Now that we’re adding more dystopian books to the thread I’d like to shout out to Kallocain (1940) by Karin Boye. It’s more of a totalitarian state similar to 1984 but has an aspect of truth drugs, a hot topic back then, and thought criminalization.
However, unlike Brave New World in which a drug is used to suppress the urge to nonconformity generally, a drug in Kallocain is used to detect individual acts and thoughts of rebellion.
Interesting, shades of Severance. The severing of parts of their life achieves a similar result of preventing (instead of detecting) individual acts and thoughts of rebellion.
Good callout to Fahrenheit 451. I think Beatty’s monologues are pretty important because they’re strongly argued. His positions aren’t wholly irrational, he has given it careful, deliberate thought for a long time. The first time I read it I recall feeling compelled and almost convinced by his arguments, which is such a beautiful way to express it. Bradbury literally argues against the existence of the book Fahrenheit 451 itself, his own competing ideas that someone else would want to erase, through Beatty’s monologues. He made a compelling argument for it, too. All the books disagree, so what even is truth?
Knowing how to be psychologically resilient against such arguments is important, I think.
Brave New Wolrd and Farnheit 451 with Handmaid’s Tale…I mean, even Zuckeberg with Meta is trying to be the villain ceo of Ready Play One.
Edit: https://lemm.ee/post/53222800 These post is relevant to this discussion.
Specially the comment from [email protected]
Now that we’re adding more dystopian books to the thread I’d like to shout out to Kallocain (1940) by Karin Boye. It’s more of a totalitarian state similar to 1984 but has an aspect of truth drugs, a hot topic back then, and thought criminalization.
Interesting, shades of Severance. The severing of parts of their life achieves a similar result of preventing (instead of detecting) individual acts and thoughts of rebellion.
Good callout to Fahrenheit 451. I think Beatty’s monologues are pretty important because they’re strongly argued. His positions aren’t wholly irrational, he has given it careful, deliberate thought for a long time. The first time I read it I recall feeling compelled and almost convinced by his arguments, which is such a beautiful way to express it. Bradbury literally argues against the existence of the book Fahrenheit 451 itself, his own competing ideas that someone else would want to erase, through Beatty’s monologues. He made a compelling argument for it, too. All the books disagree, so what even is truth?
Knowing how to be psychologically resilient against such arguments is important, I think.