I mean who is yelling at the crowds about society now?
JB Skaggs
But there is no one out there that I'm aware of that is making the sort of scathing political commentary on the same level as Orwell. Where is Animal Farm: The Next Generation? (I'm getting visual images of the Bush Whitehouse....)
This is not merely a problem in print. I don't think that any entertainment media is doing a sufficient job of cutting edge social commentary. Bland pop culture is all the mega-corporations are willing to spew out. It's risky - and expensive if you fail - to take chances. I would love to see writers like us take the lead.
Question: What social issue would YOU love to write a story about??
Me, the issue would be homelessness. I spent several years heavily involved as a volunteer with a homeless agency in Portland and I have GREAT stories. (Mary Robinette would remember Baloney Joe's.) It was a lot like the old Barney Miller TV show... who would believe it? I remember calling my friend at the shelter one day and he answered the phone by saying, "Say, can I get back to you? The Bomb Squad is here." ... it was insanity on many levels. I've been thinking one of these days I should write some short stories based on that experience.
I was surprised how fast homelessness was growing on the west coast! It was outpacing homesales in many cities with most of the homeless being under 25.
I worked with a group of about 50. Of course city governments as soon as they found out you were helping homeless kids (or running flop houses as they called them) did their damndest to shut you down which is exactly what happened to mine. In this same city population 1500 homeless poulation 117 average age 12. I have heard that seattle, portland, and san francisco was much worse.
But I don't know of anyone publically challenging government now as Orwell did. Are writers just scared? or is it that we can't find a venue?
Also, you are forgetting that because of the alternate ways to communicate in this day and age, a lot of people are doing things besides writing books. There are tons of political magazines, e-zines, and columnists. There are a bunch of bloggers who are political as well.
I began working with the homeless in 1985, shortly after I left my marriage and ended up being a financially strapped single mom. I wanted to volunteer my time toward an effort that was core to people's survival. I realized during that time that we are all only a couple of paychecks away from the streets.
The issues of homelessness became a national issue due in large part to the efforts of Mitch Snyder in Washington DC and Michael Stoops from Portland. They spent an entire winter sleeping on heat grates in DC by night and lobbying senators and congressmen during the day. Actor Martin Sheen slept outdoors with them during that period of time and has since been an activist for the homeless, working primarily for the Dorothy Day house in New York.
It's a meaty topic and one that could spawn some interesting fiction. It's a tough balance to strike between humor and pathos.
Do you remember the big stink about the homeless village under the overpass in Portland? That was about the time I left.
People forget that in the thirties during the great dust bowl some towns actually "looked the other way" when displaced farmers were beaten or shot to death rather than let them enter town.
I guess the point of this topic is: I was wondering where the PUBLIC voices are now? I don't think think blogs, zines are going to have much of a voice- but that could just be my misinformed opinion. It's not so much that Bush is wrong or right... it's that I don't see any deabte or cautionary voices in the media.
There's a lot of money in the political hot-potato du jour market - check your local bookstore if you don't believe me - but very little fiction that I know of.
Maybe social issues appear more subtly now? After all, there are top crime authors that have homosexual detectives, black detectives, and detectives with all sorts of disabilities, etc. I can't speak for any other genre, but it might be out there.
I'm trying one at the moment and it is REALLY difficult to get the plot line working in such a way that it works. Well actually I've been working on it for months but it's still flobbily.
A lot of contemporary theatre (not the broadway stuff) deals with social issues. Some in really funny ways. You also have the Simpsons and Southpark of course.
li
[This message has been edited by limo (edited April 26, 2005).]
quote:
flobbily
Now, THERE is a word I really like.
It's right up there with the expression "made with gooby stuff", as my daughter tried to describe the black tar creature that killed Tasha Yar on Star Trek: The Next Generation to my 70 year old mother (who doesn't "get" Star Trek).
Right now America's all about The President being utterly, unquestionably right. Bush is America's Pope. I bet my house the next memorable yell at society won't come from an American. We're cowards.
China Meiville could do the job. He is from England, and he does build socio-political commentary into his stories. But so far his social commentary isn't very critical of the way our world is being run right now. It's more about human nature in the grand scale. Meiville is very intelligent, talented, and young. We might see him do the job some day in the future.
quote:
bet my house the next memorable yell at society won't come from an American. We're cowards.
No, I don't believe we are. I believe it's more to do with our lifestyles. Life is good for most people. Even after the terrorist attacks and the economy, life is still good. There are no global hardships. When this happens, societies become complacent. You'll see this happen all throughout history. Only in times of real conflict do individual voices really stand out. Right now, we have none.
And this coincides to a reduction in birth rates. We reproduce less in times when things are going good. When things get bad, the birth rate increases. For an example, look at WWII and the subsequent Baby Boomer generation. Yes, troops went home to their wives and girlfriends when the war ended, but they NEEDED to reproduce. Millions were killed and times were dreadful for many years all over the world.
You can plainly see a parallel to this in modern Africa. Things there are incredibly harsh, and yet the birth rate increases exponentially.
So, right now, we are in relative quiet and security (despite what the media sensationalizes). Most Americans have plenty of food, plenty of gadgets, and survival is incredibly easy. Put a little hardship on folk and things will change dramatically. We are not cowards, just complacent and unconcerned.
Maybe we're getting somewhere. Does complacent and unconcerned = sheep, easily led and influenced? Could an autocrat/dictator (of sorts) rise from the apathy and indifference?
Perhaps complacency is the ongoing social issue? "I got mine, I don't care."
Like one poster said, many are only a few paycheck away from the streets. Jobs are hard to find, at least in my field. It's hard to tell what skillset to pursue. What's hot today might be gone tommorrow, sent overseas to be done in a cutthroat sweatshop.
Too many have died because they lost thier jobs, and thus couldn't afford healthcare. People who have a right to life like anyone else.
I guess the thing is for the financially secure (I include those whose skillsets are safe), just really can't grasp those do not have such security. Even those who been there can't grasp it. They say they do. But thier actions show otherwise.
When a person's job goes elsewhere, they shrug and say, sure it causes some pain. But thats the great thing, they say, people are allowed to fail.
For those up top, people are just numbers. And even for those who grasp it, they don't seem to grasp that attached to that person, is perhaps a wife, and children, perhaps other family as well.
This is really not a political issue, though unwise decision making has caused it. More often than not, it comes from unwise decisions straddling administrations and parties. Perhaps if these policy makers really did apply Judeo-Christian values they claim, they'd make better decisions. They probablly one and all claim to pray for wisdom. It doesn't look like thier prayers are falling upon favorable ears.
More to the topic of writing (didn't meant to go on so long), if I wrote about unwise trade policies and the such, it just wouldn't make a good read. Sometimes the causes of problems like homelessness are too subtle or complex.
Since I just read, Parable of the Sower, I'll put that forward. To me, it paints a more realistic view of the future. Of course, I wouldn't expect such dire conditions by 2025. At least I hope not...
quote:
Here, life is good for some. Often at the expense of others.
That has always been the case, and always will be. The above sums up life so perfectly, that I can't come up with anything else to add.
But I'll try: Whether human or in the animal kingdom. There will never be a utopia where everything will be fair and plentiful for all; so the sooner people come to terms with that, the better off we will become. If that makes any sense. Opportunitists will nearly always do better than those who do not "seize the day." Fact of life. From weeds to wolves to humans.
I am not advocating chaos, mind you. Society has rules for good reasons.
[This message has been edited by HSO (edited April 27, 2005).]
While company profits are at an alltime high (at least on paper) this money does not trickle down to the average worker. Look at the american lifestyle there is one word for it-
debt up to your ears.
Particularly:
The Parafaith War
The Ethos Effect
Archform: Beauty
Flash
quote:
Right now America's all about The President being utterly, unquestionably right. Bush is America's Pope. I bet my house the next memorable yell at society won't come from an American. We're cowards.
A little bitter, eh? Oh, wait, never mind.
A lot bitter.
The titles I listed all deal with political and social issues.
That seemed to be the initial topic.
I agree with Avatar300 about L. E. Modesitt, Jr.
<shamelessplug>
My own story in the Phobos anthology is in part a commentary on corruption in the United Nations, and my forthcoming Analog story deals with environmental extremism.
</shamelessplug>
Oh, and can we please, please, please, please, please not turn the Hatrack Writers forums into another place for Bush-bashing? If that's what you want to do, there are plenty of places to do it, including the regular Hatrack forums.
quote:
Orwell, Huxley, Bradbury in the realm of political commentary in sci-fi or fantasy today?
Maybe people are looking on the wrong side of the aisle. I don't know that anyone has mentioned it, but the term is "political correctness". It virtually defines the work of writers like L.E. Modesitt, Jr. As far as I can tell, it's the only reason his stuff is published at all (in fairness, I've never managed to get far enough into his books to notice his political views, so they might not be what I think they are).
The publishing scene of today is a lot more politically correct than was the case back then. That's okay, it's also a lot bigger, so there's probably just as much room for real and important social commentary. But I still don't think that you'll find it by looking at the left. Certainly, you'll never find it by looking only at the left.
Look for writers who are, at the least, being persecuted by the literary establishment, who hold and express unpopular views. It doesn't mean they're right, it just means that they have the capacity to think something other than what our current overlords have decreed to be the "correct" opinion.
Like I said, I don't know, because his actual prose was...it was just stupid. Using terms like "emkays" and there was a "big red button" and things of this nature. When the heroic captian stood and explained to his crew the particularly clever manuver that he had just had them perform, I simply gave up. That was on about page three or four.
I don't really have anything against PC, I think that suppression of free speech is probably very helpful to literature in the long run, even if it is bad for the individual artist. But I hate it when really terrible writing gets published and is representing my chosen profession to the world at large.
Well, there are two genocides in the book, actually. The reason for one might seem superficially PC because it was against a religious group (although the PC crowd would have a tough time deciding whether the religious group should be condemned because it was partly based on Mormons or kowtowed to because it was partly based on Muslims.) And the second might seem superficially PC because it was against a culture that was becoming more racist. But such trappings of PC (including other things such as gay marriage) disguise a rather un-PC message about the preemptive use of force, including collateral damage, in order to stop the spread of virulent ideologies.
[This message has been edited by limo (edited April 28, 2005).]
Apparently I was unclear. Please allow me to restate:
If a writer is to be a Huxley or Orwell, he or she must challenge those holding political power. Perhaps there is an American writer with the stomach to do that, but I don't think he or she will find a large audience like Orwell or Huxley. It's not American writers who are cowards, it's American readers.
I personally believe we could be conquered by another nation and as long as the above conditions were met nobody would care. But by God you'd better tell me if Britney Spears is wearing pink or green!
JB Skaggs
Stop saying Americans are cowards. Apparently you've never served in the military, when you didn't want to go to war especially because you were IN the military, and you still went anyway because you honored a contract that you signed -- or for whatever reason. Are you calling those men and women cowards? Are you? Because if you are, you're an idiot!
Are some Americans cowards? You bet. But stop freakin' saying that Americans are cowards. Are we clear? I hope so.
I can't say I agree, though. I don't think American readers are cowards. There are so many outlets for social and political opinions nowadays that most readers don't want to pick up a novel and read 500 pages about society's ills. They can get it from radio, TV, the Net, etc etc, without investing so much time and effort.
Lazy? Maybe.
Too busy? Hell yeah!
Cowards? No way!
I don't think so. I think the American media has painted it that way because the majority of Americans don't hold the values the elitist artists (and I include those in the news media among said artists) believe they should. I think American readers are more open-minded than people think. If they weren't, America wouldn't exist in its current form.
quote:
If a writer is to be a Huxley or Orwell, he or she must challenge those holding political power. Perhaps there is an American writer with the stomach to do that, but I don't think he or she will find a large audience like Orwell or Huxley. It's not American writers who are cowards, it's American readers.
And those writers who do challenge those in power would be relegated to obscurity, never achieving the bestseller status of power-holder apologists such as Michael Moore, Al Franken, etc.
Give me a break. It doesn't take much courage to speak out against those in political power in the U.S. And there's certainly a significant segment of the public willing to buy books that speak out against those in power.
[This message has been edited by EricJamesStone (edited April 28, 2005).]
I don't.
The fact that Moore and Franken have an audience just proves that leftists in America still have leftist values. It does not prove that American readers have the stomach to challenge their own values, whatever they may be.
The more I think about the comparison between President Bush and the Pope the more I like it. To me it seems that both have a special air of infallibility among those who believe in them, but draw criticism from those who do not. Believers and non-believers alike don't need to think, they just need ideology.
Please understand I'm not saying any particular political or religious belief is good or bad. I'm saying that the readers who made England's Orwell, Huxley, and Burgess famous were open-minded people of all ideologies.
I also don't mean to belittle the American contribution, so I'll embrace it. Ray Bradbury's chilling cautionary tale Farenehit 451 found an enduring audience around the world. Perhaps Bradbury just did it better than anyone we have today. Or perhaps it was a different era.
In Farenehit 451, Fire Captain Beatty said:
quote:
"Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs.... Don't give them slippery stuff like philosophy or sociology to tie things up with. That way lies melancholy."
It was the tale of a society that preferred not to think.
I believe that if someone wrote Farenehit 451 today the target would be cable news, extreme feminism, rampant consumerism, communism, capitalism, environmental activism . . . or any of the zillion substitutes our society uses as an ersatz for thought. And that writer would immediately be embraced by some and branded a partisan by the rest, which would prove the writer was right. Americans really don't want to think right now.
Maybe I'm wrong about the cause. Maybe it isn't fear that has made us this way. But I think it is.
[This message has been edited by Doc Brown (edited April 28, 2005).]
I believe Americans right now are driven by fear more than we were in a previous era. Fear is not a bad thing, we need it. To overcome fear requires courage. I believe we have failed to overcome the fear, so I used the word coward. Because of its negative connotation, coward is not a completely accurate description of the my thoughts. But it's the best word I had.
This whole thing could have been avoided if I took the time to think it through and express myself accurately. I plead guilty to firing off a quick, emotionally charged word as a substitute for actual thought.
How ironic.
[This message has been edited by Doc Brown (edited April 28, 2005).]
To say that many Americans are living in fear of something may be true. Fear is our inherent survival mechanism. If we had no fear, we would be unable to live very long.
Cowardice, on the other hand, is a conscious decision to run away from something that needs to be confronted. It may be tied to personal survival or it may be just turning your back on something.
Complacency is the word you are striving for, Doc. Not cowardice. There's a difference. A huge difference.
When necessary, people will stop being complacent and act. That time is not now. But it may come someday...
*Rest of the political/societal commentary reinjested for good of all*
[This message has been edited by Lanius (edited April 28, 2005).]
[This message has been edited by Lanius (edited April 28, 2005).]
quote:
Eric, do you believe The Chamber is another 1984? Do you believe Farenheit 911 is another Brave New World or Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them is another Animal Farm?
I don't.
Animal Farm was not written as an allegory indicting the British system of parliamentary monarchy. 1984 is anti-totalitarian, and the political power in the England of 1948 was not in the hands of totalitarians.
I think you're misdiagnosing the problem and bashing Americans in the process.
[This message has been edited by Jeraliey (edited April 28, 2005).]
I'd just like to point out that the percentage of people in America who qualify as readers (meaning those who read things that they don't have to read) is much lower than 50 percent.
American readers are not particularly representative of the American people in general.
Besides, maybe this topic is becoming too political?
To Eric: yes I might be bashing Americans. And you might be lumping the complex ideas I have expressed into the word "bashing" because it is easier than thinking about them. Experience shows that the truth lies somewhere in between, and I conceed that I am probably more wrong than I believe I am.
This has been an invigorating exercise in the written expression of ideas deeper than we usually discuss. I am glad we had it.
That's really the point I was making in my previous post. People that only look on one side of the issue to find powerful social commentary are probably going to be looking at the side already dominated by ideologues rather than original thinkers. And group-think isn't very creative, by its very nature.
If you want to search for good writing, you have to judge works on their merits as literature. I don't really care whether Modesitt is really as PC as I've heard. For me, it's just a convenient explanation of how he got published when his writing skills are so fundamentally lacking. I've loved everything I've ever read by Jane Yolen, and it isn't exactly as if her writing contains anything that could be seen as a deviation from the PC line. But her writing is great. True, it's too PC to contain anything really revolutionary, but that's not the point of being a writer. The fundamental truth is that the sword is mighier than the pen, and the gun more powerful than the sword. Nukes are trumps, till further notice.
Writers only ever "change the world" because history is written by historians. Usually, the winner has some literati hanging around to attribute victory to the power of the written word. But plenty of literate societies have served as object lessons that the pen doesn't have any real power in the pinch.
Which is why I don't judge writers by whether they "changed the world" in the opinion of historians. I judge writing by whether it is good writing.
Funny how the role models we choose live up to our expectations. Or don't, but we pretend they do.
----
http://www.richardwebster.net/orwellandtheshootingstick.html
Orwell's simple honesty about himself gives Winston a deep plausibility both as would-be hero and as utterly subjugated victim. His essays about his own actions in India derive a lot from the fact that Orwell doesn't pretend to be worthy of admiration. Certain later writers could benefit from the example. Some even have.
quote:
I don't think that a discussion about great writers has to be ideological . . .
I'm going to take a crack at rounding all of up in the same pen. Obviously they are all profound works, but I believe they have a common theme which has nothing to do with good and evil. After all, none of them depicts a violent dictator's reign of terror. Such tales already exist in the history books and don't need to be told as fiction.
The cautionary tales discussed in this thread speak of more subtle forms of oppression.
I see 1984 and Farenheit 451 as depictions of entire societies that willingly gave up high-level thought because an easier substitute was offered to them.
I think Brave New World and Animal Farm were about voluntary social hierarchies, where those at the bottom didn't need to think for themselves.
And I believe A Clockwork Orange was about a society that concludes people have no free will, and citizens are better off programmed to like or dislike whater the government wants them to like or dislike.
To me none of these stories were about "evil" societies. They were all about societies who found that thinking for yourself takes hard work, and individuals will sacrifice a lot to avoid that work.
quote:
To me none of these stories were about "evil" societies. They were all about societies who found that thinking for yourself takes hard work, and individuals will sacrifice a lot to avoid that work.
I have to go on record as disagreeing with that assessment. Sure, the various rulers of those fictional societies exploited the fact that most humans don't really think for themselves, and they certainly demanded the sacrifice of the individual. But the society at large didn't understand the difficulty of independent thought, and the individuals sacrificed didn't offer themselves up to avoid being dissenters.
And to say that none of those societies were "evil" is merely to say that you don't believe anything is "evil". That is about your personal ethical system, it has nothing to do with a discussion of the stories themselves.
quote:
And you might be lumping the complex ideas I have expressed into the word "bashing" because it is easier than thinking about them.
The point I've been trying to make is that willingness to challenge U.S. political authorities is not necessary to producing a contemporary Orwell. To think that U.S. political power is the only thing in the world able to provide a target for important social criticism sounds very much like a cookie-cutter leftist idea, rather than the "thinking for yourself" that you say is important.
No, I don't think the U.S. is perfect, and I do believe there is a need for criticism of U.S. political power. But there are other things in the world that deserve criticism as well, which could provide the fodder needed by a new Orwell or Huxley.