"Janice E. Dawley" <jdawley@TOGETHER.NET> replied to Emrah Goker:
>> SF utopias, to be good fiction, to have literary value -though "literary
>>value" is dangerous waters- must not be in _stasis_. They must not lose
>>their dynamism. Take Orwell's _1984_: The time seems stopped at 1984,
>>nothing moves, nothing changes. Even for a so-called "totalitarian"
>>communist society, be it in 20th century or in 24th, stasis is improbable.
>
>_1984_ was a dystopia, not a utopia. The extreme rigidity of the future
>society was part of what made it so frightful. It's not likely that such a
>society could exist, but the book nevertheless points out possible end
>results of certain trends by exaggerating reality.
We have always been at war with Saddam Hussein. . . despite the fact that
George Bush spent his entire political career shipping arms ro Iraq almost
non-stop.
I am horrified that "free Americans" are not allowed to travel (by air)
without government permission. I am abjectly apalled that almost no one
seems to think there's anything remarkable about the situation, and most
seem grateful for it.
Between a quarter and a third of a million people make their livings off
the "War on Drugs", attacking the poor, the non-white and the U.S.
Constitution exclusively.
It is something of a commonplace that "1984" was about "1948". It was not
especially about Russia.
Neil Rest
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:37 PDT