Spoiler Warning: This article indiscriminate spoilers for the following books/series: 1984, Brave New World, The Giver, The Hunger Games, Red Rising, Divergent, The Maze Runner

                Among the various subgenres of science fiction is dystopian fiction. This narrow field deals in stories specifically focused on futuristic, but still possible, settings where some form of authoritarian government has become all consuming, examining the society that exists underneath that government through the lens of one or more of its citizens. The defining work of this genre is Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, which sees a future Britain ruled by “Big Brother,” the all-knowing face of an authoritarian party that has stripped the citizens of all meaningful choice in their lives. While there were several iterations on Orwell’s concept, the dystopian genre has also evolved in a fascinating way in recent years, and as the media a society generates can teach you about that society, we can learn about the generations who created different versions of the same story by examining the way such a narrow genre has changed and evolved over the years. Naturally, the modern equivalent of this work is Collins’ Hunger Games trilogy. The Hunger Games dealt with a post-apocalyptic America run by a government that kept the people in line through the televised slaughter of children, and its two sequels dealt with the rebellion against these oppressors.

To understand what changed over the years, we need to examine the stories in more depth than my two sentence summaries can offer. If you’re already familiar with these works, then you can skip the next two paragraphs, because they are purely a quick explanation of their key plot points. 1984 tells the story of Winston Smith, a man who works in the propaganda department of “The Party.” His job is specifically to make alterations to historical records, thus ensuring that all historical evidence available to the public lines up with the will of Big Brother and the Party. While this means he should know his history correctly, the fact of the matter is that he, just like every other citizen in his dystopia is so thoroughly brainwashed that he willfully forgets the contradictory information he is erasing. This society is kept in line through the (presumably falsified) belief that they are at war with a fellow dystopian nation, playing on the people’s patriotism and instilling fear of other ways to live. The Party has been slowly rewriting the English language to make it impossible to discuss subjects contrary to its goals, and has instituted laws against “thought crimes,” meaning that a person can be put to death if they are believed to be thinking something negative about this government. It sounds unenforceable, but Winston witnesses his neighbor being taken away because the man’s own child heard him mumble treason in his sleep. Said neighbor is proud to have such a patriotic child as he is led to his execution. Winston eventually meets a woman he falls in love with, even though such emotions are discouraged by the Party, leading the two of them to attempt a secret relationship. Eventually, the pair is discovered by one of Big Brother’s spies, and they are tortured into perfect subservience before being killed and/or lobotomized as an example to the rest of the public.

                The Hunger Games, published almost a full sixty years after 1984, focuses on Katniss Everdeen, a teenage girl who illegally hunts to feed her poor family. Her world has been forcibly divided into twelve districts and a ruling Capitol, each specializing in a different aspect of what makes their society function. The Capitol rules through the threat of owning the world’s only remaining nuclear weaponry, and enforces the hopelessness of the randomly taking two children from each per year, and forcing them to fight to the death in a televised event. Katniss voluntarily takes her sister’s place in the blood sport, competing against a friendly local she knows has a thing for her, and twenty two other teens she tries to distance herself from. When the games end with her ana her love interest as the last ones standing, Katniss gambles by threatening a suicide pact with her new boyfriend to deny the Capitol a conclusion to their game, and both of them are allowed to live. This act of defiance inspires a rebellion that leads into full scale war in the later two books. Through two years, a bloody and impractical war, and many terribly losses, the districts eventually win out, ending the regime and constructing a new democratic system. Katniss, having lost her family in the war, settles down with her love interest and begins a new family in the ashes of her victory.

                I compare these two books instead of other entries in the genre because they are the trendsetters. The ideas Orwell discussed would be iterated on in other dystopian works. Huxley’s Brave New World (written first) was effectively the inverse of 1984, one in which the story was told by a man being integrated into the society, rather than a man trying to escape from it, and one where the government ruled through pleasure instead of fear. With the exception of these two details, however, the general plotline is quite similar, and the two books are clearly different takes on the same idea. Other works of classical dystopian fiction, such as The Giver, would follow the same mold, albeit a lighter and softer variant. Similarly, The Hunger Games had its fair share of imitators, books where the dystopian world was designed to cleanly divide people, and the teen protagonist grew to lead a revolution following some traumatic event. There was a glut of Young Adult dystopian fiction following in its footsteps, with Divergent, Red Rising, and The Maze Runner being just a few of the more noteworthy series. All of these were trilogies rather than single books, following the exact structural formula of Collins’ trilogy.

                So this all begs the question of what changed between the two generations of dystopia. The fact that it became a popular Young Adult genre isn’t it, given that The Giver is a popular addition to school curriculums, and that it is firmly in the classical category. What separates them is the result. In 1984, Winston fails. He is found out, he is tortured, he is brainwashed, and he is killed. And that is the end of the book. Brave New World sees its protagonist lash out against the horrifying society he finds himself in, but ultimately finds himself a slave to his body when exposed to the euphoria-inducing chemicals that keep the population compliant, and chooses death over the hollow existence offered to him. The Giver features a much more benevolent ruling class than its contemporaries, but its hero ultimately faces a world where he can never be happy or fulfilled, and while he has a slightly happier ending in rescuing a child that is to be killed and escaping, it still ends on the note that his future and survival are uncertain, and that there is nothing he can do to free the people he loves from the oppressive regime. This single truth unifies these three stories: The hero cannot win. He is doomed to fail when he challenges the society he lives in, and only in the child-friendly story does he even have a small hope of escape for himself. Compare that to the more modern style of dystopia. Katniss suffers and loses her family, but the revolution is ultimately successful (as it turns out the threat of death will not deter a population that has nothing left to live for). Red Rising sees its protagonist climb into the ruling class and successfully lead a war against his oppressors by recruiting from all walks of life, setting up a hopeful future for everyone who survived. Divergent sees the heroine permanently alter her world’s classification system, returning a semblance of free will to the people. The Maze Runner is far less hopeful than these, given that it includes an incurable plague, but still ends in the immune population creating a safe haven to rebuild from after a lengthy conflict with the old world’s leadership. This single truth unifies these four stories: The people can band together to create a better life. The key difference between the two generations should be obvious.

                Classical dystopia is defined by the hopelessness of the situation; modern dystopia is defined by finding a way through it. The horrific worlds Orwell and Huxley describe are past the point where its citizens are capable of fighting back in any meaningful fashion. They may temporarily get one over by stealing moments away from the oppression, but there is no long term victory for these heroes. They are doomed from the start, and the society they live within will continue in its power in spite of anything they may do in their limited lives. The worlds put forth by Collins, Brown, and the like are different in that there is still a solution to the problem, albeit a violent and painful one. These books feature heroes that cannot make the difference alone, but who have other rally around them in the shared goal of revolution; a goal that is eventually achieved. There’s clear reason to write stories in each of these styles. The classical dystopias are cautionary tales, warnings of what can happen if the world is not careful of its course; the modern dystopias are reassurances, reminders that people can fight back and repair a broken world they had no say in the creation of.

                Most interesting of the seven books I’ve named is The Giver, because it had an… interesting film adaptation following the wave of modern dystopian fiction. One which was received unkindly by many, due to it changing the ending (in a supremely illogical fashion, I might add) to a hopeful variant where leading man Jonas actually succeeds in restoring emotion to the people and color to the world. It was a move that was derided for spitting in the face of the original book’s themes, but it is telling that the only way a perfectly good dystopian story could be made was if it had the more hopeful resolution shared by the modern style. Was this simply a belief that it had to be changed to align with other popular dystopian films, or does a modern generation see the old work and disagree with its themes to such an extend that they would rewrite it to match new beliefs? I’m not qualified to say, but I’m willing to believe we’d see an argument about this same topic in the writing room if a 1984 film was announced tomorrow. In the hands of thee generation that consumes the hopeful dystopia, even a world as barren as that of The Giver received new life.

                So what does this say about the generations that wrote in each of these styles? The classical dystopia sees a future that must be averted, and which cannot be stopped after a certain point. The modern dystopia tells us that we can make amends no matter how far gone the future has become. Telling stories is one of humanity’s most primal and basic instincts, and I believe there is much to be gleaned from examining the beliefs they express. Why would we tell the tale of the classical dystopia? This is the story told by a person who fears the direction the world is moving in. By the person who believes people can be broken. By the person who needs others to see what they can. The modern dystopia? Told by the person who sees a brighter future regardless of today. Told by the person who believes power will always lie in the masses. Told by the person who is dissatisfied with the current world and desires change. Both of these people fear a version of the world they can see, be it one that is to come or the one they currently live in. Both tell these stories to wake up those who will listen and can work to make the world a better place. The author of classical dystopia sees a point of no return and urges their readers to work to prevent it before it is too late. The author of modern dystopia believes they already live in a broken world, and urges their readers to work to put things as they should be. In some ways, it could be said that modern dystopia is written because the readers of classical dystopia did not listen. But that is the belief of a more cynical person than myself. I believe the world is not yet broken, and that we should heed cautionary tales and works to ensure that it never is. Feel free to disagree with me there, but that is just a matter of perspective.

The world has changed since 1984 was first written. If we do not believe its predictions came true, we should work to keep things that way. If we believe they did, then we should heed the modern dystopia and keep our eyes towards a future that can be rebuilt. The fact that there is debate today over the two styles tells me we haven’t decided what state the world is in. But if fiction mirrors reality, so too can reality be made to mirror fiction. After all, utopian fiction also exists.