Writer's Block Daily

How come there seem to be no post-dystopian stories? Someone else has already gone and overthrown the old regime, and now we're following some ordinary people as they try to get their lives back together in the face of political upheaval and the face of a borderline alien world.

Because that's not the point of dystopias.

So?

What I mean is I think there are stories like that but they're not labeled "post-dystopias".

In Delirium, there's the implication (along with Word of God) that the rest of the world is not in a well-off state, so maybe there was a series of events that led to Americans scapegoating romantic love and quarantine itself.

I mean compare this to something like Urbance, which has a similar premise, love in a setting where it is forbidden by law. Now it hasn't been released yet but the premise says "a genetic disease causes all heterosexual relationships to be banned". We don't know any details beyond this, but at least there's some extenuating circumstance (a disease) that causes something that's usually praised in society to be banned (heterosexual relationships).

Delirium gave no such justification for the total 180 in beliefs about romance. You could claim that it's government propaganda, but propaganda meant to keep people in line has to draw on fears that people already have. The number of people who think that romance is a great evil of our time are few and far between.

Wait, it's just romantic love that's affected?

I'm good.

edited 12th Apr '13 2:10:32 PM by Hermiethefrog

Well it implies that romantic love is what is being targeted as evil, but the procedure whatsit that everyone has to get can destroy one's ability to have empathy, which sometimes leads to parents killing their children, etc.

Which totally makes you wonder at what point not falling in love became more important than not killing your children.

Wait does the book outright say lack of empathy leads to infanticide? Or is that implied? Because if it says that uh, plenty of people with lower empathy go through their lives without murdering people.

Actually you know what? I'm judging this book by its cover (or your guys word, in this case). How about I shut up and come back to this after I've read the book? That way I'm not complaining about things I haven't read.

Carry on.

edited 12th Apr '13 3:13:13 PM by Hermiethefrog

From the TV tropes page:

I don't disagree that lower empathy does not really lead to infanticide, nor does having empathy make you incapable of infanticide (especially if you look at societies where infanticide is the norm), but you would think that if killing your children is one of the side effects of the cure, they wouldn't be making it mandatory for everybody.

As far as I'm concerned, if the lack of realism is getting in the way of the story, ignoring realism can no longer be said to be putting the story first. Even if they're allowed "some artistic liberties", that doesn't mean they are free from having to make sense.

I'd consider anything incorrect or unrealistic in an unjustified way to still be a flaw, but it's possible I'd still consider the book "good" if the unrealisticness isn't slamming me in the face. For a dystopia, it's definitely a problem if the author can't convince me the society could somehow exist (with the help of magic or magic science if necessary, so I agree with Oh So Into Cats about the sociological aspects put under scrutiny) because the society is a major point.

Yet, the problem with whatever realism gets in the way of the story or not is that the issue is subjective. Some people are more likely to be bothered by certain aspects, other people might notice those same aspects but not be bothered with them, and then some people might not notice them at all.

In any case, Delirium isn't the most popular book, but it did hit the New York Times bestseller lists, it received some postive feature reviews, and the third book came out recently.

Yet again, Twilight did even better, and it's definitely not as good as Delirium when it comes to the social implications.

Yeah. This is definitely a hot-button issue, and it raises the question about how much we should worry about quality.

Well, I've finally come to a conclusion on one thing: I don't like steampunk. That's not to say I hate it — it's not so strong an emotion as that. I won't reject something just because it's steampunk. But something about it just bugs me, and makes me think, "why? What's the big deal?" I just wish I could coherently determine what it is that makes me feel that way.

edited 12th Apr '13 6:25:56 PM by KillerClowns

Speaking from personal experience, it might be a knee-jerk reaction to the "steampunk means I can do whatever I want" subgenre. Those stories that take steampunk and use it to make anything, whether or not it makes sense.

The thing that made me realize this for myself was Damnation, which is very much a part of that genre. Why can those motorcycles drive up walls? Because steampunk. How can those robots work on miniaturized Babbage difference engines, which is in itself highly unlikely? Because steampunk. How does a revolver with four cylinders that doesn't take forever to reload work? Because steampunk. How can you make a military-industrial city state have its capital building so tall it dwarfs the Burj Khalifa? Because steampunk. You get the idea.

I know some authors try to make the tech make sense, but, you know, Sturgeon's Law. The lack of verisimilitude in worse works makes me a bit skeptical of steampunk.

edited 12th Apr '13 7:04:00 PM by TeraChimera

Eeeh, I'm mostly indifferent to steampunk. Sometimes it's ok, and other times it's really boring. That's why I don't read it too much.

Then again I'm really picky about books.

I went through a phase where I loved steampunk even though I had just a cursory knowledge of actual steampunk media.

I have a steampunk-teddy-bear-themed board game that I created for a class to prove it.

I've been decidedly into steampunk since highschool.

The problem I have with steampunk is that it's an aesthetic, not a genre. You can write Western stories in it, you can write fantasy stories in it, you can write science fiction, pulp, etc. And as far as aesthetics go, I prefer diesel and clocks anyway. Just adding magical steam engines to something does not make it more interesting than, say, adding magical crystals that run on moonlight.

I was going to say that steampunk is more of an aesthetic rather than a genre. I like the aesthetic, but I don't think I've actually read anything in the genre.

Girl Genius is a work that treats it's steampunk elements seriously and consistently. In other words, it's part of the setting, not a plot element. If steampunk could be a genre, it would be like Girl Genius.

As you all probably know, I've long been a fan of steampunk—or any kind of Punk Punk, really. Two of the things I like best are science fiction and old-fashioned aesthetics, so it was probably inevitable that I'd love every combination thereof.

I believe in ascetics as a part of a genre but yes It's a sub-genre that creates sub-genres: Magical steampunk, scientific steampunk, dystopian steampunk, ectra.

Is anyone willing to be a beta reader for something I'm writing?

I just... I can't write this anymore...

Hmm...