Talk:List of dystopian literature/Archive 1

Archive 1

The Last Man

Shelley's TLM was one of the first and most influential texts, wasn't it? 134.106.199.13 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

'Citation needed'

The ubiquitous 'citation needed' tags on this page are garish and unnecessary. If you disagree with a book, just delete it and perhaps leave a comment here if it's controversial. We don't need some literary journal cite to list what well-known dystopian novels are —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.70.214 (talk) 23:39, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. All the tags look utterly ridiculous. Anyone in favor of leaving them and why? Otherwise, I think they should be removed. 71.175.28.121 (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the tags stay until references are provided. This is an encyclopedia, after all. Every item on the list has to be explained and justified by a reputable source. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"No, the tags stay until references are provided." Apparently you missed the part about consensus being an important part of Wikipedia. While you might not think tagging every line is absurd, others certainly do. But, apparently, you seem to think your opinion is more important than anyone else's, so therefore it's your way or the highway. Even though you apparently have read few of the books on this list, you think you know better than someone who has. As well, the whole process of "verifying" seems upside-down; someone is wasting a lot of time slapping tags on virtually everything and removing books rather than considering the opinion of people who have actually read the books in question. (This sort of silly thinking was what kept Stalinist Russia so inefficient; "this has not been licensed as a book; therefore, it is not a book.") A Friend of the Earth by T. C. Boyle, for example, is clearly a dystopian novel to anyone who has read it. One need only read its entry here at Wikipedia to ascertain that. Additionally, a thirty-second search of The New York Times reveals, in a review, "The setting is Southern California in 2025. The environment has been ravaged by pollution, plunder and global warming. Meat and fish are rarities, the forests have been leveled, and the climate careers between drought and unending, vicious rainstorms." Well that's clearly dystopian. So why was it removed? Why was time spent removing rather than improving? When did Wikipedia become a petty cult of obsessive-compulsive removists? That's largely why I stopped contributing here years ago; too many people were more interested in creating an obstructionist bureaucracy and trying to force other people to their way of thinking than creating an inclusive compendium of knowledge. I see someone hasn't footnoted in the dog article that it's a mammal; I suppose that should be deleted, too, or at a minimum tagged.

"Every item on the list has to be explained and justified by a reputable source." Oh really? And where is that written? If one were to follow your "standard," virtually every sentence in Wikipedia should be tagged unless it is footnoted. Which is, of course, patently absurd and not Wikipedia policy nor style. And, further, your standard is not the Wikipedia standard for lists, which states, "In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, list definitions should to be based on reliable sources." Nowhere does this standard require that every item on a list be sourced nor must every unsourced item be tagged or removed. In looking at dozens of other lists here on Wikipedia, I see none of them cluttered with silly tags like this one.

For someone who posits him/herself as rather rigid about documentation, you seem to ignore documented standards that don't conveniently fit your personal choices. 71.175.28.121 (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You even quoted the rule we are following "In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, list definitions should to be based on reliable sources." Membership in the group of distopian literature is subjective and people come here and dipute specific entries. Many of them i dispute myself (and slowly delete). Hence reliable sources are needed for each entry.Yobmod (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess the idea behind all this is that no one can easily slip in a title which either doesn't exist at all or which hardly anyone thinks is a dystopian novel. However, if a particular book has already got its own article here at Wikipedia (where details can easily be verified) the "Citation needed" tag is superfluous, irritating for the casual browser, and, as far as I'm concerned, utterly ridiculous. <KF> 15:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so what do you mean by "verified" by looking at the individual articles? Most of them also have no citation for them being regarded as distopian, unfirtunately.Yobmod (talk) 08:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you've got the general idea of KF's intent. I believe he means it would be sufficient to go to the work's main article for verification of the existence of a verifiable source for the classification. However, I agree with you, whether or not a work is dystopian is often not supported by a source in the work's main article, and in those cases, it is not sufficient evidence for inclusion on this list. I think the easier solution is to move the citation from the main article to this one when it is available. When it is not, I'm personally in favor of leaving it off the list until a proper source is found. -Verdatum (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Yobmod (and Notinasnaid, in regards to his comments elsewhere on this page) on this one. The use of the term "dystopia" is subjective. Entries should only be included in the list if a reliable, third-party source describes them as dystopic. The List of dystopian films is in need of similiar treatment. - Walkiped ^{(T | C)} 00:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Stem

I've created a stem for this article and the list of dystopian films one, pointing out that there can be controversy about particular works that are not obviously and classically dystopias. I'm not wedded to the words, but I do see the need for something like what I've written ... and the talk page of the other article tends to confirm my thinking. The various articles related to dystopia are tending to push the definition beyond what many critics would be comfortable with (I think). The words I've written are offered in good faith to address the problem, but may not be perfect. Metamagician3000 13:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Rand?

What about Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged? Surely that depicts a dystopia society..the type where gov't controls too much and therefore causes businesses to go on strike, which obviously make society go downhill.68.162.69.174 15:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm no Randroid, but I don't think you can have a dystopia where each individual calls the shots for their own destiny. --Happylobster 19:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

-The People's States in Atlas Shrugged emerge as attempt by the power-lusting to accumulate power and regulate human lives, in a fashion that proves ineffective, corrupt, enormously oppressive and destructive. If Anthem counts as a dystopia so should Atlas Shrugged, it's the same theme, it simply lasts a shorter time and to an extent is shown emerging.

• Raskolnikov

Which one...

..is the one where corporations grow so powerful that businesses like Wal-Mart and McDonalds own countries and can lob nukes at each other and eventual control space routes, etc?-G

Starship Troopers

I agree that most of the works are dystopian without question. However, I would question the inclusion of Starship Troopers on this list. While the society depicted in the novel does have some striking differences from current norms, I would hardly classify it as dystopian. There is no "Big Brother" or other classic dystopian construct. If anything, the rights of the individual are paramount, with the chief exception being service before citizenship. This places it more in a utopian than dystopian setting. I would like to remove it from the list, but want to hear arguments to the contrary first. I might be missing something... Malakhi 19:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the first possibility for a Dystopia in the article is "A Utopian society that has at least one fatal flaw." Not that I've read Starship Troopers... but the World State in Brave New World could be considered Utopian by some, albeit at the cost of individual expression. I guess what you might be missing (to use your own words) is the flaw. --208.192.70.129 03:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be specific, it states a fatal flaw. The only real flaw in the system that presents itself in the book (as I recall it) is the possible disenfranchisement of those who choose not to pursue civil service. But, when the story touches on such people, they seem content with their decision not to participate. Their human rights are still secure; they are simply unable to vote or participate in politics. Malakhi 16:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

-More precisely, in the book the system is presented by Heinlein as laudatory. Various readers may have concerns, but in the eyes of the author it is not intended as a dystopian work, and can't be meaningfully classified as much. The same theme applies to some others.

• Raskolnikov

Watership Down

Watership Down contains a society which initially appears Utopian. The rabbits are well-fed, study poetry and the arts and want for nothing. However it is a repressed society whose rabbits live under the unspoken understanding that they are being harvested by the local farmer. This meets a number of criteria for a Dystopia. --81.139.66.222 15:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetisation

The order seems a bit strange, have I missed something? Does anyone object if change it? 81.136.66.82 17:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you find strange? --(Mingus ah um 05:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

I've moved it around now - it wasn't in Alphabetic order 81.136.66.82 16:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the entry "Soylent Green" by Harry Harrison, as this is the title of the film made from Harrison's book "Make Room! Make Room!", which is featured under 'M' on this page.

stories which contrast dystopian and other societies

Many works contrast a dystopian society with another non-dystopian society -- such as, Starhawk's The Fifth Sacred Thing, or Marge Piercy's Woman on the Edge of Time. I haven't added these just yet; pondering it and considering the list. Other thoughts. --LQ 17:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

A Clockwork Orange is Dystopian

The book A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess is undoubtadly an example of dystopian literature. By definition a dystopian world is were society is characterized by human misery, squalor, oppression, disease and overcrowding. These are all present in the book as well as the existence of an oppresive state. Therefore the book should be included.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.229.119 (talk • contribs)

By what definition? That isn't the definition in Wikipedia. Do you have a source for this classification? Notinasnaid 14:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary furher to this i believe the Wikipedia defintion of dystopia also conforms to what is in the book.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.229.119 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for that. Now, what I meant by "Do you have a source for this classification" was: do you have a reliable source (e.g. a scholarly writing in a journal, even at a push a book review in a major newspaper or magazine) which made this connection? Notinasnaid 16:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations

I've now managed to source 20 claims of dystopia using the Clute/Nicholls Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (which I think would be generally recognised as a scholarly resource). This leaves over 90, which I have each tagged with citation needed.

How to move forward? The aim must be 100% citations, but how to get there? I propose now to go through the same work looking for each entry in which a novel is discussed that is listed here. If the novel appears in a context where it might reasonably say it's dystopian, but it doesn't, I propose removing it. Of course, nothing precludes it coming back with a citaton to something else.

Comments? Notinasnaid 14:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

My next proposal is to remove all works which do not have a citation where the same author does have a cited alternative. A single work per author is probably enough, and that will streamline the job some more. Notinasnaid 12:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop doing this, Notinasnaid. An end user should be able to use a standard definition of a literary term, apply it to a work, and include it in a list. If War and Peace does not have somebody out there who said, "This is a work of fiction," does it mean that it can't be listed as such? And does the very word need to be cited? You need to allow the definition itself to be the scholarly research and allow the editor to see what fits. The service you can do is say, "No, this does not fit the scholarly-researched definition and thus it gets removed." That requires more work on your part, but provides a more informed list.

Consider Slaughterhouse Five. Vonnegut has always maintained that it is not a science fiction novel, but rather speculative fiction. Meriam Webster offers a definition of science fiction that an editor considers compatible. Meanwhile Dr. Joe Smarmy, PhD. thinks it is a part of a newly invented genre called "Dresdenography" and writes it so in his scholoraly journal read only by him, his mother, and a Wikipidea editor (this may, btw, only be two people). Given only these three pieces of information, your criteria would only include it in the list of Dresdenographical works, leaving science fiction and (certainly if Vonnegut was the editor) speculative fiction lists empty. There's something fundementally wrong with that, and I maintain you are misusing the definition of original research.--Happylobster 15:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we are both aiming for much the same thing. I will make no more changes from the above pattern (though I may still remove new unsourced driveby additions) until further discussion, and hopefully some consensus. It will just take me a little while to organise my thoughts. Notinasnaid 20:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal

In the absence of any further input, I will start removing unsourced entries. My proposal is to remove those without any source, and at this stage which do not have a Wikipedia article identifying dystopian themes. If the article does not have a source, I will add a citation needed to the article. Items removed will be accumulated below for possible rescue by people with more sources than me. Notinasnaid 11:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Letters checked so far: A-B, E-F.

• Among the Hidden by Margaret Haddix
• Brown by Franck Pavloff
• The End of Eternity by Isaac Asimov
• Farthing by Jo Walton
• A Friend of the Earth by T. C. Boyle
• The Futurological Congress or Kongres futurologiczny by Stanislaw Lem (the sources were nearly there but turned out to be opinion pieces; some journals not online might have helped)

Harry Potter a dystopia?

Ok, who put a popular "Harry Potter" as a dystopia. I read (and seem if referring to movies) the Harry Potter book series and I don't find any reference of a dystopia. Sure the plot of the book mostly involves with a crazy cult serial killer but if you look at the soceity in Harry Potter, do you see anything problems with it?

So I removed "harry potter" out of the list until some person confirm this. Besides, most dystopias are usually alternate history/futuristic theme. --Dark paladin x 22:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Cutting

• V for Vendetta is a comic book, not literature per say, and I'm removing it from this list.

-Raskolnikov

• On a similar note, I've read The Demolished Man, and would not consider it dystopian. The society is portrays follows rule-of-law, respects individual rights and allows an average level of freedom/prosperity that's not compatible with any meaningful definition of a dystopia. In the absence of a citation, I'm removing from the list.

-Raskolnikov

• I'm adding the Time Machine, the depiction of degenerate future humanity through Eloi/Morlocks is at least as much a dystopia as Make Room! Make Room! and many of the others. I'll try to find citations for this and some of the others later.

-Raskolnikov —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.104.60.69 (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

• I think all the side comments should be cut. "Arguably and ambigiously...the first alien dystopia...etc." They can be interesting but they're discracting and unequal, and should be addressed in the article on the book. This page should just have a list of dystopias in literature, with links, not other random information.

-Raskolnikov

• • Note, for discussion purposes: the side comments noted were removed here. Notinasnaid 21:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• V for Vendetta is a graphic novel, which is considered literature in comic form. Unless you have genuine evidence to the contrary, I'm putting it back.Boredsteve (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Addition

• I have added "Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said" to the list. The reference I site is from a science fiction survey, it reads in part: "Once picked up at any one of the many police checkpoints, a non-person stands an even chance of death or death-in-life, more prosaically known as impressment in a forced-labor camp for the rest of his life. A recent "Second Civil War" has resulted in the establishment of a society patrolled and controlled by an efficient, authoritarian police organization operating under rigid procedural rules." (798)

Clearly this is a dystopian system if anything is. -Raskolnikov —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.104.60.108 (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

RUR

• Citation provided to R.U.R, but I can't seem to get it to match the #20 in bottom notes, assistance requested. The citation concerns page 1842, which makes a direct parallel to Evgeny Zamyatin's We, and mentioned: "...the manifesto of the working drones parodies the Russian revolution, the assembly line production of men mocks the technology of the West."

-Raskolnikov

I have moved it around, and I think it should now appear as you intended. Take a look to see what I did. The trick is to do
<ref name=somethingunique>details of citation</ref>.
This doesn't go in the table of citations, but where you want the citation number to appear in the text.Notinasnaid 17:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Addition

The Last Book in the Universe by Rodman Philbrick added. Very dystopian. It even says in the Rodman Philbrick page that it is dystopian, not to mention the main article for the book. Omniferous 05:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

February 2007

A great many of the fact tags in the article were added in February 2007. So, what happens when we reach the one year mark next month? Do we begin deleting items from the list that have not been cited? Or, do we begin a serious effort to cite those items for which citations can be found? I guess, thinking aloud, that we do a bit of both. I propose that any item on the list which is devoid of an article about the author and/or the title, and is devoid of citation, be deleted. Anyone have any thoughts on the matter? The list is getting longer, but less than half have citations. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, the bane of lists. I agree it's appropriate to take action now, but one year is a bit short of the prescribed deadline. A lot of this gets into editing philosophies. Personally, I think it is most appropriate to find sources when possible, remove entries for which there is serious doubt that such a reliable source does or ever will exist, and the remainder just leave up for the next person to have decent evidence or doubt to take care of it. -Verdatum (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have begun removing some items that look incontrovertibly non-dystopian. I have also added a great many more fact tags. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Order

Maybe I shouldn't raise this issue, but perhaps this list should be ordered by date of publication? It would then be more valuable to see the progression of the genre (is it a genre? I forget, whatever). Alphabetical order is better than no order, but it doesn't add terribly much as one would never go "Wow, that's a good distopian work that starts with 'C', I wonder what other distopian works start with that letter?" and given the digital format, if we need to find a work in the list, we can always use the search function. I don't know of precedents elsewhere on WP, I think the guideline says it's a case by case concensous...I wouldn't worry about a change any time soon though. I don't particularly feel like taking the time to sort this thing. -Verdatum (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your idea, Verdatum. Chronological order would be much more valuable. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this notion, and can work to begin so re-ordering it soon. I'll try to look at some citations for unsupported ones as well.

In a related issue, I do not believe Island or World War Z belong on the list. The former is a positive model, and regarded by the author as utopian, the later is a more conventional doomsday/extreme threat scenario. I propose removing them, unless someone can promptly advance proof/arguments for their continuation. -Raskolnikov —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.80.132 (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you should have held off on the reorganization, Raskolnikov, until there had been more discussion. But, that said, I still believe it is for the best, and I am not going to revert your changes. Please, though, do use an edit summary, because the edits struck me as vandalism at first glance.

As to your 2nd point, I agree with you. In general, we need more distinction between dystopian fiction and post-apocalyptic fiction. World War Z, it seems to me, would fall into the latter category, but not the former. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This reordering is now almost completed, and I am moe convinced that it was a good idea. My question now is, when it comes to ordering titles in the same year, are we putting them in order alphabetically by title or by author's last name. This has not been consistent, for which I blame myself. I suppose it should be done by book title. Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Heart of Darkness

Could Joseph Conrad's HoD be considered dystopian enough? It is arguably dystopian, though it does not have a futuristic/alternate-history setting. Thoughts? --Mrrodgers0 (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(Please put new topics on the bottom, per convention at WP:TALK) I don't believe it is dystopian, it's just a nasty place to be; no attempt was made to make some sort of idealistic society. Ultimately, the way you find out is, if you can find a Reliable Source that calls HoD distopian literature, then it belongs (with the source properly referenced), else it doesn't. -Verdatum (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I am Legend

Could I am Legend be considered a dystopian novel? If 'dangerous and alienating future societies' are considered dystopian, the nascent vampire described at the end of the book is certainly that. I can't point to a Reliable Source to back this up, however. --Robert Impey —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC).

It's only dangerous if you are a non-vampire serial killer. The society is fine. Removing serial killers from society does not make a distopia.Yobmod (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Tower Series

I think the Dark Tower Series by Stephen King Should be listed in here, anybody agree?--Vagrantdead (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Naked Lunch

Despite the academic reference listed as the footnote, should Naked Lunch really be considered dystopia? I've read it and I don't really see the characteristics. Does anyone else have a different opinion? Ericsean (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the surreal elements might sometimes have a certain dystopian "look", but that's clearly not the focus of the book (if it has any)--DieBuche (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

1984

You know, I didn't see this popular dystopian title on the list. Someone needs to add it. 76.31.246.14 (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

If you search "Nineteen Eighty-Four" instead "1984" (I did the same error) you can find it in the 1940 section :) GianoM (talk) 10:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Alert: lists of publications in Articles for deletion

Some lists of books have been added to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. You can find the discussions here. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are most of the 2000s books Young Adult Fiction?

There is some significant bias here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.145.138 (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

There probably is. Most of the listings are unsourced, but I want to give people a chance to find sources before I remove them.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Metamorphosis

Although there seems to be a valid citation for this entry, Franz Kafka's Metamorphosis cannot be considered dystopian fiction. The novella focuses exclusively on the events in the home of one family, and does not delve into the issues their society may or may not have. One character turning into an insect monster does not a dystopia make. I suggest that it be removed from the list. Incentative (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. If it is not already gone, I will remove it. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 14:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is a dystopia either, but it is called such by a source. Unless we have another source contradicting this, I don't see how we could remove it without original research.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I read the book again and it just says "dystopian imagination."--¿3family6 _contribs 12:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

21st century

A large number of the titles in the 2000s and 2010s subsections are unreferenced, have primary sources, or sources that are too vague to verify. These need to be cleaned up or removed. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 14:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorokin

Sorokin's book apppears with an 'unreliable source' tag. Is it necessary? I have read the book; I can attest to its dystopian character. And I also notice that some books do not have refs pinned to them, for example 'Clockwork Orange' - presumably because they are well-known to be dystopian. So, I propose to remove the tag from Day of the Oprichnik. OK? Bazuz (talk) 10:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The tag was because I'm not sure of the reliability of the site being used to support the listing.--¿3family6 _contribs 14:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, would you mind if I removed it? Bazuz (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there some other source for it? The only reason that some of the books don't have tags is that I think when I went through the list at that point, I skipped listings that were called dystopian in their article. But they should all have sources.--¿3family6 _contribs 02:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that source does not look reliable, I think the tag needs to stay. And, no offense, but your assurance that it is dystopian is rather irrelevant. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 03:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No offense taken, but I'd like you to explain then why not every single book is referenced with a source? Why only some? Bazuz (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

They all should be referenced, you are correct, but that is why so many have fact tags. Like many other list articles I watch, this one is woefully deficient in citations and reliable sources. This is precisely why I generally revert additions of new titles that have no article link and/or no sources. The situation is bad enough without making it worse. But, if we work together, we can make some improvements. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll find a credible English ref for you. Cheers, Bazuz (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, this was easy. It's so glaringly obvious that I'm taking the liberty to add it. Bazuz (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that you found a NYT review. Good show, old man! Now, I wonder if the rest of these can be so easily sourced. Of course, the solution would be for people to add sources when they add titles, but that would be a miracle. Cheers! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources

When a list is made up of links to other Wikipedia pages, those pages are the place where attribution is required. So as long as it is described as dystopian on the main page, it can be included here. This page needs over-zealous calls for attribution removing. Hyper3 (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You are incorrect. In fact, quite explicitly, one WP article cannot be used to source another. If a book has an article, and that article is appropriately sourced, then one source from that article can be used here. If, on the other hand, as is often the case, the book article has no reliable sources, the problem is only magnified. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Please quote MOS for your assertions. I am using WP:CSC. Also WP:LISTN. Hyper3 (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The guidelines in question deal with the inclusion of non-notable items, so they are not relevant to the discussion. Personally, I don't think that every single entry has to be cited, as books such as Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty Four are easily verifiable. But the vast majority of these entries need a source.--¿3family6 _contribs 22:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." Couldn't be clearer. Hyper3 (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't mean that entries should not be verifiable. It just means that they do not have to have enough coverage to be notable.--¿3family6 _contribs 17:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The Roar series?

I beleive that The Roar and The Whisper, by Emma Clayton, demonstrate a dystopian society, as well as being quite popular, and should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.54.81 (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Where is "Animal Farm"?? The best dystopian novel of all time (Orwell, 1945) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.207.3 (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

WorldCat Genres

Hello, I'm working with OCLC, and we are algorithmically generating data about different Genres, like notable Authors, Book, Movies, Subjects, Characters and Places. We have determined that this Wikipedia page has a close affintity to our detected Genere of dystopias. It might be useful to look at [1] for more information. Thanks. Maximilianklein (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

conflation and confusion of apocalyptic (and post apocalyptic) dystopian novels.

I haven't read Alas, Babylon, but isn't it a apocalyptic novel, i.e. about the end of the world, instead of a dystopian novel?

dystopias are highly dysfunctional societies. Apocalyptic stories are about the end of the world. post-apocalyptic are about what happens after apocalyptic events. Certainly a dystopia might bring about the end of the world, just as dystopian novel might be set after the apocalypse -- in the ashes, as it were.

but it seems like a lot of people confuse them.

and bad governments may, and likely would, arise after apocalyptic events, of course.

but not all bad governments or societies are dystopias. Zimbabwe is a (especially) badly run one-party state, but it is not a dystopia. North Korea is a (especially) badly run one-party state that is also a dystopia because of it's utopian ideology and pretenses.

the societies in Brave New World and The Machine Stops are well run, on the other hand, but their admirable goals -- a world of comfort without suffering -- are pursued and realized to a nightmarish degree.

The Denzel Washington movie The Book of Eli and novel Blood Red Road are post-apocalyptic but not dystopian because what little government there are little more than mere bands of robbers.

perhaps a dystopia requires an ideology beyond might makes right, a social order that aims, as in Brave New World, or merely pretends to aim, as in 1984, at some higher, universal good.

76.19.63.222 (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Michael Christian

You may have a point. I can't say I'm well-versed enough in the literary scholarship to know if there's generally regarded to be a bright line, but my inclination is to say there's overlap due to -- if nothing else -- the simple etymology of "dystopia" which would only require a "bad place" be the subject or setting of the work. Government is a common theme but I don't think it's necessary to explain dystopia in terms of government. Certainly there are, as you point out, noted links between utopia and dystopia -- that many dystopias seem, purport, or otherwise aim to be utopias but for one or more major flaws -- but again, I don't think it's an absolute that this must be clear in order to qualify. Of course, having said all that I was surprised that the only hit for "apocaly" when searching Dystopia was a see also link. I would recommend either discussing this distinction on Talk:Dystopia or, if you have a source, working it into that article directly before removing items from this list. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  12:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction states dystopian fictions are warnings against social and political trends that the author disapproves of, so a dystopia is not just a future where something bad happens, but a future where the author specifically warns that something bad will happen unless the trend in the dystopia is opposed. So War with the Newts, Brave New World and The Handmaid's Tale all have identifiable political trends (fascism, Fordism, Christian fundamentalism) taken to an unpleasant extreme, whereas Alas Babylon seems to just be a disaster novel with no trend identified and criticised by the novel.176.61.97.121 (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I have read Alas Babylon and it is not a dystopian novel. Dystopian societies are societies that are currently running in which the horror is the society. Post Apocalyptic fiction is fiction where people are trying to survive a breakdown of society and build a new one. Alas Babylon fits in this second category. I think it should be removed from this list.Whitehatm (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Graphic Novels?

Since V For Vendetta and Watchmen are graphic novels, and are already listed in the List of dystopian comics list, maybe they shouldn't be on a list of prose works? 176.61.97.121 (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete Lord of the Flies?

The source for this entry is an online list, and the list itself states that Lord of the Flies is "at number twelve because of the on going argument whether this is truly a dystopian novel or not. The definition of dystopia isn't necessarily clear, though the general definition is that it is a society in which misery and negative conditions prevail (or a seeming utopia gained at horrifying costs.)" Cancilla (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of dystopian literature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080916131400/http://www.sjsu.edu:80/faculty/lopez/ to http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/lopez/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121018000155/http://www.kansascity.com:80/2012/10/14/3864315/local-author-gennifer-albin-spins.html to http://www.kansascity.com/2012/10/14/3864315/local-author-gennifer-albin-spins.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Novels without WP articles removed

Per the lead, and per similar lists, I have removed novels without WP articles, since the lead requires any novels on the list to be notable. If I have mistakenly removed novels that have WP articles, feel free to restore them. Also, if I removed any re-used references, I will ensure that they are restored soon. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this, for two reasons:

1) This means the list here is basically the same as the "Category:Dystopian novels" list.

2) The entry List of utopian literature has numerous novels on it which lack WP entries, but which are referred to to reliable sources. I feel a similar rule could be adopted here. Some dystopian novels, like The Aerodrome by Rex Warner, are referred as "dystopian novels" in numerous sources, even though they currently lack WP entries. E.g.

"Warner's acknowledgment of Kafka was noted. The Aerodrome (1941) would be his final and best dystopia..."Michael Moorcock,"Introduction to The Aerodrome by Rex Warner", in Moorcock and Allan Kausch, London Peculiar and Other Nonfiction. Oakland, CA : PM Press, 2012. ISBN 1604864907 (p.243)

"Warner's extraordinary dystopian satire in The Aerodrome clearly draws on their ambivalent poetic response to air power in the 1930s." Patrick Deer, "Culture in Camouflage: War, Empire, and Modern British Literature". OUP Oxford, 2009. ISBN 9780191567513 (p.88).

I may be biased because I like this particular novel, but I think if there are enough RS, then a novel should be considered for this list even, if it currently lacks a WP entry. 109.255.182.141 (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

See WP:LISTCRITERIA for the guideline on how list articles should be constructed. This list article uses the first criterion. If you create an article for The Aerodrome, which sounds like an interesting book, the guideline allows you to link to that article from this list. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Jonesey95: I see you have removed two novels by Cirici Ventallo I have added. The explanation you provided is a cryptic "rv per lead", which I guess is intended to suggest that the novels in question are not notable (but perhaps it was intended to note they are not dystopian, or for some other reason I failed to understand). Suggest you be more specific in the future.

In case I am guessing correctly and you have deleted the novels as "non-notable", I think this is not in line with the WP policy. It says that "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article" and that "given article or list" shoule be governed by criteria of "due weight". However, the section of WP manual on "due weight" fails to specify what should be the criteria of determining due weight in case of compiling lists - the manual is basically to instruct that one should not "give the same weight" to the theory that the Earth is flat and the theory that the Earth is round. In summary: I think you are quoting incorrect guideline as the reason for deleting entries from the list.

But let's put aside the WP criteria, which in this case are shady and not precised. Let's agree that only notable novels should be listed. Do you want to say that some 150 novels you listed and most people have never heard of (perhaps except Clockwork Orange and one or two other) are all notable, while 2 novels of Cirici Ventallo are not? If so, what are your criteria for notability? Well, in the discussion above you stated non-notable novels are these which do not have WP entries on their own. Please excuse my perhaps rough comment, but this is ridiculous. Wikipedia should contain entries on notable subjects, and Wikipedia should not be used as a yardstick to determine what subjects are notable. In logical terms your suggestion is a fallacy known as "circular reasoning". Or, to put it the other way, your suggestion is putting a horse before the cart.

Cirici's books sold in 40,000 copies and they were a huge success at the time in Spain (well-known tycoons of Spanish literature like Unamuno or Galdos used to sell 1,000-5,000 copies); moreover, he initiated the trend. One novel was translated into 2 foreign languages and sold abroad. They might not be milestones in world's literature, but neither are 150-or-so works which are currently on the list and most people have never heard of. If all these 150-or-so works are notable, so the Cirici's novels are.

Cirici's novels do not have a specific WP entry on their own, agree. So why don't you write one?

to summarize: your criteria seem illogical and arbitrary to me. And as I see from the above discussion, it is not just me who thinks so. Regards,--Dd1495 (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

your suggestion is putting a horse before the cart. Exactly. That is where horses are typically found in relation to carts. See WP:LISTCRITERIA for the guideline on how list articles should be constructed. This list article uses the first criterion. If the books you would like to add to this list have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, you should be able to create a well-sourced article for those books. At that point, the LISTCRITERIA guideline allows you to link to those books' articles from this list. The criteria for notability are not my criteria for notability; they are established by the community and defined in a guideline. Happy editing! – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)