Don't diss topians

Pardon the awful pun. I couldn't help it. Also, I may reveal mild spoilers in the text below, but I've tried to keep it out of that area.

Very recently, I had the chance to read two of the foremost dystopian future novels, "1984," by George Orwell and "Fahrenheit 451," by Ray Bradbury. Earlier in the year, I read another of the foremost dystopian novels, "That Hideous Strength," by C.S. Lewis. Since the books have similar setups (set in the vague future, oppressive society up to no good, etc.) but different approaches, I thought it would be good to compare the three, especially since they are often mentioned in conjunction with each other.

1984 is by far the most famous book of the three, but it was my least favorite.

The government: English Socialism, commonly referred to Ingsoc or the Party. The world has been split up into three large countries: Oceania (The Americas, South Africa and the British Isles), Eurasia (Mainland Europe and Russia) and Eastasia (China, India, Mongolia, Japan and the surrounding area. What is left is fought over among the three countries.

Themes: Rule through ignorance, subversive language and technology, the quest for power

The book starts out very promisingly, as it appears to be an indictment of Communism and Socialism by showing how such ideologies always end up with the very thing they supposed to decry and how they could appear several years down the road (the book was published in 1949). The main character, Winston Smith, is a Party drone who questions all of the nonsense that the Party throws at him and everyone else (for example, their constant and comprehensive altering of past news articles in order to always prove party predictions right). He often questions whether or not it might be he who is insane, since the Party has such control over the past that it has become a merely subjective reality.

However, then a love plot is introduced, and it is done so quite clumsily on the whole. While Orwell does a great job of showing how sexual repression is tied into the ideas of the Party, Winston's love interest is never very likable, nor is she believable. When, for example, she tells him that she has slept with many other men, how are we to know that her shenanigans with Winston are not simply another, to paraphrase Winston, "rebellion below the waist," especially because the pair had previously almost no connection in any way?

The books strongest points are in explaining how the Party works its magic. They have invented a language that they are slowly developing in order to shun creative thought, because how can people think of concepts like freedom when absolutely no words even resembling them are in existence? Using language (or the lack thereof) to control thought is one of the best parts of the book. Similarly, many of their other methods are very well explained and reasoned. Unfortunately, this led to my biggest complaint about the book.

While Orwell does a great job of explaining the how of the Party's workings, he is entirely unsatisfactory in explaining the why. The greatest why, he said, is power. Power is an end unto itself. While I think that some people buy that, I think that to have an entire ruling elite based solely on power is implausible. The rulers of the party still live like members of a slightly poorer middle class, they still are chased about by the thought police, they have none of the trappings that power can bring. While they explain that they are drunk with the power to mold minds and hearts, it still seemed like a bit of a stretch.

In summary: While it is well written, 1984 lacks sufficient motives for its villains, the love story is unsympathetic and the pessimistic worldview becomes a bit dreary by the end.

That Hideous Strength is not as well known as the other two books, but it is excellent all the same. It can be read alone, but it is also the third and best book in Lewis' excellent space trilogy. It is actually not primarily concerned with describing the oppressive regime, but its makeup functions as the underlying vehicle that moves the plot.

The government: Great Britain's present government, but one that is slowly taking away civil liberties. They have allowed the National Institute for the Coordination of Experiments (the NICE) to use a large part of a small English town to conduct dubious experiments, and suspicious things are happening to those who aren't in line with the program.

Themes: The brokenness of a faithless existence, the worship of science, the slow chipping away of freedom.

The book explores a committee of people who believe in the supremacy of man, but those in the know realize that they're simply serving another master, although they think it's someone different than it really is. The book is especially relevant now in a society of increasing atheism and, oddly, even more so now that the Supreme Court has allowed eminent domain to have an unchecked power.

The committee enlists the help of an young, educated but clueless man, who soon grows uneasy about some of NICE's activities. However, the threat of retribution keeps his serving the committee, while their experiments begin to fill their religious void by becoming more and more mystical.

Like many of Lewis' books, the themes of the book are more interwoven than actually stated. While this book is probably the most overtly Christian of the three (the first being the least, the second being a Christian allegory), much of what is learned about the power of the divine over darkness is shown rather than said.

General Overview: While the book is not a primarily dystopian work, the themes of all parts of the book are good, and the dystopian future looks at times eerily similar to where we may be headed.

Fahrenheit 451 is more famous than That Hideous Strength and less famous that 1984, but it was my favorite of the three.

The government: A powerful, vague, authoritarian one that was created out of the general laziness and mean-spiritedness of society. In this book, it's not the government that made us who we are, it's us.

Themes: jealousy, apathy, the importance of thought, the resentment of the lazy.

The one hurdle you have to jump in this book is Bradbury's incessant use of metaphors. It's not bad (although a few at the beginning are a little off), but you just have to get used to it. Once you do, this book is great.

The story revolves around a fireman named Montag. The catch? In the future, rather than putting out fires, firemen light fires--specifically, they burn books and the houses that contain them. It's the why of this statement that makes the book for me.

While you at first believe the answer to the why to be a 1984-style "we can't let the masses become to smart or they will overthrow us all," the reason given is a much different--and, in many ways, much worse--one. As it is so icily and matter-of-factly explained to Montag, book reading is illegal because the people wanted it that way.

Turns out, people became so apathetic that most people didn't read at all anymore. However, there were a few intellectuals who still read and who still thought and who still didn't live for cheap entertainment. Unfortunately, the lazy, stupid masses didn't like that, because who likes the smartest kid in class? No one. Rather than to focus on self-improvement, society dictated that those who wanted to take the extra time to become smart should be punished. When the government finally instituted book burning, it was something society was already comfortable with.

Wow. Talk about eerie. I know people who don't read at all. I know people who take a kind of ignorant pride in the fact that they don't learn things and they don't read and they don't care. "Who needs books?" they seem to be saying. "I get along fine with what I already know." It's as if the little kid who thought he got on fine without being able to read has grown up and not changed his mind. "There are better things to watch on TV, and it's easier to understand." While Bradbury's future isn't likely to come to fruition (not for a long time, anyway) the seeds of it are already in place, and the book serves as a scathing indictment of a culture that's entertained by Runaway Brides and Natalie Holloways, all the while shunning anything that requires thought processes.

Summary: Well written, beautifully-crafted monologues, excellent view into the characters' minds and one of the best societal criticisms I've ever read.

P.S. If you want something really good by Orwell, read "Animal Farm."