One of the hottest genres in YA these days is “dystopian.” But despite the way this term is thrown around in publisher’s marketplace announcements, it’s not always used correctly. In fact, many novels labeled “dystopian” actually belong to a separate subgenre of sci-fi—some are, in fact, post-apocalyptic novels. Though they might have what you’d call “dystopian” elements, thematically they’re something entirely different.
Last year at YA Highway, Kaitlin Ward gave a basic run-down of the differences between dystopian and apocalyptic novels, but it’s such a huge source of confusion that I thought it might be useful to open up the discussion again. This is the first in our series on “Defining Genre,” which will provide the basics on the dozens of subgenres within sci-fi. We want our readers to look like pros, to be able to tell their steam from their cyber, and to keep their apocalypses straight!
Dystopian Sci-fi – What is it?
In Ancient Greek, “dystopia” means literally “bad place.” In fact, a dystopia is considered an anti-utopia, and is usually presented as a perfect society by at least a few of the characters (often villains). Usually the societal goal was, at one point or another, to create a perfect society, but a fatal flaw in that society was overlooked, leading to an oppressive state where individuality, self-expression, and civil liberties have been squashed.
You might encounter dystopian novels in school; some classics of the genre are 1984, where a fascist government micromanages every aspect of daily life, including freedom of thought; Brave New World, where humanity is united peacefully via stringent reproductive control and widespread hallucinogen use; The Giver, where emotions are suppressed in favor of social “harmony,” and the short story “Harrison Bergeron”, where gifted individuals are physically and intellectually shackled for the sake of universal equality.
Veronica Roth’s Divergent is a great example of modern YA dystopian sci-fi. In her story, individuals are sorted into factions based on fundamental character traits in the hope that this stratification will impede future wars. Lauren Oliver’s Delirium is another straightforward dystopian example; in her society, mankind has been cured by the “disease” of love in the belief that this will stop citizens from experiencing any sort of mental illness or pain.
Though it’s commonly hailed as the impetus for the current wave of dystopian sci-fi for teens, Suzanne Collins’ The Hunger Games is a bit of an edge case. While Panem is definitely a “bad place,” and features the same type of oppressive, stringent government often found in dystopian-SF, it lacks the “counter-utopic” elements of many of the aforementioned classics. It’s not presented like an ideal world, and Panem’s society wasn’t founded out of some misguided attempt to create one. In fact, it’s clear that everyone but the very small ruling class finds life in Panem pretty danged horrible.
The Apocalypse – the End of Life as We Know It
What The Hunger Games is, without a doubt, is a post-apocalyptic novel. It takes place long after the destruction of the modern United States, in a nation that “rose from the ashes” of a global war. The new society that we encounter in the books directly hinges on the destruction of our own, the hall-mark of post-apocalyptic literature.
The Hunger Games follows a long tradition of post-apocalyptic sci-fi. For example, A Canticle for Liebowitz shows us several generations of monks in a monastery who protect written literature after the destruction of the United States by nuclear war; Riddley Walker is a novel in vernacular also set in a post-nuclear setting where man has reverted to Iron-Age levels of technology. In YA, the Hunger Games was preceded several years earlier by The City of Ember, set in a society nestled underground following the destruction of the world above.
Post-apocalyptic stories differ in how long they’re set after the end of our world. Some, like Cormac McCarthy’s The Road cover the direct aftermath of societal break-down. Others, like Life as We Knew It even feature the disaster itself; in many ways, Susan Beth Pfeffer’s books are science fiction survival tales as much as they are post-apocalyptic works. What all of these novels share, though, is a cataclysmic event—either within the narrative or buried deeply in the world’s history—and an exploration of what comes after.
Of course, many dystopian sci-fi novels are also post-apocalyptic ones. For instance, Brave New World, The Giver, and Divergent all use the end of our contemporary society to wipe the slate clean and make room for a dystopian world. But, as I hope I’ve explained here, despite their shared traits–futuristic settings with often-grim outlooks on humanity–these terms are far from interchangeable.
These two categories are definitely hard to keep straight, and it’s because of the overlap. Also I think in a lot of fantasy and sci-fi universes, there are some elements of oppression that make people think “dystopian” when actually it’s just that sometimes societies are oppressive. I love this post; it’s a great explanation of what these two subgenres actually are.
Quote
Yes, exactly! It’s one of the reasons that the label for the Hunger Games is so tricky. Sure, the society is comfortable for those in the Capitol . . . but so were plantations for slave owners. Would we call the south in the time of slavery “dystopian”? I’m not so sure.
And thanks. <3 Your post was a really helpful basis.
Quote
I think one of the key aspects of a dystopian is that the definition should apply for the great majority of the population. I mean, 21st-century American society is pretty horrible if you find yourself in a bad situation, but most people would still prefer that to living in, say, North Korea. To my mind, the fact that a society is unequal doesn’t automatically make it a dystopian – it needs that element of top-down control.
Quote
That makes sense. Your own (uh, passionate) feelings about the series notwithstanding, do you think that The Hunger Games is dystopian by those standards?
Quote
Yes, as long as the definition of ‘dystopian’ can accommodate an oppressive society that doesn’t include an element of universal thought control (which I think it can).
Quote
I suspect my definition is a little closer to the one illustrated in this chart (which I didn’t find until just now! *sob* would have been perfect for this post) than simply being an “oppressive government”–it’s the illusion of perfection that I find particularly dystopian, despite the literal definition, not thought control. I can see why you’d favor a broader one, though. It seems to be closer to the common usage.
Also, I’m not sure I like how our comments look nested. Hmm.
Quote
One of our favourite nerdy jokes here at home: We may already be living in a pre-post-apocalyptic world!
Thanks for this. The persistent failure (of people who I think should know better!) to distinguish these terms is a constant bee in my bonnet. It seems to me that dystopia came of age in an era where totalitarianism was THE big fear; post-apocalyptic, on the other hand, may have grown out of fear of nuclear holocaust. Something in our current climate is fueling the resurgence of these types of narratives (or, y’know, making them resonate with readers again), and I’m wondering whether the confusion between the genres is due to the fact that both types of fear are currently relevant, and so many books (eg. Hunger Games) also contain both.
Also, where’s your discussion of zombie apocalypse?
Those have been on the upswing for the last several years, and I can’t help wondering if it’s due to fear of “the other”, be they fundamentalists or big business or Republicans or what have you.
Quote
You’re right–I may have been a bit remiss in covering zombie apocalypses, in part because of my own broad ignorance of them (hmm . . . perhaps it’s time to approach a certain fantasy writer for a guest post?). Of course, disease-initiated apocalypses, of which most zombie ‘pocks are, easily share the same features as the above–particularly the one that’s been the most popular with teens, namely The Forest of Hands and Teeth.
Quote
Most post-apocalypses presume some kind of war on a nuclear holocaust scale. I just finished Paolo Bacigalupi’s THE WINDUP GIRL in which global society’s collapse is the result of some unnamed disaster with petroleum products (simply a lack thereof?) combined with a spate of new diseases devastating crops and people alike.
I find post-apocalyptic books to focus on the aftermath of devastation (of whatever sort), whereas dystopian illustrate the utopian-gone-wrong, as opposed to the more revolutionary quality of THE HUNGER GAMES.
Iain Banks’ Culture novels are about a vaguely utopian society, but they’re usually written from the POV of a character on the edge or from without entirely, which helps illustrate the short-comings of the civilization he’s devised.
Quote
Hmm . . . I’m not sure that I’d agree that nuclear devastation is at the root of even most post-apocalyptic novels. In fact, I’ve seen everything from zombies (The Forest of Hands and Teeth) to an unexplained catastrophic event (The Road). But I think we’re on the same page otherwise.
And the Culture novels and The Windup Girl are two great examples of each!
Quote
I just wrote about this on my blog last week! last week was my yearly Hot Dystopian Summer Nights theme week, and one of those days was about Dystopian vs. Sci-Fi vs. Post-Apocalyptic and all the overlap between them. I used Venn Diagrams to illustrate. http://sommerleigh.com/archives/4030
So this topic is pretty close to my heart, and like most things, I don’t think there is any hard and fast rule. Your post is great (so is your blog). I’m glad I stumbled across you!
Quote
Great post, Sommer! Hope you don’t mind if I tweet it. We’re glad you stumbled across our blog, too!
Quote
Oh thanks! No no I don’t mind. I’m glad you enjoyed it.
Quote
Sommer, your blog is awesome!
Quote
Thank you so much!!!
Quote
Thanks for this post! I’m a little obsessed with this topic myself.
Do you think a dystopia has to involve an oppressive government? Is totalitarianism a necessary feature, or merely a common one? I can’t think of a book about a society with very minimal government that turns into a dystopia, but I’d really like to read that book. I think, for my own country, I’m more afraid of a small government (ie., people left to fend for themselves) than I am of a totalitarian one right now.
Quote
No, I don’t think it’s necessary–just, perhaps, more common. I can totally imagine a Bob-Blackian anarchist dystopian. In fact, Brave New World has some features of more liberal regimes (free love and drug use).
Quote
That’s a good point about Brave New World. I’d forgotten those pieces. Though as I recall they were more “bread and circuses” style freedoms, provided by a totalitarian government in order to keep the people pliable?
Quote
Hmm . . . I’d say the sexual freedoms at least were key to their social structure, though you might be right about the soma. TBH, it’s been a few years since I’ve read it.
Quote
It’s funny how I read Kaits’ post ages ago and went “Aha!”, and then read your post and went “Aha!” again. Clearly my memory sucks.
This is a great post, and all the examples of books I know and love (The Giver<333) are really helpful. And this blog is the SHIZ.
Quote
Thanks Michelle <3
Quote