50 Book Challenge Part Five

[southeastdweller]

Welcome to the fifth thread of the 50 Book Challenge for this year.

The challenge is to read fifty books (or more!) in 2017, though reading fifty isn't mandatory. Any type of book can count, it's not too late to join, and please try to let us all know your thoughts on what you've read.

The first thread of the year is here, the second one here, the third thread here and the fourth one here.

What are you reading?

For me 1984 is first and foremost political fiction, dystopian fiction. Yes it is in an imagined future, yes there is technology that didn't exist at the time of writing, but that is not the point of the novel. It is a by-product of setting the story in a future land. Must every book that is written at a point in the future always be science fiction?

We are not talking about the word "dystopia" but about the "Dystopian fiction" genre, which has a specific definition.

You might say that Jews in Europe during WWII quickly found themselves in a dystopia but books about that period are not Dystopian fiction.

The society in Animal Farm is not imagined, since it is Russia changing into Soviet Union. Those are actual historical events. I don't know how else I can say this

If Paddington found himself living in Saudi Arabia or Turkey (arguably quite dystopian societies) that book would not be Dystopian fiction, although it has a talking bear.

relating to or denoting an imagined place or state in which everything is unpleasant or bad, typically a totalitarian or environmentally degraded one

Dictionary definition of dystopian. Doesn't say anything about lands, just says place. Doesn't say it has to happen in the future or any be a commentary on something that has happened or is already happening.

Correction
Doesn't say it has to happen in the future or that it can't be a commentary on something that has happened or is already happening.

On a side note. Must dystopian fiction always be set in the future? Can it not also be an imagined past?Or even at no fixed place in time? Can that also be science fiction?

Where does a book like The Chrysalids fit in to this categorisation?

The Jews did not find themselves in a dystopia. A dystopia is imaginary.

Read about what Dystopian fiction is, not just the word 'dystopian'.

" Yes it [1984] is in an imagined future, yes there is technology that didn't exist at the time of writing, but that is not the point of the novel. It is a by-product of setting the story in a future land."

Absolutely not! Constant surveillance is an integral part of 1984, the very essence of it that enables thought control. The book explains this in very detailed ways - how dissenters can't organise, can't even talk to each other because every word they speak or write is watched, how they have to perform well at the assemblies showing adoration or hate when expected so that they will not be suspected and taken away for reconditioning, etc. Without "Big Brother is watching you", there would be no 1984.

The Crysalids is Apocalyptic fiction, under Speculative fiction.

All books about the future are, by definition, Speculative fiction. This is a more modern categorisation. Previously, it was all called Science-fiction

Or Post-apocalyptic. It's been a while since I read it.

Definition of dystopian fiction
The utopia and its derivative, the dystopia, are genres of literature that explore social and political structures. ... Dystopian (or dystopic) fiction (sometimes combined with, but distinct from apocalyptic literature) is the opposite: the portrayal of a setting that completely disagrees with the author's ethos.

Nothing there that argues with what have previously said.

RMC - If you continued reading that Wikipedia page you copied from just for a few more sentences, you would have seen this:

The utopia and its derivative, the dystopia, are genres of literature that explore social and political structures. Utopian fiction portrays a setting that agrees with the author's ethos, having various attributes of another reality intended to appeal to readers. Dystopian (or dystopic) fiction (sometimes combined with, but distinct from apocalyptic literature) is the opposite: the portrayal of a setting that completely disagrees with the author's ethos.[1] Many novels combine both, often as a metaphor for the different directions humanity can take, depending on its choices, ending up with one of two possible futures. Both utopias and dystopias are commonly found in science fiction and other speculative fiction genres, and arguably are by definition a type of speculative fiction.

"Must dystopian fiction always be set in the future? Can it not also be an imagined past?"

"Imagined past" = Alternate History sub-genre under Speculative fiction

No Cote I'm sorry I just don't see 1984 in those terms. The technology is only slightly more advanced than when the book was written. The Thing (Great Seal Bug) was used by the Soviets in 1945 foreshadowing modern surveillance technologies and 1984 published in the late 1940s. Mind control in the book is obtained through the use/destruction of language, media control, the rationing of items, the suppression of the proles etc. Futuristic technology is not at the heart of the novel, unlike good old-fashioned propaganda.

You seem very hung up on rigid definitions of genre.

Dystopian fiction is rooted in the word dystopia and cannot change its meaning. Just as the term Science fiction cannot change the meaning of the word science.

There is also a love story in 1984. That does not make it a romance.

Cote
In the further quote (which I did read but didn't think it added much to the argument) the key terms seem to be 'many' 'often' and ' arguably' not 'all' 'exclusively' and 'definitely' .
There is room for variation within a genre. That's how new ideas and are formed and boundaries tested.
I agree with Sirsidney that you are very hung up on definitions of genre and judge books accordingly. I feel I judge a book on whether I enjoyed it, responded to, whether it taught me anything etc etc. Whether it confirmed to a subjective genre definition is way down my priority list.

Conformed not confirmed!! Good I wish you could edit MN!

@RMC123 sorry for delayed reply. I really enjoyed 'She Wolves', felt it was engaging enough to keep me interested whilst being well researched and meaty enough to have some substance. Of the queens/periods I was most interested in it was a good jumping off point to go on and read more.

Maybe the rest of us should try and find an evening course on Taxonomic Classification of Genres in Fiction. Or not.

Genres are just a way of trying to organise books that have been written. They're not rules that have to be obeyed. You can discuss whether a book best fits into one genre or another, if that sort of thing floats your boat, but it's not obligatory for the enjoyment and criticism of literature.

^There is room for variation within a genre. That's how new ideas and are formed and boundaries tested. ^

RMC this is spot on. And something that Ishiguro is know to do, and has spoken about (also see the backlash he got for playing about with elements of the fantasy genre in The Buried Giant). FWIW it had never crossed my mind to call NLMG science fiction until I read this thread.

29. Mariana, Susanna Kearsley

Disappointed by this, especially as I picked it up after a MN recommendation. Timeslip novel about a woman who realises that she is the reincarnation of a woman from the seventeenth century. I found the historical bits mawkish and clichéd, and the modern sections boring :(

Cote
The society in Animal Farm is not imagined, since it is Russia changing into Soviet Union. Those are actual historical events. I don't know how else I can say this

Taking inspiration from real life historical/political events does not disqualify a book from being dystopian literature. The story and setting of Animal Farm is highly fictionalised. Nobody disputes that Nineteen Eighty-Four is a classic example of dystopian literature and its inspirations though broader, were similar to Animal Farm's. But yes - AF is considered to be (amongst other things) dystopian literature and is widely referenced as such.

So, for those who say they don't care about the genre, do you still get bothered by things that seem to really not fit with the way the book seems to be written - e.g. historical fiction with medieval French peasants speaking and behaving like 21st century middle class Manhattanites? (No specific example in mind).

Because that's all I mean when I criticise things in terms of genre - that the book comes across as aiming to be a specific thing and does it badly, rather than aiming to be gloriously ambiguous about where you might find it shelved in a bookshop. It's a useful shorthand for "jeez, don't read this one if you're a stickler for historical accuracy, but if you don't mind the inaccuracy if the plot is tight and the character development rings true, it's fun enough for the beach."

Slightly I admitted upthread to being a complete hypocrite about this issue, in that I don't mind scientific inaccuracy at all, but loathe historical inaccuracy. The only way I can justify this (and it is a very woolly justification) is that historical fact cannot be altered as it has already taken place. The past existed as it was. The future for me is more unknowable and open to change. What was scientific fiction, may become fact. Also in sci-fi world building scientific laws may differ from our own. Plus I don't feel the need for a writer to explain everything to me. In NLMG I would' need to be told explicitly that donor organ rejection had been overcome by medical advances. I could just accept that in this book it is so. Like I said before I am a mass of contradictions