Triggerhappy
Stick with Trigger and You'll Make it Through
- Location
- SoCal
The flood mythos and rise of a 'worthier' people or, alternatively, a new world in its wake isn't unique to Christianity.
Last edited:
The utopia of post-apocalyptic fiction
- Thread starter illusivepunk
- Start date
The flood mythos and rise of a 'worthier' people or, alternatively, a new world in its wake isn't unique to Christianity.
Vindictus
XENO
- Location
- Texas
Ah, didn't notice it before.
I think that for the most part, nobody really thinks their ideology is going to lose. Nobody even really thinks of their ideology as an ideology- They think of it as how things really are. If an apocalypse happens, obviously their ideology is going to win, because the people who understand how things really work are going to be the ones who survive.
So it's not that the apocalypse is necessary for their ideology to win, it's that the apocalypse will kill off the competing ideologies, and then the people who understand how things really workTM can rebuild the world without the idiots messing things up.
In reality, though, an apocalypse isn't going to care what ideology you subscribe to. Your survival isn't based on whether you have faith in the word of god, or believe in your own rugged individualism, or are part of a communist enclave- It's based on meeting the basic physiological needs to not die.
You don't have to believe. You have to eat.
Flectarn
Uphold Kali Akuno Thought
- Location
- Queen City of the Ohio
Not necessarily, ultimately, what the apocalypse does is it provides space in which to enact changes. There are loads of social systems which may or may not be good ideas, but which are fundamentally impossible to enact within the current system, you can't try to create a moneyless society where you have to pay taxes, or be a nomadic agro-pastoralist where there are strong property rights, but by breaking the hold that system has, destroying institutions, and putting people in a situation where they're looking for answers, suddenly a lot more things become possible.
Last edited:
Triggerhappy
Stick with Trigger and You'll Make it Through
- Location
- SoCal
To an extent lifestyle and the actions a party takes based on their beliefs and expertise does dictate fitness to survive in any given circumstances.
Of course, any catastrophic apocalypse is not going to set everyone on a level playing field and the same razor margins that are supposed to 'cull the weak' will also kill the 'fit' if they screw up at the wrong moment.
Last edited:
For a really good apocalyptic- not even post apoc yet- series, there's Hellboy/BRPD: Hell on Earth.
After a long time of being told that apocalyptic threats would arise, they finally have. And the situation's gotten really bad, but the people fight on and manage to not be depressed all the time, keep things together, etc..
After a long time of being told that apocalyptic threats would arise, they finally have. And the situation's gotten really bad, but the people fight on and manage to not be depressed all the time, keep things together, etc..
akitsu91
Out-rageous!
Fortunately they have an All Powerfull beneficiary on their side. (The Author)
Vindictus
XENO
- Location
- Texas
Anyway, thinking about what the blog post in the OP is asking for... seems like The Road, but grimmer, I guess?
I'm not entirely sure how something like that is supposed to help people deal with the impending apocalypse or whatever, honestly, so I'm sort of confused as to what their point is.
I'm not entirely sure how something like that is supposed to help people deal with the impending apocalypse or whatever, honestly, so I'm sort of confused as to what their point is.
- Location
- Volksstaat Hessen, Deutsches Reich
Impending apoycalpyse? Like what, exactly? If you want a point, it is to show the truth of what an apocalypse would be, so nobody fetishizes it. Seems straight enough to me.
Vindictus
XENO
- Location
- Texas
You, uh, do realize that I was referencing what I consider to basically be the thesis of the blog post, right?
So I guess climate change apocalypses... Which will basically work out like any other apocalypse, honestly. Sure, no radioactive fallout, but likely effects of climate change are that current ecosystems collapse, water gains a higher acid content, and arable land becomes barren [though some barren land may eventually become arable]. Remaining settlements will likely be based around the control of water filtration facilities and climate controlled greenhouses, in order to ensure access to food and water, and there will probably be some squabbling over ownership of these facilities.
- Location
- Volksstaat Hessen, Deutsches Reich
In that case, the "point" should be clear: Work against fetishization of the apocalypse, especially so that those fiction should provide no comfort, so as to give an extra impetus to avoid the continuation of said apocalypse.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I think part of the problem is that the goto option for making a post-apocalyptic setting darker is to make most everyone behave like belligerent asshats or easily exploited shills of the same, rather than have them die of cholera or otherwise face realistic consequences of a post-apocalyptic society with little or no economy or infrastructure. This in turn leaves the impression that post apocalyptic settings would be just fine to live in if you could just get rid of the stupid and evil people.
Mechasaurian
Big Bossu
- Location
- Lost among fields of history
- Pronouns
- They/Them
To be fair, it is very realistic that people would do horrible things to each other in a world where resources are scarce and there is no big government to keep everything in line. And even if you do get a new government, it is just as likely to be Caesar's Legion* as the NCR. There is oh so much historical precedent for this.
Ignominious-yet-horrible deaths like Cholera would be a good addition, though.
*EDIT: a good deal more likely, now that I remember that top-down, pyramidal social/governmental structures have been the norm rather than the exception throughout human history.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- He/Him
But the thing is, in most post-apocalyptic settings, resources aren't scarce, sure they'll pay lipservice to the idea but it rarely seems to come into play in the story proper. And in quite a few, a big government or governments has arisen to control much of the setting. That's where the dissonance comes in. The world seems shitty only because humans are being assholes, rather than humans being assholes because the world is shitty.
Mechasaurian
Big Bossu
- Location
- Lost among fields of history
- Pronouns
- They/Them
What, seriously?
Can you give me some examples? I admittedly don't read much post-apocalyptic fiction, but I'm having a difficult time swallowing this.
Like...resources not scarce in a post-apocalyptic setting? How does that work? How do you preserve the genre that way?
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- He/Him
There are whole tropes pertaining to it:
Or in more extreme cases:Apocalyptic Logistics said:
As TV Tropes notes its an acceptable break for reality because people want to read "Rick fights zombies and jerkasses" not "Rick dies of dysentery on his way to Oregon", but this in turn creates unfortunate implications. Note that a lot of these settings still claim to be scarce... its just that things are never inconveniently scarce except for the rare occasion where they intend it to be a plot point. Though I suspect some of it instead stems from authors thinking "we went from 6 billion people to like 50 million people, surely that means there's a lot more stuff to go around?" without considering that Stuff™ has a limited shelf life and no one is making more of it, not to mention however much got destroyed in the apocalypse proper.Cosy Catastrophe said:
Regardless of why its the case, settings which are ostensibly shitty, but are still able to somehow address basic needs like food or gas or sanitation and the like, leave the impression that the real problem is the people.
Last edited:
Mechasaurian
Big Bossu
- Location
- Lost among fields of history
- Pronouns
- They/Them
You sounded like you were speaking from experience, so can I have some specific examples? Given that "post apocalyptic" can mean a lot different things, I think it might be best to avoid speaking in general terms.
Anyway, the whole "Ragnarok-proofing" thing is mainly a concern in settings in which it has been decades since the fall. And even then, it only applies to technological doodads. What about sources of food and water, what about valuable land? If there are people who have the means to subsist themselves peacefully, that means they have stuff (cattle, crops, women) that is worth seizing to anyone inclined to do so.
I'm not even sure if "for the evulz" pillagers are wholly unrealistic either. Some young Viking men ran off to become raiders even though there was a stable life waiting for them back home.
Alternatively, you might also see something like the White Legs tribe from New Vegas: Honest Hearts: people who subsist wholly on raiding others and don't really have the know-how or the willingness to do anything else. Not likely to last very long - they'd rampage themselves out in a decade or two, assuming they wouldn't be killed off - but still capable of causing lots of damage. For a real-life example of the White Legs, you could look to the modern day, to Syria and the Congo. There, you will find people who seek nothing more than cash, guns, and a licence to rampage, and already have all three.
To use another Fallout example (like I said, my palette of post-apocalyptia is limited), you might get low-tech conquering armies like Caesar's Legion who expand and acquire power and territory for it's own sake, and visit brutality on others in the process. Kind of like pretty much every conquering empire in human history, ever.
TL; DR: I happen to think you very severely underestimate the number of reasons humans can find to be horrific to each other. Just look at the ancient world and some of the unfortunate areas of the modern world for examples of what I'm talking about. People would in fact be a real problem.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Well that's just it. As BTongue put it, look at a post-apocalyptic setting and ask yourself a question like "where do they get food from?". Mad Max Fury Road did a very good job of showing the infrastructure and indoctrination behind Immortan Joe's society. On the other hand, take a look at something like the Fallout 3. You have people living in towns in blighted wastelands with no sign of farms, tons of raiders running amok presumably reliant on going after what the townspeople have, oh and then you have Allistair living in a fancy hotel in the middle of a wasteland. New Vegas is by comparison much better, where you actually see farms, while the landscape is much desolate as things grow back.
That's just the thing. Raiders are kind of dependent on there being at least a vague semblance of civilization existing so that they can pillage it, but the more civilization there is the harder it is for them to do that. There is a reason why millennia ago the smarter ones became 'stationary raiders' demanding tribute in return for protection, becoming the initial template for government.
Mechasaurian
Big Bossu
- Location
- Lost among fields of history
- Pronouns
- They/Them
There is, I feel, a certain sweet spot between too little civilization and too much when it comes to Fiend/Fallout 3 raiders. Too little and there's nothing to raid. Too much and the raiders are exterminated.
As you mentioned, Fallout 3 breaks SoD by having the player interact with more raiders than normal people. New Vegas went a bit too far in the other direction - it was better in justifying the existence of the Fiends, but I don't remember how the hell they were supposed to replenish their numbers given their head-on confrontations with NCR and the like. Or who exactly they raided, for that matter.
Realistically, Fallout 3 raiders would exist in areas where enforcers of order such as the NCR or Legion are weak or nonexistent. I suppose each moderately sized settlement could support a nest of a dozen or so raiders who prey on weak targets. Shady Sands and the Khans in Fallout 1 is a good example. Every so often, new raiders would be created by the harshness and desperation of the wastes, which preying on others seems like an easy solution to.
Hang on, what exactly are we arguing/talking about again? I've sort of lost track.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- He/Him
That in most post-apocalyptic settings, the main problem confronting the protagonist is other people, not things like scarcity, which has the unfortunate implications that in such a world things would be good if only people weren't assholes. Its all man vs man, maybe with bits of man vs himself for pathos, with man vs nature being put aside. Probably due to any number of reasons, from nature making a weak antagonist, or humanity is usually responsible for the apocalypse and having nature be the antagonist would go against the "man is his own worst enemy message", or they just think the logistical concerns can't make for good storytelling, or are just too lazy to write it and create unfortunate implications.
Its a pity because it can make for good storytelling, or good game mechanics for that matter. Instead if its featured at all its usually just a maguffin, like the water chip from the original Fallout, which exists only to justify the man vs man conflicts that ensue during the story.
It seems to be "apocalypse fiction should be didactic literature about how awful such an event would be and hence how badly you need to lower your carbon footprint."
Which ... is an idea I have mixed feelings about. On the one hand, I'm kind of on-board with the idea that people could use reminders of how awful a collapse of civilization would actually be. On the other hand, I don't think I really like the idea of such a ... flatly political and prescriptive approach to any fictional genre. It reminds me of the idea that you should always write immoral characters ending up in some horrible fate because we wouldn't want to give the impressionable audience the idea that you can be that bad and get away with it, would we?
akitsu91
Out-rageous!
- Location
- The Pleroma
Post-apocalyptic stories (that gain currency) are always, always about the current society. Fallout is a presentation of the 80/90s as existing in the ruins of the American Dream and the 1950s. Mad Max and The Road Warrior are about the perceived breakdown of society from youth gangs and the oil crisis. Alas, Babylon is about the Cold War. The Stand is extremely unsubtle (though the revised edition inadvertently disguises this) about having its villain literally be everything Stephen King thought was bad about the seventies (Have A Nice Day buttons, the KKK, the Symbionese Liberation Army, technocracy and the military-industrial complex- there's a lot packed into Flagg). JG Ballard's postapocalyptics shade into stuff like Crash and The Atrocity Exhibition, with largely similar ideas. The Road is the final part of Cormac MacCarthy's trilogy on violence and death that begins with Blood Meridian and continues with No Country for Old Men.
Now, as a consequence, there are a lot of minor works that end up replicating these notions without understanding their ideas. But that always happens, and we can ignore them.
So this blog post fails to really engage with post-apocalypticism as a genre. The point of such stories as have any power is that they are about unveiling conflicts and problems in the modern world by stripping away their protective outer layers. Those that last are ones that deal with conflicts that are broad and deep, so that they resonate beyond the immediate period of writing.
Of course, it features a nicely reactionary notion: we shouldn't have stories that affirm positive beliefs about humanity. Or, at least, not kitschy ones. Apparently, kitsch that revolves around misanthropy is acceptable?
Now, as a consequence, there are a lot of minor works that end up replicating these notions without understanding their ideas. But that always happens, and we can ignore them.
So this blog post fails to really engage with post-apocalypticism as a genre. The point of such stories as have any power is that they are about unveiling conflicts and problems in the modern world by stripping away their protective outer layers. Those that last are ones that deal with conflicts that are broad and deep, so that they resonate beyond the immediate period of writing.
Of course, it features a nicely reactionary notion: we shouldn't have stories that affirm positive beliefs about humanity. Or, at least, not kitschy ones. Apparently, kitsch that revolves around misanthropy is acceptable?
Flectarn
Uphold Kali Akuno Thought
- Location
- Queen City of the Ohio