Dystopian fiction and evolution of the scenario

Dystopian fiction cannot be effective without some hope of survival. Imagine this scenario: "He knew he was going to die, so he ran around a bit like a headless chicken, until a sense of complete hopelessness set in, and he sat down and waited for death."


I was thinking about a story I wrote, 'First Time'. What struck me was the difference between 'then and now' as it is in the frame of the story. 'Then', although not stated, can be presumed to contain a measure of fear as people are infected in the zombie outbreak, and panic spreads.  'Now' in the context of the story is the 'zombie' as a slighly hazardous (read thrilling) recreational opportunity.

I am reminded of a comment, somewhere, which mentioned that zombies shouldn't be much of a threat because they don't move quickly. I also thought about it in the context of baboons, which are far more dangerous, although the people of my country, Namibia, have yet to realise this and flee to safety. Whatever fits, that allowed the scenario to evolve.

The thing that my mind toys with is the idea that a dystopia must be a process, from the dark days of now to the brighter days of tomorrow, or perhaps the vain hopes of a brighter tomorrow. It's implicit in the whole zombie thing, in the set of activities during the relatively short time span of the escape or flight process. It is obvious in 'The Stand'. It shows up in 'Dune'. It's obvious in 'A Canticle for Leibowitz'.

Dystopian fiction cannot be effective without some hope of survival. Imagine this scenario: "He knew he was going to die, so he ran around a bit like a headless chicken, until a sense of complete hopelessness set in, and he sat down and waited for death."

That's teenage doom and gloom, packaged in mallgoth giggles.

Really good dystopian stories need to operate on two levels. The monster is a useful thing, be it a zombie, a triffid or a political system, but it is only a device. On the level below that there has to be a clear idea of then and now or now and tomorrow. It's almost as simple as basic business strategy: where are we now, where do we want to be and how do we get there?

Where we want to be can be treated on two levels again: oppose the character's hopes to the horror at the end of the tunnel for a bit of nastiness.

I'm not going to rewrite 'First Time', but I am going to give a bit more conscious thought to the circumstance as an antagonist in future.

Here's something else that is intriguing. Al Gore's 'boiled frog' scenario is a reality. We absorb the heat and acclimatise to it. We haven't boiled to death yet. HIV is out there and humanity endures. SARS and the bird flu haven't yet put an end to us. Climate change, the food crisis, the debt crisis and some fundamental challenges in concepts surrounding economic growth are making inroads, but people are adapting.

Perhaps dystopian aspects of stories should consider the idea that the outcome may not be ideal, just finding a way to adapt and continue. So perhaps there is merit in the zombie apocalypse survivalist tendency, even though it is worn.

Really, I think, it's a matter of finding an imaginative closing circumstance.