Haha, what's with all the Ayn Rand hate? Given, she's not the greatest character writer, but I thought Anthem at the very least was a better dystopian future novel than 1984, which is, in my opinion, one of the most overrated books pretty much ever.

1984 has to be interpreted in the context in which it was written, a pre cold-war era. By that same logic, the Count of Monte Cristo and Lord of the Rings may now be argued to be two of the corniest books ever written, positively drowning in cliches. If written today they would probably not even have been published. That doesn't remove the fact that the impact of these books was gargantuan and that their quality has sustained them over the years and even inspired entire genres.

Anthem was pretty meh in my opinion. I only ever read Atlas Shrugged after that and found that it was alright but she came on too strong at times, exaggerated things a little and dragged the book way more than she needed to.

I understand the context, however, I still hold that there are far better - and more deserving from a literary, political and sociological standpoint - examples of the genre, from the same time period and pre-dating it.

Such as what? Das Kapital?

Nah, it's from George Lucas' Shadow Dawn.

If only I had an excuse to write the Tao Te Ching ingame.

Man...

Brave New World predates 1984 by almost 20 years and, in my opinion, tells a more compelling story, overall.

We predates 1984 by about 30 years and is similar to to it in a lot of ways, in fact, George Orwell said that "he was taking as the model for his next novel." (source).

As far as restrictive and suffocating government influence, you pretty much can't beat Kafka's, The Trial.

From a linguistic point of view, I liked A Clockwork Orange more than 1984 as well. Not really a dystopian book, though, but it is a "book about the future with a weird new system of language."

It -is- a pretty dystopian society, though. Its not a totalitarian society, but it is dystopical.

The weird new system of language is just slang, I reckon.

I like happy books.

I -love- dystopian novels.

I prefer comics.

Not to mention that much of Tolkien's Middle Earth is drowning with inspiration from the Prose Edda and Poetic Edda.

But in that same vein, we can say Lusternia doesn't deviate much in respect to using "inspiration" however it wants.

Does it? I think it stands perfectly well on its own two feet without the necessity for contextual explanation - which is a definition of a 'classic', after all.

I can't agree with you, Prav, about Brave New World. It's a great conceit, but (and I have not read it for a couple of years) it falls down on its characterisation. I thought the introduction of the savage was a clumsy way of bringing about a comparison which did not need to be explicit and, although the book obviously required a plot device, I'm not sure that was the right one. 1984 hit-home more. Perhaps that will make it the more enduring.

The most ghastly of all dystopias is surely More's Utopia - discuss.

Hahaha. I would expect nothing less!

Staying with dystopias, Golding's Lord of the Flies is a wonderful book in my opinion.

It's a a horrible story though!! I get disgusted just thinking about it. Same with Animal Farm; I'm glad I read it once, but that was enough for me.

I do, however, love most dystopian novels. Anthem, 1984, Farenheit 451. Great stuff.

1984 was okay, imo.
Fahrenheit 451 was I good story, but I hated the premise of it.

They all pale in comparison to Solarbabies.

Oh I thought this would be a thread where we talk about what books we're reading in general

Well, I thought More's Utopia was interesting!