Apocalypse and Post-Apocalypse
The discussion of literary genres got me thinking about the distinction between Apocalyptic and Post-Apocalyptic settings. At first glance, my brain reads them as having the exactly the same meaning, that being writing about an apocalypse, but I think the distinction between the two is very important. In an apocalyptic setting, the world goes from ordered to chaotic. As a society breaks down, we see people suffer, and the message is clear: don't let society break down. In the post-apocalyptic setting, the world gains order, as people pick up the pieces of their broken society. That said, the new order they create is not necessarily a good one, and so the message of post-apocalyptic writing does not have to be an entirely uplifting one. Ultimately, the message is that, no matter what, humanity will persevere. Its in our nature to survive. I think the moral greyness of this is really interesting, and is what allows dystopias like BNW and 1984 to be depicted.
Great post (great series of posts, in fact -- good work). It may seem obvious, "don't let society break down," but that's actually a solid point because dystopian literature by itself focuses mostly on the problems of society. The flip side is what happens if we have no society, problematic or otherwise. And you're right, it isn't always uplifting, nor does it need to be. (Though sometimes these books are so grim, a tiny bit of uplift wouldn't be unwelcome...)
ReplyDelete