Is totalitarian dystopia the most plebeian setting possible?

Is totalitarian dystopia the most plebeian setting possible?

It's hard to imagine anybody other than a complete and utter brainlet getting anything out of it.

It's not a dystopia if you enjoy it.

Zombies

At least schoolchildren aren't assigned books about zombies and told to take them seriously.

A dystopia is just an leftist's delusion of what their opposition's utopia is. My first genre fiction in a decade is going to be a 'dystopia' that is completely senseless yet hyperrational. Architecture with no empirical basis. Crushing individualism. Long-winding mythologies invoked to justify every action. A 'great leader' that is spoken about constantly but never actually appears.

The real issue is, most genre writers are absolute fucking tools that would rather write about some BAAAAAAAAAAAAAD WORLD THAT IS ACTUALLY OURS LOL than write anything interesting. I've already had to denounce a few people over this trash novel/series (it's even more popular in Canada, where local literature has to be taught and promoted.)

YA has pretty much killed and taken over the dystopian stuff like a glassy eyed pod person.

Schoolchildren are assigned dystopias because that's what all the famous dystopian stories are for: They are blunt in-your-face political lessons and allegories. They're not artsy and written for the author's peers, they're essentially pamphlets.
And they're rightfully taken seriously, I don't know how anyone could argue the opposite.

And because of how political and relevant they are and how easily any idiot can follow that extrapolation step, they have a huge appeal. Which I think is fine (although not "patrician") until shitty YA writers commodified it. But you can't blame a setting for bad writers and you can't blame young people for being political or dissatisfied with the world.

It can be lazy and it's flooded the markets lately but if you're honest, it's still only a tiny part compared to all the other lazy settings involving hot rich guys seeing something special in the wallflower or another house of dragon lords in a feud with the orc invasion.

It's useful as an entertaining medium to explain the inner workings of destructive ideologies and political systems. But dystopia novels in and of themselves (without any theory) aren't very good, except as pure entertainment. I don't mean to say there's anything wrong with reading for entertainment; in most cases you should only read because you want to, but a majority of these books are seriously lacking in a good message. A lot of their concepts could be written down in a 5 page essay, but I suppose novelization is a good way to make that message more exoteric; especially if you're using it to teach children.

There's nothing wrong with dystopia novels. But it seems like there seems to be a limit to how good that novel can be.

Rape is OK if orgasm is involved?

>they're rightfully taken seriously, I don't know how anyone could argue the opposite.
The French revolutionaries didn't believe in their own lies. For some reason they barred the king and queen from equality.

All of democracy is an egoistical lie, a facade for brainlets - to make them hunting dogs.

The opposite of fascism isn't democracy and pointing out the dangers of too much governmental power is important regardless of what form it takes.

So literally brainwashing.

I think kids would do well learning to parse something a bit more ambiguous.

The standard American public school reading list is more or less blatant propaganda. I can't speak for Handmaid's Tale but 1984 has definitely done irreversible damage to our political landscape and should probably be phased out already. Surveillance came to us through capitalism, not an overbearing Stalinist regime.

The line between education and brainwashing is always a fine one. Ideally the teacher just gives the tools and leaves the conclusions open.
"This is a possible outcome of getting rid of checks and balances in government" isn't brainwashing, "And this is why you must hate Trump" is.

What is the damage of 1984?
And I disagree.
First, surveillance was brought to us by governments (especially, but not only the totalitarian regimes) before it was brought to us by "capitalism" (you mean companies? Surveillance is not a necessity of capitalism).
Second, the most extreme forms of surveillance still came and come from government.
Third, Orwell was a leftie, he was just being honest about Stalinism in Animal Farm but 1984 isn't really directed at the left at all.
Fourth, public and private surveillance are much more connected now because politicians set the limits for private surveillance - or don't due to corruption.
Fifth, 1984 simply didn't have to deal with Google - it would require a new work, but that doesn't take away from the realistic dangers it tackles.
Sixth, 1984 is always reduced to the surveillance stuff which is really the smallest part. The way in which people are pitted against each other or in which they are willing to accept doublethink etc. are much more profound I think.
Etc., already too long.

Totalitarian states are not a reality we contend with in the 21st century. It's hard to fault Orwell himself since it was reality for him, but the power structures that future generations of students are going to face are going to be far more obscured than menacing police, barbed wire, dogs, and cameras. 1984 is just far too state-oriented to address the viper's nest of media conglomerates, hedge funds, humanitarian NGOs, think tanks, etc that drive policy today. The blunt moral lessons that these kinds of stories offer don't scale well beyond some type of "literally hitler" figure and a "sheeple" populace.

First off, of course they are still a reality. Look at China, look at what's happening right now in Venezuela. The latter is basically textbook 1984: "We are under attack from the US, so we must incarcerate and kill the opposition, and by going hungry you take part in the revolution, poverty is bliss".
I fully agree though on how much more complex the current "viper's nest" is. But it's kind of always been that way. Most governments have been propped up by private interest. You could argue that now, more than ever, politicians themselves are part of the sheep and that they've joined the ranks of the masses in being led around by propped up fake enemies or fake causes.
I've heard that Orban is starting to call out Soros in public materials. Maybe we'll see a 1984 pt. 2 that addresses some of these issues.

This is an apt point.
Do you have any suggestions of books which take on the nuances of subtle capitalist dystopianism?

I'm redpilled and Fascist and fucking proud to be against equality's lie. I am not equal to women or minorities, not by a fucking long shot. See the history of Western society for proof. The blood that runs through my veins is that of SUPERIOR beings.

"Equality" means equality before the law and is a crutch designed to prevent either side from taking too much power over the other. You won't be a proud fascist anymore if the control is in the hands of SJWs.

Dystopia isn't just for leftist authors, you dumb idiot. A lot of the classics were written against communism.

>Is totalitarian dystopia the most plebeian setting possible?
No, that would be alternate history, which are almost always poorly researched and highly implausible.

All alternate histories are equally implausible by their nature.

No, I think there are definitely degrees of implausibility. For example, an alternate history where Napoleon wins the battle of Waterloo because he doesn't get diarrhea like he did in real life and Wellington does seems more plausible than an alternate history where Napoleon wins the battle of Waterloo because psychic bats from outer space intercede on his behalf, and then Napoleon conquers the entire world in a single year, then has a complete personality change and implements communism, which he invents whole-cloth in a night of brainstorming.