The only advice grown-ups give in these books is "go it alone"!

[leora.livejournal.com]

Of course, had the Giver come up with a good solution or taken mine and killed himself leaving Jonas as the only Receiver and most of the memories in the populace it wouldn't be a very good children's book, because the kid wouldn't be fixing anything or coming up with any solutions. The part where he would make a difference and help would come after the vast number of memories flock back to the people, which isn't the part written about in the story.

[marveen.livejournal.com]

I always had that problem with children's fantasy stories--it's not always as obvious as it is in Lloyd Alexander's Prydain series, but they tend to end with "...and that's why there is no magic today." And that's supposed to be a happy ending.

Right--you get to read about magical transformations of indescribable beauty, and then after the hero wins it all goes away, back to the real world of beatings and drudgery. (Your childhood may have been better. :)

Occasionally (can't remember the series) it's presented as "to eliminate evil magic, good magic has to go as well", but even as a child I thought the price was too high.

[conuly]

I've never read that sort of children's fantasy. I've always either read the type that takes place in a totally different universe that still has magic to this day, or the type where the kids stumble upon some hidden magic that probably still exists today but is rare to find and always was.

[marveen.livejournal.com]

Well, I mentioned the Prydain series--the Dark is Rising series did it too. And in that one, they didn't even get to remember the magic.

[conuly]

Well, there you go.

Lloyd Alexander, I like his work in theory, but in practice the only book of his I've happily read more than once was The First Two Lives of Lukas-Kasha. So with that in mind I've never tackled Prydain.

As for the Dark is Rising, I made it through one book and gave up on the grounds that it was Not For Me.

[queenlyzard.livejournal.com]

It's not just children's stories, either. Tolkien was the same way, and Terry Goodkind's series ended by hitting you over the head with it.

[queenlyzard.livejournal.com]

I know what you mean about questioning those books-- personally, I rather /liked/ the society put forth by "Brave New World."

Also, this post mentions a few titles I haven't read. Must go track them down...

[conuly]

I didn't like the society in Brave New World, but I wouldn't so much mind the society in This Perfect Day. And some of their platitudes I quite agree with - the point of a game ISN'T to win or lose, it IS to have fun and get exercise! Or that new one I read, The Other Side of the Island, I disagree with the means by which they're going about this new society, but their ultimate goal (especially as it's true that the world is largely uninhabitable and they really DO need to control their population, etc.) doesn't seem so distasteful to me after all.

[karalianne.livejournal.com]

Came back to find this post specifically because I read Gossamer and Messenger today, both of which are by Lois Lowry.

Gossamer was a sweet little story but it didn't feel like a book and it wasn't really all that good of a story, either. It felt like something that had been written to be a fairy tale by someone who doesn't understand the genre.

As for Messenger, well, I was highly unsatisfied with that one, too. As soon as I realized who Leader was, I began to worry that I was not going to like the book. I don't think she should have twined the worlds of The Giver and Gathering Blue like that, particularly as I thought both work well as stand-alone books. What worries me more is that she's set things up for a fourth book.

It was rather a let-down, since I've been reading a lot of Charles de Lint lately, and while his work is neither dystopian nor YA, it is excellent contemporary fantasy; after reading his prose (and I just finished three of his in a row), Lowry reads very clumsily.