Look, I need to confess something that’s been bothering me for years. Every time someone announces another dystopian sci-fi novel, I do this thing where I audibly groan and mutter something about how the genre needs to move beyond collapsed civilizations and plucky survivors picking through the rubble. I’ve done this at book signings, in faculty meetings when colleagues mention what they’re reading, even at dinner parties when the conversation somehow turns to literature (which happens more often than you’d think when you work at a university). But here’s the embarrassing truth – I keep reading them. Not just reading them, actually, but staying up until two in the morning turning pages because I absolutely have to know if the protagonist makes it out of the irradiated wasteland alive.
The other night I caught myself doing exactly this with yet another post-apocalyptic novel whose name I won’t mention because the author is actually quite talented and doesn’t deserve to be used as evidence of my literary hypocrisy. There I was, surrounded by stacks of books I should have been reading for actual work purposes – grant applications to review, student recommendations to write – and instead I’m completely absorbed in a story about survivors in underground tunnels fighting over the last functioning water purification system. The writing was solid, don’t get me wrong, but it wasn’t like I was reading Ursula K. Le Guin or anything. This was straightforward, competent dystopian fiction that hit all the expected beats.
I’ve been thinking about this contradiction a lot lately, especially after what happened at the Pacific Northwest Science Fiction Convention last spring. There was this panel called “Beyond the Wasteland: Moving Sci-Fi Past Apocalypse Fatigue” that I actually helped organize. We spent ninety minutes discussing how tired we all were of books set in post-collapse societies, how the genre needed fresh ideas, how young writers should challenge themselves with more optimistic futures or at least more original catastrophes. The panelists – all serious readers with impressive credentials – nodded along as we deconstructed why dystopian fiction had become creatively bankrupt. Very intellectual, very sophisticated literary criticism.
Then I walked out into the vendor hall immediately afterward and what do I see? Hundreds of convention-goers dressed as wasteland survivors, post-apocalyptic warriors, citizens of various fictional oppressive regimes. The cosplay was incredible – I mean, these people had put serious time and money into creating these elaborate outfits that looked like they’d been scavenged from the ruins of civilization. Weathered leather jackets, improvised armor made from car parts, gas masks, the whole nine yards. And they weren’t just wearing these costumes; they were genuinely excited about them, posing for photos, discussing the fictional worlds they represented with the kind of enthusiasm usually reserved for major life events.
The disconnect was pretty stunning, honestly. Here we’d just finished explaining why dystopian sci-fi was overdone and uninspired, and literally fifty feet away people were celebrating it with the kind of passion that makes fan culture so wonderful and weird. I bought a book from one of the vendors – guess what kind? – and the person selling it was dressed as a character from The Road Warrior, which is pushing forty years old at this point but apparently still inspiring people to spend their weekends crafting post-apocalyptic fashion.
This happens online too, by the way. I follow several sci-fi discussion groups on various platforms, and there’s this recurring pattern where someone will post about how they’re “so over” dystopian fiction, usually getting dozens of responses agreeing that the trope is exhausted and we need more innovation in the genre. But then someone else will share fan art of a ruined cityscape or recommend a new book about survivors in a climate-changed world, and suddenly everyone’s engaged and excited again. The fan art gets shared everywhere – these gorgeous, atmospheric images of abandoned buildings being reclaimed by nature, lone figures walking through desolate landscapes, flickering neon signs in empty streets.
I’ve noticed this in my own writing too. When I review books on my blog, the posts about dystopian novels consistently get more engagement than almost anything else I write. Doesn’t matter if I’m praising the book or critiquing it – people want to discuss these stories. Meanwhile, my carefully crafted analysis of some brilliant but optimistic sci-fi novel will get maybe a handful of comments. It’s like we can’t help ourselves.
Part of what’s going on here, I think, is that we’ve created this hierarchy in our minds where admitting you enjoy dystopian fiction feels unsophisticated. It’s become associated with commercial bestsellers rather than literary sci-fi, with mass entertainment rather than serious exploration of ideas. There’s definitely some truth to that – a lot of dystopian fiction is pretty formulaic, hitting the same beats about societal collapse and individual survival without bringing much new to the table. But dismissing the entire approach seems like throwing away one of science fiction’s most powerful tools for examining contemporary anxieties.
Because let’s be honest about what these stories actually do for us. They provide a safe space to explore our worst fears about where we’re heading as a civilization. Climate change, technological overreach, political authoritarianism, social inequality – all the stuff that keeps thoughtful people awake at three in the morning worrying about their kids’ futures. Dystopian fiction takes these fears and pushes them to their logical extreme, then asks what happens next. How do people adapt? What values survive when everything else falls apart? Which aspects of humanity endure and which turn out to be more fragile than we thought?
The best examples of this kind of fiction aren’t really about the collapse itself – they’re about what comes after, about how people find meaning and connection in the worst possible circumstances. When Octavia Butler wrote the Parable books, she wasn’t just imagining societal breakdown; she was exploring how communities might rebuild themselves around different values. When Margaret Atwood created Gilead in The Handmaid’s Tale, she was examining how quickly democratic institutions can erode when people stop paying attention. These aren’t escapist fantasies – they’re thought experiments that happen to be dressed up as entertainment.
I’ve been rereading some of the classic dystopian novels lately, partly for a project I’m working on about how the subgenre has evolved over the decades. Going back to books like Nineteen Eighty-Four, Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451 – these weren’t written as genre exercises but as urgent warnings about trends their authors saw in their contemporary societies. They used the future as a mirror to reflect present concerns, which is exactly what science fiction does best. The fact that we’re still reading them suggests they tapped into something deeper than just “wouldn’t it be scary if everything fell apart.”
What’s changed is that dystopian fiction has become much more mainstream, which means we get a lot more of it, which inevitably means we get more mediocre examples alongside the genuinely insightful ones. The publishing industry has figured out that these books sell, so we’re flooded with novels about plucky teenagers overthrowing oppressive governments or grizzled survivors fighting over resources in wastelands. Most of them are competently written but don’t have much to say beyond “things could get bad.” It’s like any successful formula – it gets repeated until it becomes tired.
But every so often, something comes along that reminds you why this approach can be so powerful. Station Eleven, for instance, which technically fits every dystopian cliche – pandemic wipes out civilization, small groups of survivors trying to rebuild – but uses that framework to explore art, memory, and what we choose to preserve from the past. Or The Fifth Season, which takes the familiar post-apocalyptic setting and uses it to examine oppression and power in ways that feel genuinely revelatory. These books work because they’re using dystopia as a tool rather than treating it as the point.
The problem isn’t really with dystopian fiction itself – it’s with how we’ve started to consume it. We’ve gotten comfortable with the aesthetic of collapse without engaging with the ideas underneath. We like the visual appeal of ruined cities and makeshift communities, the romantic notion of starting over after everything falls apart, but we don’t necessarily want to think too hard about what these stories are actually saying about our present moment. It’s become a kind of disaster tourism, where we can experience catastrophe safely from our comfortable reading chairs.
Maybe that’s okay, though. Not every book needs to be a profound meditation on the human condition. Sometimes it’s enough to spend a few hours in a well-crafted imaginary world, even if that world happens to be falling apart. The issue comes when we pretend we’re above this kind of entertainment while secretly consuming it, when we create false distinctions between “serious” literary sci-fi and “commercial” dystopian fiction. Some of the most important science fiction ever written has been dystopian – we’re not doing anyone any favors by acting like the entire category is beneath serious consideration.
I’m trying to be more honest about my own relationship with these books. Yes, I enjoy reading about characters surviving in harsh futures, and no, I don’t think that makes me intellectually lazy. I also think we can have higher standards for what these stories accomplish without dismissing the entire enterprise. When someone recommends a new dystopian novel, instead of automatically rolling my eyes, I’m trying to ask better questions. What is this book actually exploring beyond the surface premise? Does it have something new to say about how societies fail or how people adapt? Is it using the familiar framework to examine contemporary issues in a fresh way?
The genre keeps producing these stories because we keep needing them, I think. As long as we’re facing uncertainty about the future – and when have we not been? – there’s going to be value in fiction that helps us work through those fears imaginatively. The key is distinguishing between stories that use dystopia thoughtfully and ones that just exploit its emotional appeal. But that requires engaging with these books seriously instead of pretending we’re too sophisticated for them. Which means I’ll probably keep staying up too late reading about survivors in underground tunnels, and I’m finally okay with admitting that.
0 Comments