# Why dystopian?



## morfiction (Aug 15, 2012)

We all know something is bound to go really wrong in the world we live in so I think that's one of the reasons why Post Apocalyptic pops up a lot. 

I would like to discuss my game and how its different but I'm on a NDA and am still getting permissions to tell about things. 

So until I'm sure about the details, what do you think makes the apocalypse so entertaining?


----------



## SlimShady (Aug 15, 2012)

I think the general hopelessness of post apocalyptic settings make them awesome.  It's so hopeless that when something good happens it feels even better than usual.  But, the thing that will make or break it is interesting characters.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Aug 15, 2012)

Because it's the paramount of loss.

For thousands of years (longer really), humanity across the globe strived for security. We moved from hunter-gatherers to agriculture, developed food stores, technologies that separated us from the wild of nature. This allows us the false impression that we, as a species, control our environment. In reality, nothing can be farther from the truth.

The deep-seeded understanding that our idea of harnessing the world around us (our control of nature) is nothing more than a self-induced illusion is, in my opinion, the base reason of why post-apocalyptic stories resonate so strongly. Man again has to scratch out a life amidst harsh and unforgiving environments.... The achievements of thousands of years lost.

If you are talking about Pre-apocalyptic, then take the above and throw in the ultimate ticking clock for suspense.


----------



## JonSnow (Aug 15, 2012)

To me, the most interesting thing is watching humans degenerate from metropolitan, pampered, socialized beings back into savages as resources become scarce, and the survival instincts kick in.


----------



## Lorna (Aug 15, 2012)

> what do you think makes the apocalypse so entertaining?



I think as a race we've always had a fascination with cosmology- beginnings and ends. Many people would like to see the end of the world (but probably not live through it). So we speculate about it. 

I'm interested in apocalypse in its original sense as revelation. Not the apocalypse at the end of the world but APOCALYPSE NOW. For me _The Book of Revelation_ and apocalyptic works like William Blake's _The Four Zoas_ are based on insights into mystical realities that can be accessed through the imagination. Apocalypse can take place on an individual level as well as universal, and apocalyptic insights can suggest ways of shaping the world.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Aug 15, 2012)

The apocalypse creates an adventure-friendly world. With limited resources, everyone squabbles over what's left, and without law enforcement, the protagonists must defend themselves from bandits and raiders rather than relying on others.


----------



## ShortHair (Aug 15, 2012)

For one thing, stories set in our world are kind of boring.

For another, once you've put the Apocalypse in play, you can hold up our world to a funhouse mirror.


----------



## CupofJoe (Aug 15, 2012)

ShortHair said:


> For one thing, stories set in our world are kind of boring.
> 
> For another, once you've put the Apocalypse in play, you can hold up our world to a funhouse mirror.



I might have to disagree with you a little bit...
I love the idea of fantasy on a mundane background. Neverwhere by Neil Gaiman is almost perfect for being a 90 degrees view of London, but there again that is a fun-house mirror of sorts...


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Aug 15, 2012)

ShortHair said:


> For one thing, stories set in our world are kind of boring.



Don't tell the crime fiction genre that.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 15, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Don't tell the crime fiction genre that.



There are lots of great stories set in the real world. I agree. And not just crime fiction, but thrillers, horror novels, classics, and so on.


----------



## Penpilot (Aug 15, 2012)

I think this falls under the end of civilization type of story, it doesn't matter if the end comes via zombies, plagues, or the asteroid.  I think the appeal is the starting over from scratch aspect, no debts, no taxes, no one telling you what to do at a job. It lets people ask the question if I could start fresh what would I do? How would I live? What rules would I choose to live under if any at all?


----------



## Saigonnus (Aug 15, 2012)

Penpilot said:


> I think this falls under the end of civilization type of story, it doesn't matter if the end comes via zombies, plagues, or the asteroid.  I think the appeal is the starting over from scratch aspect, no debts, no taxes, no one telling you what to do at a job. It lets people ask the question if I could start fresh what would I do? How would I live? What rules would I choose to live under if any at all?



I agree with that... the methodology of how you get to the downfall of civilization isn't important; or at least not as important in comparison with the rest of the story. You are simply left with the aftermath of said event or series of events and exploring the dynamics of things that could be very different than it was before the end came. How would society change? What technological level would they be at? Who would be the new leaders?

I think it's a fantastic way to explore the possibilities of human nature and how they deal with different types of situations both good and bad. It has the possibility of great diversity also, with stories that could span the whole world or just a small area and focus more on the societal aspects.


----------



## MystiqueRain (Aug 15, 2012)

I think dystopian societies or apocalyptic situations make such entertaining stories--or writing them even--is because you have an endless panel of choices ahead of you. If everything's broken down and in chaos, it opens up a lot more possibilities for a writer to imagine and a lot more twists that a reader doesn't always expect. Like many people already said, a post-apocalyptic story often brings out the less civilized side of humanity, often due to the desire to survive. In the present world right now, it's hard for a lot of people to imagine themselves in such a situations unless they're actually struggling to live. These post-apocalyptic stories let readers position themselves inside this crumbled society. 

Also, another reason we might find these stories interesting is that there are already so many theories out there, whether they are realistic or not, about the future. Robots taking over the world, a natural disaster that effects all continents, just to name a few. I think exploring these many paths and never finding yourself taking the same one each time is a very unique experience, unless, of course, the story's plotline is too similar to another one.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Aug 15, 2012)

Penpilot said:


> I think this falls under the end of civilization type of story, it doesn't matter if the end comes via zombies, plagues, or the asteroid.  I think the appeal is the starting over from scratch aspect, no debts, no taxes, no one telling you what to do at a job.



...no refrigeration, no electricity, no rule of law, no industrial infrastructure, no antibiotics... 

Joking aside, I do agree that it's universally intriguing to wonder what you would do if you could start fresh, and possibly reshape the world according to your own whims.


----------



## Penpilot (Aug 16, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> ...no refrigeration, no electricity, no rule of law, no industrial infrastructure, no antibiotics...



You forgot arguably the most important luxury of civilization that would sorely be missed... no toilet paper. Dry leaves just won't cut it for me.


----------



## The Dark One (Aug 16, 2012)

It wipes the slate clean for a fresh beginning - so much fun to have with that, especially with characters that try to retain the old rules.

Remember that classic Far Side comic where two fisherman are sitting in a boat and in the distance there's a mushroom cloud. One of the fisherman says (words to the effect of): I'll tell you what this means Hal...no minimum size and screw the bag limit!


----------



## Chilari (Aug 16, 2012)

It's a perfect set up for a tale of heroes. It's the exact opposite of a Greek tragedy, where the protagonist starts out on top of the world - a prince, favoured by a god, prosperous, loved and admired, before being brought low. The greatest tragedies are the greatest fall from the highest height to the deepest well. If you start down deep in the well there's a lot of potential for climbing up - and a lot of potential for conflict to crop up on the way. There's a lot of up to climb to, for a start.


----------



## Ivan (Aug 16, 2012)

I associate dystopian with the genre of _1984, V for Vendetta, We,_ etc. not necessarily the post-apocalyptic genre. These are interesting because they typically speak to a current issue or even a perennial one - in the examples I provided, that of totalitarianism - and makes you think about the issue in a different light.

Post-apocalyptic stories are interesting to me because it throws the whole human existence into a different light- how do we function when the existing structures of society are demolished? How do we survive in a world devoid of resources that we take for granted? Fundamentally, who are we without civilization, law, or society to tell us what to do? That gets down to the soul of humanity, and questions all of our notions of morality and behavior, exploring the very foundations of our evolution from nomadic hunters to commuting office-workers. In any case it is something interesting to think about.


----------



## Ireth (Aug 16, 2012)

Ivan said:


> I associate dystopian with the genre of _1984, V for Vendetta, We,_ etc. not necessarily the post-apocalyptic genre.



Isn't _V for Vendetta_ kind of post-apocalyptic? In the graphic novel they talk about how nuclear warfare has wiped out nearly everything except the British Isles. I'm not sure how that comes across in the movie, or if it's in there at all... haven't watched it for a while.


----------



## Ivan (Aug 16, 2012)

Good point... All of those works do involve catastrophic wars. However, because they are set in a place that are more or less intact societies - albeit influenced by the destruction around them - I guess I don't consider them post-apocalyptic. They are missing the attributes I mentioned in my previous post that I personally associate with the post-apocalyptic genre.


----------



## robertbevan (Aug 17, 2012)

Penpilot said:


> You forgot arguably the most important luxury of civilization that would sorely be missed... no toilet paper. Dry leaves just won't cut it for me.



very next post...




The Dark One said:


> It wipes the slate clean for a fresh beginning -




come on guys, i was eating when i read this.



anyway... i was thinking about the resources you guys are talking about, be it toilet paper, medicine, food, whatever, and i had the exact opposite thought. i was thinking it would be more like "the stand" where there are so few people left, but empty shops are still full of everything the survivors could ever need until they get back on their feet and figure out how to make all that stuff again.

in fact, i liked the beginning of the stand a lot better than i liked where it went. i was hoping it was going to be more of a survival and rebuilding of civilization story, told from a few characters' points of view. and it was, but i could have done without all of the mystical good vs evil stuff.


----------



## Penpilot (Aug 17, 2012)

robertbevan said:


> come on guys, i was eating when i read this.



Sorry... I hope it wasn't oatmeal.  Sorry again....seriously. But sometimes it's hard to pass up on the fart and kaka cracks.



robertbevan said:


> anyway... i was thinking about the resources you guys are talking about, be it toilet paper, medicine, food, whatever, and i had the exact opposite thought. i was thinking it would be more like "the stand" where there are so few people left, but empty shops are still full of everything the survivors could ever need until they get back on their feet and figure out how to make all that stuff again.



I don't know how long resources would really last and be viable. Lots of the stuff would spoil. Antibiotics expire. Batteries go bad. Even stuff like rubber tires will dry rot over time. Gas degrades over time too. Dried food may last but only if they're protected from critters.


----------



## Kit (Aug 17, 2012)

The canned food would be edible for generations, but the survivors would need to procure fresh veggies at the very least to stay healthy.


----------



## morfiction (Aug 18, 2012)

MystiqueRain said:


> I think dystopian societies or apocalyptic situations make such entertaining stories--or writing them even--is because you have an endless panel of choices ahead of you.



I'd rather write straight up fantasy. The rules can be written from scratch. You create the universe and everything. I feel too constricted writing in the real, modern world or in the future. I don't know how Dean Koontz or Stephen King or any other writer can stand it??

And, well, the questions I am forced to ask the other guys in the team I'm currently in right now (glances at own signature), I don't want to sound as if I'm bugging them but the rules are being redone and I feel inquisitive. I won't divulge which questions I am asking because of the NDA....


----------



## Saigonnus (Aug 18, 2012)

I think the basic knowledge of how to make basic things (like toilet paper) would be something they'd pretty much HAVE to have to survive in a post-apocalyptic society. Canned goods may last awhile, but depends on the climate on how long. Excessive heat can force the bacteria in the cans to grow exponentially and cause explosive decompression (the top or bottom ruptures). That usually takes a long while (2-5 years). There was a documentary called "Life after People" that goes into what would happen if people just disappeared; not quite the same as a dystopic or post-apocalyptic setting, but gives some idea on how things would play out when unattended. 

I would think a post-apocalyptic society would pretty much have to become self-sufficient for food and basic resource in a relatively short period of time. Something that affects humans that drastically would likely affect the natural world as well, making hunting and gathering much more difficult. The knowledge would be there, but likely the technology level would take a drastic plummet to something close to the pre-industrial times if not worse; with only a basic understanding of basic machines (hand operated most likely) for easing man's burdens.


----------



## morfiction (Aug 21, 2012)

Thanks for the replies. The reason I'm asking is because I'm working on a dystopian scifi game with a team. I wrote about it in Self Promotion. No zombies, yet... I promise.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Aug 22, 2012)

Robert Brockway offers a theory on this subject in this article.

Personally, though, I have a slightly different theory. I think it's about our latent hunter-gatherer mentality.

See, humans have been around for 200,000 years, and we spent the first 190,000 of those years as hunter-gatherers. (Some of us still do.) In that context, this whole "agriculture" thing is still sort of this bold new experiment, and having a desk job in an office is the equivalent of a sudden random impulse that may not turn out to have been such a good idea in hindsight.

What I mean is, most of us maintain lifestyles that we as a species were never really built for, anthropologically speaking, and our evolution hasn't quite had time to catch up. 

And that's why we all have this little voice inside that sometimes goes: _Why do I have to go to work? Why do I have to buy food and clothes with money when I could go out there and scavange it? I wish I could just walk into a store and grab whatever I need. Ooh, or hunt deer from a jeep with an assault rifle. That would be rad! So what if I had to dodge the occasional lion? Totally worth it. Screw it, maybe I'll run away to an island somewhere? Nobody to tell me what to do, just living off the land, not a care in the world._

Of course, most of us don't actually do that because we're not _stupid._ We know objectively that the benefits of modern life, like internet and medicin, more then outweigh the downsides and that "living off the land" is the direct opposite of "not a care in the world."

But that little voice is still there, because it doesn't appeal to an _easier_ life, but rather a life our primal instincts are still telling us we were meant to live - _I shouldn't have to go to work. I shouldn't have to pay for things. I should be able to spend all my time however I want._

Which is not to say we all want to be criminals deep down. We can still agree that walking into a store, grabbing a whole bunch of stuff and walking out without paying for it is morally wrong, that someone had to manufacture all that stuff and that those people are entitled to compensation. No, it goes a bit deeper than that: We feel that doing it _shouldn't be_ morally wrong - that in some kind of perfect utopia, that is exactly how life should work. Like having to pay for things is an unfortunate flaw we just haven't found a way to correct yet.

Notice how the very moment conventional laws stop being enforced, typically during a crisis, we get a whole bunch of people looting stuff? I dare say most of those people normally wouldn't even think about _stealing _things. But the moment we feel that "the legal concept of ownership no longer applies in this situation" the impulse to hunt and gather just becomes overpowering. There's nothing right or wrong about it, I _have _to grab this awesome loot or someone else will. 

But of course, for the most part we are law-abiding citizens who go to our dayjobs and earn our pay and buy our property, suppressing that little inner anarchistic bushman of ours. And I think that apocalyptic scenarios gives us an outlet for that. Watching a zombie movie or playing Fallout lets us safely imagine a lawless world were everything is free, money is useless and we get to do whatever we want, all the time. So what if I had to dodge the occasional radioactive mutant? Totally worth it.


----------



## Christopher Wright (Aug 22, 2012)

Well, dystopian and apocalyptic aren't exactly the same. 1984 isn't apocalyptic--society still exists. It exists a LOT. Society is basically thriving. It's just a nasty, vicious, evil society that cannot be defied.


----------



## Helen (Aug 25, 2012)

morfiction said:


> what do you think makes the apocalypse so entertaining?



Well, you need to world build.

And it's just a ready-made world with a backstory and a problem.

Like, a nuke war blew it up and now how do we return to Eden.

And we (human nature) have blown up and how do we return to some form of morality.


----------



## ahhhitswells (Aug 28, 2012)

Because the world we live in is not natural for humans. Concrete walls and paved roads are not the way to grow.

An apocalyptic world resets this environment and brings out our animalistic nature.


----------

