Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/24752
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/24752
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Well, a true utopia would have no room for story. Story runs on desire and frustration and the moral challenges that result from the frustration of desire. A true utopia would leave no desire frustrated and therefore no moral challenge to be met.

But given our limitations, and the limited resources available to us, that kind of utopia is impossible. Attempts to build or describe a utopian society, therefore, have to deal with the frustration of desire that is inherent in our limitations. They are about governing our desires harmoniously and justly, and are therefore not really devoid of moral challenge. A utopian novel could deal with such challenges.

But this is a much more difficult kind of writing to do. Dystopias are easy because the present easy desires (food, home, safety) and easy ways to frustrate them. Such problems are tackled with violence, so you get easy action. And most of these books suck because they wither contain no moral challenge, or the moral challenge is hackneyed or facile, thrown in carelessly by a writer more interested in world-building and action than in the essential moral dynamic of story.

Such works are also a relatively easy read for readers who are looking for nothing more than a little visceral sex and violence. A sophisticated utopian novel with involve more subtle moral questions that require a more thoughtful reader.

As a writer, one may choose to be among the many who write for the many or the few who write for the few. Both paths are valid, and both offer economic rewards for those who excel. But you are always going to find fewer utopias than dystopias because the problem is harder and the audience is different.

Original score: 3