Hacker News Reader

Comment by InclinedPlane | Hacker News Reader

I highly recommend people who find 1984 and Brave New World interesting also read Jules Verne's lost novel "Paris in the 20th Century". It's dystopian in an entirely different way. It talks not about the extremes of state-based censorship from 1984 or of the indifference of the blissed-out citizens of Brave New World but the far more realistic likelihood of rampant self-censorship. Of culture which willingly bends itself to what amounts to the same thing as oppression.

View on HN

From the plot summary on Wikipedia: "Michel discusses women with Quinsonnas, who sadly explains that there are no such things as women anymore; from mindless, repetitive factory work and careful attention to finance and science, most women have become cynical, ugly, neurotic career women."

Is the novel really that off-putting or is the character holding this view an anomaly? From what I can find in reviews, it sounds like the book predicts women will become better educated and career-oriented, and depicts them as acting and appearing masculine as a result. If so that reads to me as pretty shallow dystopia - a lack of understanding of human nature and a lack of imagination (as evidenced by simplistic views on gendered traits) do not compelling speculative fiction make

Doesn't make me have the intellectual hots for the work.

It was written in 1863, you can't expect the author to have the same view on women that we have today.

But that's my point: If you're trying to write about the future but are getting held back by the narrow views of your present, you may at best produce an entertaining curiosity, but not something of lasting use. The other works discussed here have prevailed because they contain still-valid insights on human behavior and do a pretty good job avoiding falling into period-conventional thinking.

That said, I actually think not being sexist in storytelling is pretty easy, it's about thinking about people instead of genders, and good writers have known that at all times and put characters first.

Basically, I'm not saying Verne's views (or perhaps that character's views -- I'd like to hear more from someone who's actually read it) can't be explained in context, I'm saying if that's representative of how the work tries to extrapolate into the future I'm not getting the vibe it's any good at it and actually still relevant today.

You should read the book. It might challenge your world view, which is entirely the point of reading in the first place.

It would probably be worthwhile to remember that Vernes was living in a time when the definition of "woman" is a very different thing than today. Of course, you don't have to excuse the sexism - merely understand it in the context of the book, with the purpose of gaining some insight into the points the author is trying to make.

Try not to be distracted by the sexism, is what I mean to say, while you are reading a book written over a hundred years ago..

Well said. I can't imagine a synopsis that would entice someone to read Huck Finn if they were similarly predisposed to disregarding works based on racial comparisons, but Huck Finn's 'dust jacket' description is a far cry from its sum.

That's why I initially asked if the example was representative of the book or not -- it's not like I didn't give room to the possibility that it's not. I've tried to explain why it raised a big red flag for me. It's not about sexism so much (I think I'm getting downvoted because people believe I'm trying to show off my PC-ness or something, or perhaps just because the subthread doesn't add much to the topic, admittedly) as thinking that if it's shallow about that part of human nature, it might not be doing a good job as speculative fiction in general. Wouldn't you agree that 1984 and BNW avoid similar pitfalls and that maybe it's no accident they don't?

It is not at all shallow, but rather quite representative of the thinking of the period in which it was written, and in that light should definitely be considered a valid endeavour.

But, are you not at the very least intrigued by the irony in your expression of political correctness? This is, after all, newthink.

You should read the book before forming an opinion of it, the parts you seem to be focusing on aren't an overpowering element of the book as a whole.

This is a great example of the modern form of liberal censorship. We won't learn from the political debates around the founding of the United States because the men involved "were slave owners". We won't read fiction written before 1960 because the writers were "sexist" (dear friend, I suggest you avoid the Iliad!).

Meanwhile, if the equalitarian dogma is false, we'll never know it. Because suggesting any challenge to the dogma will cost you your career.

Oh come on, that's hogwash. I asked a question about the book, I didn't urge anyone to stay away from it. For all I know, it's a view held by a character in the book, that doesn't mean it's a prevalent sentiment of the text in general, or of the author. I did however speculate on what it would mean if it were, and I still think that would make it likely to be less than useful as compelling, lasting speculative fiction. Even then that doesn't mean it can't still be an interesting historical artifact though (keeping the focus on this one element, e.g. on gender attitudes of its time, or in the history of its genre). Of course we should be reading historic works, examine their context, and the path from there to here.

But what if modern liberal ideology is wrong and human beings do exhibit sexual dimorphism? Will we ever stop firing researchers who hypothesize this long enough to find out?

You can't even bare to read an old book where someone might disagree with you. There are millions more like you, and together they wield a lot of power.

Actually I probably am going to read the book, because at this point I'm curious enough to find out what's really up in there, and because I have eclectic reading habits in general. Why would I avoid reading a book I think I might disagree with, after all? If that's how it turns out I'd still rather know an opposing viewpoint well.

Nor have you pegged my attitude towards genders correctly, by the way. I'm not closed to the idea of sexual dimorphism - but I think the significant variance between specimen of either gender possibly makes a strong argument for designing systems not to necessarily differentiate based on gender, so that they not ill-serve the individual.

I do think it's silly to say that being educated and career-oriented is in conflict with central "womanly qualities" or that such women automatically exhibit masculine traits, though. So I find that character's take on it pretty darn silly, aye.

But as far as being alarmist goes, I think you're blowing the horn a lot harder than I did.

But what if modern liberal ideology is wrong and human beings do exhibit sexual dimorphism? Will we ever stop firing researchers who hypothesize this long enough to find out?

I dunno. Will the so-called "researchers" ever stop coming up with hypotheses about gender that are so culturally specific and downright [WEIRD](http://www.psmag.com/magazines/pacific-standard-cover-story/...) that a second-year anthropology student can refute them?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com