Let’s talk about utopias

Let's talk about utopias! I have read several utopias and rated them on two five-point scales. The first of them evaluates the quality of the book (plot, characters, etc.), the second – the difference of opinion between the characters. I believe that difference of opinion is a key quality for a good utopia. If all the characters are similar, it is much easier for them to avoid any conflicts. And if all of them are ideal (which happens in several utopias that I’ve read), then it is unclear what’s the point of the utopia at all. Ideal people would live in happiness, peace and harmony under a lot of regimes.

(I'm sorry for any mistakes – I’m not a native English speaker).

Let's go!

 

Edward Bellamy – Looking Backward: 2000–1887

Book: 3. Difference: 4.

Classic utopia, published in 1888. It’s a collection of ideas (some of them are very interesting) about building an ideal socialist society (controlled by the government). This book would be better as nonfiction – it has a plot, but it is very weak (especially romantic relationship).

I respect Bellamy for two things. Firstly, he really tried to test his utopia for strength and to think about what could go wrong and what could be done about it (although he explored open resistance and not quiet sabotage). Secondly, he wrote about women's rights. Yes, some of his suggestions are very sexist (well, it was 1888), but the others are still interesting – for example, creating a role of women’s ombudswoman in the government.

 

William Morris – News from Nowhere

Book: 1. Difference: 0.

William Morris did not like the government control in Bellamy's utopia at all, which resulted in a saccharine utopia about perfect people in a perfect world. This book is notable only for its historical significance, otherwise it is the most boring description of a dream that I’ve ever read. I dnfed this book.

 

Ursula LeGuin – The Disposessed

Book: 5. Difference: 5.

 This is a book about two worlds: anarchist Anarres and capitalist Urres. A scientist called Shevek moves from Anarres to Urres, because he no longer can live and work on Anarres, but his new world turns out to be extremely far from perfect. LeGuin, being an anarchist, described two worlds very vividly and realistically.

The brutal honesty with which LeGuin tests her ideas for strength is extremely rare and truly impressive. Anarres is a complex world with its own advantages and disadvantages, and they are closely related to each other. No one is left without water, food, shelter, clothes. Everybody is closely watching each other. Everybody can express their ideas freely, but those who disagree with the majority are ostracized, and in some cases, severely abused.

"The Disposessed" is an excellent (100% recommend) book, but I think that it’s a dystopia. This is a very unpopular point of view, not shared by the author herself (LeGuin called her book “an Ambiguous Utopia”) and many readers. But, in my opinion, that’s how it should be. What is utopia for one person is dystopia for the other.

 

M. E. O’Brien, Eman Abdelhadi – Everything for Everyone: An Oral History of the New-York Commune 2052-2072

Book: 2. Difference: 0.

The idea of this book is great – to create a collection of pseudo-interviews with people living in a fictional anarchist commune. But all characters are sharing all authors’ ideas, and most of them are indistinguishable from each other. Almost all characters like to live, eat, spend time, and raise children in a large commune. The enemies of the new regime have either been killed (and no one wants to avenge them), or they are not trying to regain power. The solution to any problem is described as “we worked as a group, discussed our differences and found a solution”. In short, it’s another perfect utopia with perfect people.

Is there anything good about the book? Yes, I liked how the members of the commune describe their previous experiences. The parts where they talk about their traumas are not bad. Well, that's all.

What is even worse is that the authors had spent a lot of time describing old world problems (economical, ecological, etc.). But sexism or patriarchy (or their consequences) are not even mentioned in this book. Even Edward Bellamy in 1888 paid much more attention to women's rights than the authors from the 21st century!

 

Ruthanna Emrys – A Half-Built Garden

Book: 4. Difference: 3.

Benevolent aliens are trying to convince the inhabitants of the Earth to leave their planet and move to an artificial satellite – they believe that otherwise humanity would have no chance of survival. Many people, including the main character, disagree with them. But there are not only anarchist communes on Earth, but also remnants of former corporations, and for them deal with aliens could be a way to regain their former power.

For me it’s a very controversial book. The idea is absolutely amazing, the plot is both good and bad, characters’ refusal to take responsibility for their actions is frustrating, and the conflict between anarchists and capitalists, which could be one of the book's greatest strengths, is weak. It seems that the author understands that people are different, but does not really understand how and why: capitalists don’t have any ideas, beliefs or goals (the only thing that they want is deal with aliens). Both anarchists and capitalists have no idea how people on the other side live. It looked weird even in “The Disposessed”, and it became even weirder with modern technologies.

But overall, I liked this book, and I recommend it.

 

Margaret Killjoy – A Country of Ghosts

Book: 3,5. Difference: 3.

A young journalist goes to war with the anarchists, but by chance he quickly finds himself on their side. He starts to help them because he believes that this is the right thing to do and because his own survival depends on it.

The beginning of this book is weak: the opponents of the anarchists are absolutely cardboard. But the rest is more interesting. Two things caught my attention. Firstly, it’s the idea that good deeds can have unpredictable consequences: the main character wrote an article about the shelter where he lived as a teenager, describing terrible living condition and abuse, and the owner of the shelter set it on fire (three children died). As a result, some people curse the main character for this article, while others thank him, believing that such a terrible end is still better than what happened before it. Secondly, among all the anarchist communes there is one for people who were expelled from other communes or left on their own free will. The plot and characters aren't too memorable, but overall it's a pretty interesting anarchist adventurous utopia.

 

Becky Chambers – Monk and Robot Duology

Book: 5. Difference: 2

Once upon a time, people on Panga used robots. But a long time ago, robots developed a consciousness – and now two species don’t bother each other. Robots live in forests, and people (who have learned a lot since then) live in the utopia they have built during this time. Until one of the robots, Mosscap, joins a monk called Dex, who offers people tea and comfort.

This is the epitome of a cozy fantasy. If you need a tense plot, perhaps this book is not for you. If you are interested in the atmosphere and the inner world of the characters, I surely recommend it. In any case, it will become clear very quickly whether you like Becky Chambers' style or not, so give it a try.

There are two things I really like about this book. Firstly, Chambers does not idealize nature and understands why people need technology. Secondly, she is not afraid to explore her own ideas. For example, if a robot breaks any of their parts that they cannot fix themselves, then they voluntarily agree to an analogue of death: they are disassembled, and their good parts are used to create new robots. And in the second book, one of the Mosscap’s parts indeed gets broken. It amazes me how much the perception of ideas depends on their presentation. On the one hand, it is clear why this principle was introduced: otherwise it would be unclear which of the robots is worthy of living, and which of them should be disassembled into spare parts. On the other hand, such adherence to traditions looks a bit like a cult, and for another author it could very well become part of a dystopia. (By the way, robots can ask humans for help, but they don't do it).

The utopia in this book is quite standard anarchist one, but with one interesting nuance: there is a kind of money analogue – when you get any help, you transfer this pseudo money to the helper’s account. However, it is not forbidden to have a negative balance; a big negative balance only shows other people that you need some help.

 

There are also two YA books that are not 100% utopia, but close to it (at least on a surface level).

Nick Fuller Googins – The Great Transition

Book: 4. Difference: 3.

In some ways, this YA book is similar to Everything for Everyone: the old world collapsed under the weight of economic and environmental problems, and people barely managed to build a new world. Now young people can hardly imagine previous life, and the older generation is trying to cope with their traumas. These traumas pull family of Larch, Kristina and their daughter Amy apart: Larch wants to forget the past, Kristina wants to remember it (and make others remember it as well), and Amy wants to live her life and not be blamed for not suffering enough.

Sometimes plot of this book is weak, but I still love it very much. Firstly, for the Larch storyline – it was very vivid and interesting. And secondly, for Kristina, an absolutely insufferable zealot and an incredibly interesting and realistic character. She is willing to fight for justice, she is ruthless towards herself and others, and she resents new generation when they are not sharing her ideals.

If the characters are more important for you than the plot, I recommend this book 100%. If not, take a closer look at this book anyway, it's good.

 

Akwaeke Emezi – Pet

Book: 2. Difference: 1.

Not poetic enough for a fairy tale and not realistic enough and far too predictable for YA, this is a book about sexual abuse in the seemingly utopian city of Lucille, and about the attempts of its inhabitants to silence this abuse.

As a utopia, this book is not very interesting: at first, everybody seem to be ideal people living an ideal life, but they are all ready to cover up the abuse, until the very end, when everyone changes their minds.

The topic of the abuse itself described is just as poorly: what angered me the most was that the main character blindly trusts the self-appointed abuser hunter only because her gut tells her so, and the narrative never ever shows us that this choice was wrong. There is also sexism in the supposedly utopian Lucille: it is briefly mentioned that three-year-old boys and girls wear different clothes, and, again, it is treated like something normal.

Of course, when an author describes something does not mean that they approve it. But if all characters actions only have consequences that the author needs to express their ideas, it is a bad book.

 

Overall, there are a few things that I’ve noticed:

1. Except from Looking Backwards, all utopias are entirely anarchist. I would like to read some kind of non-anarchist utopia.

2. The impact of technology on life is not explored by anyone except Becky Chambers. The use of technology in decision-making is mentioned in A Half-Built Garden, but the system there resembles an old-fashioned Internet forum from the mid-2000s. It’s a shame; I think that the use of technology in utopia building could be very interesting.

3. Special mention goes to the medical technologies. I have chronic diseases, and my perfect world definitely includes very, very advanced medicine. What could be more utopian than a world when “a chronic disease” is an outdated term? But nobody writes about it either.

4. There are no fractions in any utopia except A Country of Ghosts – in all other utopias, all “good guys” live by the same rules. There are also no selection or self-selection mechanisms anywhere.

5. I would like to read more books that explore the collision of old and new worldviews. Such changes leave significant impact, and they are very interesting.

6. To be clear – in previous points I described things that I want to read about, but I don’t think that lack of them make these utopias bad. But a complete absence of the topic of women's rights in modern utopia was a massive disappointment. After LeGuin, none of the authors tried to explore (even just a little) how patriarchy works, how to destroy it, and what the world would look like if it was destroyed.

7. Also, in the utopian worlds of A Half-Built Garden and Everything for Everyone, religions have somehow solved all their problems and became entirely good. I wonder how.

Please share your utopia reviews and recommendations!