Dystopian Essay

Here is an essay I found from a "bored" student who was required to write an essay on the prompt:

"People's visions of the future show that those who try to beat the system invariably end up failing."

While visions of the past show us the heroes from Tale of Troy and Robin Hood, and the realm of fantasy offers hope with heroes such as Frodo Baggins, who overcomes immense hardship to overthrow the Sauron establishment through peaceful protest and lobbying, the future dystopian texts portray a world where nobody can defeat the “all seeing eye”, as in 1984.

Winston is unable to “throw the ring into the fires of Mount Doom” (so to speak) as he lacks moral fibre. Frodo, on the other hand, is much like Jesus, in that he carries a burden (the ring, or all the sins of humanity), and nearly dies (or in Jesus’ case, actually dies.) But he is not like Jesus because Frodo never says he is the son of God, nor does he turn water into wine. In fact, when they run out of lambas bread, Frodo is unable to produce more food from anywhere. Frodo is also nice to Gollum even though Gollum is a bit mean, and I think Jesus would be nice to Gollum/Smeagol too. But in 1984, Winston is unable to defeat the system. Why, I hear me ask?

Because humans are depressed about our future. We look at our children and go "oh...is that all?" and realise that the next generation will screw up the world massively. Either that, or there are key elements to human nature such as greed for power, knowledge and stability which will send society in a general direction until we reach extremes such as the society of Brave New World. And because these worlds are depressing (supposedly, although I like soma give me soma EVERYONE BELONGS TO EVERYONE ELSE), and so people try to rebel. But why do they fail so much?

Because mankind is inherently cbs. John the Savage, from Brave New World, for example, hangs himself cos he cbs trying to change the world or himself. But I think that the society in Brave New World is nice. Lenina thinks so too, because she's nice, and I'm sure Frodo would agree because we all know he liked to have a bit too much fun. But this isn't about Frodo. Or lambas bread, delicious though it may be (*mental note: buy some lambas bread*). It's because people can't change the world.

There are also technical reasons why people can't beat the world. In 1984, it's like Winston and Julia vs EVERYONE so they were never going to win. The government had too much cameras and telescreens and stuff for them to win. Technological power in the hands of authority allows complete domination through fear. Fear prevents people from acting. To go off on a tangent whose line is equal to the equation y = 4.5x + 78.9, in World War II, propaganda was used in Germany, and fear was instilled in those who didn't go with the flow. And so people didn't fight against Hitler so much. With more power, governments are so much more able to eliminate and contain risks or dangerous people wanting to destroy the establishment.

In conclusion, Frodo was very brave, but he could never defeat Sauron in a dystopian novel. Sauron would have:

a) really good army, not just stupid orcs (which are actually Elves that have been tortured, did you know that? But how do they breed...I don't know) He would have robots with silver shields and armour that shoots lasers

b) high tech surveillance equipment instead of just one massive eye. This would be more energy efficient, and slightly less conspicuous

c) a reliable tracker on his One Ring, to prevent Frodo from taking it and running all the way across Middle Earth

d) propaganda with rewards for the ring's capture, so that Faramir would definitely take the ring instead of being "noble"

e) he would also have a tracker on Gollum once he released him, or a microchip

f) he would trigger tsunamis to prevent elves from escaping to the Grey Lands

So as you can see, he would crush everyone. So that's what dystopian stories are. And why you can never beat the system.