Totalitarian States: Fiction, Reality
One of the reasons why I have never rated the film version of V For Vendetta (or at least, nowhere near as highly as I rate the graphic novel source material) is because it fails to be, for me, the ringing indictment of authoritarianism that the original was. To a large extent. V For Vendetta the movie is a superhero film for those who favour freedom and who dislike the ongoing encroaching of the state on every part of modern life. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it fails to really offer insights into what life is like in a totalitarian dystopia.
But to be honest with you, this film is no different from so many other pieces of dystopian fiction – including some classic entries in the niche genre. Take Farenheit 451 a wonderful and justly famous book. But does it really sum up how terrible it is to live under the a dystopian regime? I mean, it seems to be ok as long as you don’t mind watching TV 24-7. And the real horror of the regime comes from the science fiction elements to the novel, like the nightmarish hound. The book burning is a warning sign for any society; but in this novel it comes across as a gimmick.
Which is the problem with other dystopian scenarios as well. They come across as gimmicky. Take Brave New World - yes, it is an oppressive society, but it is one where people are forced to be happy through the ingestion of drugs. It is no more nightmarish than joining a hippy commune – ignoring reality with chemical friends. Freedom may be gone, but no-one cares. Or 1985 - an entertaining novel that really represents nothing more than Anthony Burgess taking the opportunity to rant about two of his political bugbears – trade unions and Islam. The reconditioning centres in 1985, with their mix of lectures and debates, are a universe away from Room 101.
Whereas one of the reasons why the initial version of V For Vendetta is so effective is because of the depiction of life under Norsefire. It is a nightmare world, where a girl is forced into prostitution only to meet with real danger from the men who represent the police. It is a world of concentration camps and absolute control of the people; a world where an autocrat rules through the advice of a computer (that he has a borderline sexual relationship with). And it is a world where the only real hope left is a terrorist – and make no mistake about it, V is a terrorist. This is a bleak vision of the UK, and it shows very well what might happen if the authoritarian likes of Adam Susan and his party achieve power.
And then there is the daddy of all dystopian fiction – the mighty Nineteen Eighty-Four. That is truly a nightmare version of the UK (and, indeed, the world) – one where not just every word is controlled by the state, but so is every thought. The state wishes to completely crush humanity; destroying the concept of love, and ultimately even removing the need to have relationships for the purposes of procreation. And anyone who dissents isn’t just arrested and executed, but is also completely crushed. This is a cold, dark, awful world that should linger in the minds of everyone who favours even an iota of freedom.
However, where I do criticise Nineteen Eighty-Four (and a lot of other works in this genre) is in their depiction, or lack of, how society gets to be so nightmarish. I appreciate that these are meant to be novels and films, rather than clear warnings about how totalitarianism comes into being. But they fail to realistically show how the authoritarian types get into power. Take Nineteen Eighty-Four - the main point of no return was a global nuclear war. Now, war can cause a totalitarian takeover – you only have to look at the fate of Eastern Europe after World War Two for proof. But that was an invasion, rather than a nuclear holocaust. A nuclear war would bring about a horrific world – however it will be closer to the world of Threads than Nineteen Eighty-Four. The truth is that the drift towards authoritarianism isn’t likely to happen in a big or dramatic way. Which is all the more worrying, because unless you are watching closely, you may well miss out on those warning signs.
And I also think that the depiction of those who would drag us towards totalitarianism is far too negative. The simple truth is in that old cliché – that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This is one area in which the novel version of V For Vendetta gets it so right (and the film gets it so wrong): the original depicts Labour winning an election and kicking all US missiles off UK land – in theory, a good idea (at least for paid up members of the CND). The result is a shift in the global balance of power, and an ensuing limited nuclear war.
You can see the same in reality. The roots of Stalinism can be clearly seen in much of Leninism. However, Lenin (despite his willing use of force on many occasions) did not want a totalitarian regime, and just before his death warned of the dangers of Stalinism. However, he was forced into taking draconian and illiberal action to counter what he thought were threats to his attempts to build a communist utopia. Therefore, the seeds of Stalinism – one of the most oppressive regimes that the world has ever seen – were not sewn purely out of misanthropy, but rather a misguided attempt to do the right thing for the people. Likewise, Cambodia’s journey into the very heart of darkness under Pol Pot was not solely born of a desire to suppress people and seize power – it was a reaction to centuries of history and circumstances within that state. And we can see a very similar thing happening right here, right now, as some Western governments implement draconian legislation in order to protect the people from a (hopelessly exaggerated) terrorist threat. What so many works fail to show is that freedom is lost mostly through gradual erosion, not a catastrophic meltdown.
All of this literary criticism does have a point, and it is this: dystopian works of fiction have their place, there is no doubting that. But they are fiction: they do not represent reality. As I’ve already mentioned, the reality of the slide towards totalitarianism is far less exciting, or obvious as it is presented in fiction. Don’t imagine that there will be terrible war before the state takes complete control; they won’t need to do that. And they are not going to utter clear statements of intent, like burning books. The warning signs will be subtle; it will be the gradual erosion of cherished yet mundane freedoms. And by the time the population realises what is happening, it will be too late. There will be no room for manoeuvre, no freedom let to resist or protest.
Unless we start fighting that process now.
The slide towards authoritarianism is happening; right here, right now. The government is slowly taking control of what you eat, what you drink, who and how you fuck, what you can say and what you can eat. It is doing it in a slow, paternalistic way and I believe the politicians think they are acting in the best interests of the nation. But there is no positive outcome if this slide towards total state control is allowed to continue. The best case scenario is that you are allowed to live comfortably as long as you do not dissent; the simple truth is that a continuation of the drift towards authoritarianism means the day will come when you will not have the freedom to think or choose for yourself. The loss of freedom is like cancer; it will spread slowly but surely across all parts of society until our liberty has been utterly eaten away and we are left with nothing but a half-forgotten idea of what freedom was.
There are organisations already shouting about and fighting for a stop to the slow erosion – if you care, if you want to be an adult who can make your own choices and have some freedom in the future, start supporting one of those organisations. Because turning a blind eye will lead to nothing other than waking up one morning and realising it is all too late.
Labels: 1984, Books, Civil Liberties (the Death of), Films, Freedom, LPUK, V for Vendetta
10 Comments:
a (hopelessly exaggerated) terrorist threat
That's what I find most heartbreaking - it's exactly the same trick pulled every fucking time by every tyrant throughout history!
Until recently I had a German flatmate, and it got to be embarrassing how one could not switch on a TV in Britain without the Nazis being mentioned at least once during the evening! And yet... and yet... we as a nation are so incredibly ignorant of what actually happened there that we fall for every single trick they pulled.
Anyway, great post!
I seem to remember Alan Moore saying something like this in the forward/afterword of the TPB—that it was naive of him to assume it would take something as dramatic as nuclear war for totalitarianism to arise in England.
The movie adaptation of V pretty much ended with the houses of parliament exploding, the crowd staring up at it, rather blankly. The film's ending seemed so naive to me that it completely undermined the earlier pretense of a message against authoritarianism.
Great post, as has already been said.
It is a shame that the great British public seem to be sleepwalking into a police state and really don't seem to care about it. Just as long as there's still Premiership footie on Sky and topless girls on Page 3, everything's going to be all right. Apathy rules, U.K........
Me again. I wrote that earlier comment on lunch break at work, and just remembered to dig out my copy of V for Vendetta and look for Moore's introduction. Here's the bit I was thinking of:
"Naiveté can also be detected in my supposition that it would take something as melodramatic as a near-miss nuclear conflict to nudge England towards fascism."
He goes on to speculate about things that didn't happen, not even during Thatchers reign, and seem unthinkable now. Nevertheless, I think his words harmonize nicely with your essay.
Well said. The lack of opposition to the destruction of civil liberties is very alarming.
I think it's a fault of science fiction in general - not just dystopian science fiction - that dramatic consequences are assumed to always result from dramatic causes. The complement also seems to be true - dramatic causes simply MUST have dramatic consequences (so, in a science fiction novel, if you extend the human lifespan by 50 years then the MANKIND ITSELF has to become something radically different - when in reality it might just mean more dirty old men mucking about and not much else). I think there was a study done on this at some point - something to the effect (apologies, can't remember the source or the details too clearly) of presenting various study groups with slightly different versions of a story of a president being shot at. In one version the would-be assassin hits and the president dies on the way to the hospital, in another he hits but prez survives but is paralyzed, in still another he misses altogether, etc. The punchline was that the groups who read the version where the chap was killed outright were more likely to chalk it up to some kind of shadowy conspiracy (and less likely to believe it was just the random work of a crazed lunatic) than those who read the version where the president made it out alive. In short, humans like to believe that dire consequences have dire causes - and so it stands to reason that fiction writers, who have total control over their universe, will fall victim to the same fallacy.
Has anyone else read this study?
Ludwik Kowalski,
Stop promoting your book on Stalinism here - every time you do so, I will delete your comment. This is not Amazon; if you wish to advertise, do so elsewhere.
TNL
(As a heads up to everyone else, I've had to delete three comments from this person, all promoting his book and some quoting his book...)
My messages were removed by TNL because the firms selling my book were specified. This indeed made them "commercials." I am sorry for not being aware of this.
Accepting the TNL's criticism, I posted a message in which my book was not even mentioned. I am reposting (the apparently lost message) because it is not here:
Jashua Herring wrote:
" ‘The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin’s Russia’, by award-winning historian Orlando Figes, is based on hundreds of interviews with survivors of the era of Josef Stalin, and their stories still have the power to shock. “ Yes, this is a very good book. I also recommend "Ivan's War: Life and Death in the Red Army, 1939-1945" by Catherine Merridale. She is also a historian.
What do these two books have in common? They will make you think about problems worth discussing. How was it possible? What can be done to avoid repetitions of totalitarianism?
Ludwik,
Thanks for posting a comment without promoting your book. I don't mind people printing pretty much any opinion on this blog, but I do mind people trying to make money off the back of it. Mainly because I don't see a penny.
I have very particular views on the causes of Stalinism, and they are (very) briefly outlined in the post. I'd go into more detail, but the result would be the reproduction of a 3,000 dissertation.
As for preventing a repetition, the answer lies in supporting one of those organisations I have linked to. The other way of preventing a repetition of tyranny is eternal vigilance, and protesting any measure that restricts our already strangled freedoms any further.
TNL
1) TNL wrote:
"reproduction of a 3,000 dissertation." Did you mean 3,000 different dissertations or one particular dissertation? Probably not one, right?
2) By the way, I also "don't see a penny" from this book. No one payed me to self-publish the book, and royalties are committed to a scholarship fund.
also calls for exposing Stalinism to general public, and for discussing it with students, at all levels.
3) Stalinism and Naziism were two "final solution" ideologies, one promoting classless society and another promoting racial purity. Both were extremely brutal. Yes, eternal vigilance is essential.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home