It seems you would find a dystopian work that consists of "genuine reflection upon, or speculation at, the state of humanity" to be superior to one based on mere cynicism. But what factors can we use to sift creative works into one category or the other? I guess I'm interested in examples of how you might categorize already-completed works moreso than general principles in this case, so I can compare those and form my own conclusions.
That's a good question. Look for the presence of other elements in the work which suggest or imply that the creator
expects (i.e., wants) such a future to take form, as opposed to those which suggest or imply that the creator greatly desires to avoid such a future. Carl Sagan's last episode of
Cosmos, "Who Speaks for Earth?," presents a very clear-cut example of a post-apocalyptic future in fiction which the creator greatly desired to avoid. (For most purposes, dystopianism and post-apocalyptism (sic) can be treated interchangeably even though they are effectively opposites.) Hayao Miyazaki's
Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind is another example of the same, but less clear-cut. (And it should be noted that
Nausicaä is more accurately
post-post-apocalyptic, with some part of civilization having reemerged from a cataclysm into a pastoral state.) (Indeed, that cyclical theme is very common in Japanese culture; you'll find it all over the place. At what point it crosses the line from genuine contemplativeness to cynicism-in-its-own-right is outside my expertise.)
Then there are the ambiguous ones, such as Ron Moore's
Battlestar Galactica and
Deep Space Nine. Is his work deliberately cynical, or ignorantly cynical? Moore himself, by my assessment, seems prone to creating fantasy futures of horror that he doesn't understand and doesn't subscribe to. It is tempting to me to discount him not as an exponent of doom, but as a fool with artistic inclinations. This kind of stuff constitutes a third ground which I didn't cover in my previous post; its size (i.e., significance) is questionable, and its relevance is diminished anyway, given how heavily it overlaps with the cynicism faction. In the end, therefore, the net effect is the same, even if the intent is ambiguous. I bet you that you could tie the prevalence of insincerely cynical works to the genuine cynicism levels of those works' audiences.
Completely new amusement:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/books/01lit.html?ref=homepage&src=me&pagewanted=allThat's the article which prompted me to write in the Frustration thread about non-scientific people who use science inappropriately. However, what really stands out to me about that article is how utterly marvelous the people's
names are. Go read that article and pay attention to all the names, both of real people and fictional figures. It's just so much fun to read...
