|
LITR 4632 Literature of
the Future Annie McCormick 30 June 2005 Final Exam: The Role of Government in Future Scenarios One of the issues that I found most interesting throughout our readings was the role of government in future scenarios and how it relates to friendliness and unfriendliness. At times there seemed to be non-existent governments, as found in “Johnny Mnemonic” and “Speech Sounds.” Sometimes, there was an outright oppressive government, such as the one in “Drapes and Folds.” And, at times, there were even what seemed to be fairly normal governments, according to current standards, like in “The Onion and I.” Now, the question becomes: what is significant about a government, or lack thereof, in the future? It seems that by incorporating an institution, such as the government, into a story, the author can write on things that have not yet happened and still be able to keep the reader involved in the story. Unlike robot or alien invasions, which our minds are only able to believe so much, a government is a tangible, actuality that we, as readers, are very familiar with. The same thing is seen in the incorporation of music into “The Logical Legend of Heliopause and Cyberfiddle.” In that story it is almost impossible to tell what is reality and what is virtual reality. Some of the only familiar terms in the story are dealing with music. Without those ties to reality it would be hard for a reader to ever imagine such a world as the one presented. Another function I see governments providing in future literature is that the authors have room to work out possible consequences and outcomes to the demise or strengthening of government. They are developing their own “if/then” hypotheses: “If the government turns into this, then…” and they become free to explore the numerous possibilities. The type of government that we seemed to encounter the most in our readings was the non-existent one. In “Johnny Mnemonic” Johnny lives in a world that is dark and dirty and appears to have no functioning government. Even if there were to be a government, it does not seem to be effective considering that everyone takes matters into their own hands, as evidenced by the large amount of violence in the story. Instead, people run around in groups handling their problems the way they see fit, which is definitely not of a friendly nature. Even with all of this killing going on around him, by the end of the story Johnny ends up pretty okay with his surroundings; it is not so bad anymore. Before he made his friends who live up by the Killing Floor, Johnny was in a very unfriendly world. Yet, he is able to find companions and that helps to make his life seem more bearable. “Speech Sounds” reveals a world that has turned into complete chaos since there is no longer a government. Violence plays a large role in this society. Again, we see an unfriendly world due to the lack of structure that could have been provided by a government. Rye is finally able to feel like part of a unit again at the end when she is finds the two children. From both of these examples it seems that being able to fit in makes life much easier even if the world around is falling apart. Much the same, Parable of the Sower and Jenn House’s presentation of the movie “28 Days Later” show worlds that are trying to survive after the governments have fallen. In the first case, Lauren is able to survive because of the friendship and companionship she finds with the followers she acquires on her way to establish her Earthseed community. In “28 Days Later” Jim, Selena, and Hannah survive because of each other. The companionship they find in each other is welcome compared to the violence of those infected with Rage. In terms of today, this makes me consider the government of the United States. In the situations outlined above, the lack of government brought only chaos and violence. Personally, I do not sit around thinking what the government is doing for me each day. However, it seems that the government functions in the background of everyday life, such as protecting us from threats we might not even know exist. Perhaps these authors realized something along those lines; they were able to see how dependent on government societies are for order, even without consciously realizing it. Governments that are completely oppressive in nature, such as the one in “Drapes and Folds” are, to me, automatically unfriendly. Pearl lives in a society that is completely dictated by the power of the technological government, a government that controls everything from the foods people eat to the clothes people wear. It appears that the government is trying to get rid of all the factors that make people unique, as evidenced by the confiscation of Pearl’s fabrics. This can be a touchy subject that makes people uncomfortable. It is similar to the notion of Hitler and his attempts to exterminate the Jewish while creating his sort of “Super-Race.” This sets up an environment that is anything but friendly. Yet, just like in the other stories discussed, there is an amount of friendliness found even in such a restricted society. This friendliness is found, once again, in the sense of belonging Pearl feels at the end when her robotic granddaughter finally calls her “Gran.” The sense of belonging to a group seems to almost negate the effects of the unfriendly government and its rules. Earlier in the semester we were introduced to similar notions in “Stone Lives” and the presentation of the movie “Tank Girl.” In both plots, the government has given way to rule by major corporations. The idea of an institution that rules for the people, which can be seen as generally friendly, is replaced by one that is based on the interests of those ruling, which is not so friendly. In both scenarios, those who prevail are those who are able to overcome the circumstances by making friends. Tank Girl joins forces with the Rippers and Jet Girl to come out on top. Stone trusts, probably for the first time in his life, June and Scarfe. So, this idea of friendly and unfriendly works well with governmental issues. It seems to me that it is similar to the notion we discussed in class of utopias being rather subjective; one person’s utopia is another person’s dystopia. Much the same, the friendliness or unfriendliness people experience under a government, repressive or not, is dependant on personal preferences, and most often seems to be tied to a feeling of belonging. One of the few normal, at least according to today’s standards in America, governments was the one found in “The Onion and I.” I thought this was the most identifiable to us as Americans because the ideas explored in the story might not be so far off from actually happening. In the story, the government is very interested in the Cyberworld, so much so that they want it to become people’s reality. The government does not force anyone, at least at first, to join the project; they are still leaving people with a bit of freedom of choice. The issue of friendliness and unfriendliness is interesting with this text. For the mother, she wants nothing more than to live inside the Cyberworld. The outside world is harsh, but she feels welcome and at ease with virtual reality. The father, on the other hand, struggles with accepting the Cyberworld. To him nothing can compare to the actual feel, taste, and smell of a real onion. Onions represent his yearning for actuality, which is where he feels most welcome. Their child is then left to try and get the best out of both worlds. This seems comparable to the fast evolution of technology in our society. The generation that grew up raised without computers seems to feel at odds with the technology, generally, and find the comforts of actual people much more appealing. Yet, the younger generations have been raised from the cradle with computers and are much more welcome to the technology; they are used to it and sometimes the computer ends up being a much more welcome alternative to dealing with reality. Even in this story with a government that is neither too repressive nor kaput, feelings of acceptance and friendliness or ones of rejection and unfriendliness are still apparent. Finally, one of the most interesting commentaries on governments to me came from “Chocco.” While the two boys are displaying their knowledge of the past, they comment on the government of the Machine People. They say the government was mainly concerned with power and wealth, which only created bigger problems. They did not wish to help the poor. Instead, it was a system based on machines and self-preservation. They believed in “hierarchy instead of community” (211). That is what those in Chocco see as the main defect of the previous society, especially considering that they pride themselves on their equality. The society of the Machine People seems to be one that is extremely unfriendly and one that is only suitable for those who have the money to survive. The citizens of Chocco wish to make a society that does not suffer from the same problems as the one before it. This can be seen as a cautionary tale, not just for those in Chocco, but for people today. I think of the Industrial Revolution and wonder if it has ever actually stopped. It seems that every day there is a new update for computer programs or someone has thought up something new to make life easier. Will it ever stop? I think this is what these authors are trying to work out in their own ways. The author of “Chocco” expresses what he believes to be the consequences of such a combination of government and technology, and this story can be seen as his way of warning people of what might come if things go too far. Because the future is unknown, the stories about the future can be ways to deal with situations that might arise. I particularly liked what Keely Coufal had to say in her 2001 final: “The world is exploring concepts of government and society with technological applications that are fascinating and intimidating. Science and technology are pushing forward revolutionary ideas of systematic and virtual realities adapted within society as well as applying these concepts to forms of government. The future is wide open for radical changes within the structure of a civilization.” As we move forward with technology as a society it is important that we keep in perspective the outcomes of our choices. These authors looking into the future and making statements about governmental issues remind me of the use of comedy when dealing with serious issues. Sometimes comedy is the only way people will address an issue. It is almost as if making fun of it is better than not dealing with it at all, because at least people are encouraged to think about the subject. Similarly, not many people like to think of the future as being bleak and controlled by an ultra-repressive system or lacking any structure at all. By these authors presenting these numerous situations, it is a way for the readers to actually entertain the thought of “Well, what if this did happen…” |