Recommend some dystopian/post apocalyptic fiction!

[EloiseWeenie]

Mar 19, 2014 20:55:30 GMT -5 @ladydisdain said:

Oct 18, 2013 16:27:20 GMT -5 EloiseWeenie said:

I loved The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel series by Michael Scott

Wait, is this a spin-off of the character referenced in Harry Potter?

Apparently Flamel was real! I had only heard of him through HP, but the series intertwines lots of historical figures in a fun way. He wanted kids to learn about some of these people.

[theoverlander]

I'm embarrassed to admit how much I enjoyed The Selection series by Kiera Cass. Or Kass, not sure. Anyway, it's pretty much dystopian young adult meets the bachelor. They are super quick reads with mini-books told from a different character's perspective between the novels. The last one comes out in May and I'm looking forward to it like a teenage fangirl.

[lolo]

Ooo this is my jam! I love YA dystopian stuff.

A few recommendations:
The Giver (don't just rely on stupid Taylor Swift in the new movie, wtf)
Tunnel in the Sky (an old sci-fi classic that you should absolutely read)
The Matched, Chosen trilogy. Not *amazing* but definitely worth a read
The Handmaid's Tale (Christians take over and, surprise! the world sucks)

If you like YA magical realism/fantasy type stuff, I also really like Shannon Hale.

[cookiemdough]

I loved everything written by Octavia Butler

[bluestreet]

LeGuin's "The Lathe of Heaven" (a quick and easy read), "The Dispossessed," and "Left Hand of Darkness" (I was never able to get into the Earthsea trilogy, and these are much punchier, IMHO)

Eta-
"A Wrinkle in Time"- the godfather of YA dystopian novels. My favorite YA book ever.

Classic feminist sf dystopian novels- "Woman on the Edge of Time" by Marge Piercy
"The Female Man" by Joanna Russ

[lillaguma]

Mar 19, 2014 22:47:03 GMT -5 theoverlander said:

I'm embarrassed to admit how much I enjoyed The Selection series by Kiera Cass. Or Kass, not sure. Anyway, it's pretty much dystopian young adult meets the bachelor. They are super quick reads with mini-books told from a different character's perspective between the novels. The last one comes out in May and I'm looking forward to it like a teenage fangirl.

I really liked these too, though I'm also a little embarrassed about it. I'm really excited for the third one!

[StrawberryBlondie]

I hated the Delirium books. Really really hated.

[ttt]

Mar 20, 2014 9:00:52 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

I hated the Delirium books. Really really hated.

I read the first two and the second one annoyed me so much that I just read the Wiki page to find out what happens at the end. And then I was even MORE annoyed. 

[StrawberryBlondie]

Mar 20, 2014 9:52:20 GMT -5 ttt said:

Mar 20, 2014 9:00:52 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

I hated the Delirium books. Really really hated.

I read the first two and the second one annoyed me so much that I just read the Wiki page to find out what happens at the end. And then I was even MORE annoyed. 

Same. I actually kind of liked the first. It went all downhill from there.

Also, I know you asked for dystopian/post-apocolyptic, and this is not, but I really enjoyed the Beautiful Creatures series.

[Deleted]

Mar 20, 2014 9:00:52 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

I hated the Delirium books. Really really hated.

I really liked the first one, liked the first half of the second one (I thought her character was actually interesting and did some growing) and then the third one was not so great.   But I had to suspend belief for the premise in a way that I don't have to for a lot of YA dystopian fiction. 


I want to read a dystopian trilogy that has a fantastic third book.  Any recs?

[Deleted]

I wanted to read Beautiful Creatures, but I made the mistake of watching the movie. Well watching the first half. H will never let me live that one down. Not even Jeremy Irons and Emma Thompson could save it.

[jlt19]

I loved The Maze Runner series, but hated the prequel.

I just finished The Giver and am about 3/4 way through Gathering Blue and I still haven't figured out the connect there.

[Deleted]

Mar 20, 2014 10:00:03 GMT -5 @mrsbecky07 said:

Mar 20, 2014 9:00:52 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

I hated the Delirium books. Really really hated.

I really liked the first one, liked the first half of the second one (I thought her character was actually interesting and did some growing) and then the third one was not so great.   But I had to suspend belief for the premise in a way that I don't have to for a lot of YA dystopian fiction. 


I want to read a dystopian trilogy that has a fantastic third book.  Any recs?

Under the Never Sky
Through the Ever Night
Into the Still Blue


I loved, loved, loved these books. The characters, the relationships, the setting, the world building, the story itself ... all very very good. They are not widely known enough, IMHO. They kick the shit out of the crap that Divergent became by book 3. 

[aurora]

Mar 19, 2014 23:21:43 GMT -5 lolo said:

Ooo this is my jam! I love YA dystopian stuff.

A few recommendations:
The Giver (don't just rely on stupid Taylor Swift in the new movie, wtf)
Tunnel in the Sky (an old sci-fi classic that you should absolutely read)
The Matched, Chosen trilogy. Not *amazing* but definitely worth a read
The Handmaid's Tale (Christians take over and, surprise! the world sucks)

If you like YA magical realism/fantasy type stuff, I also really like Shannon Hale.

I love The Handmaid's Tale but I wouldn't describe it as "Christians" taking over.  I'm curious: did I just completely forget (it's been a few years), or is there something more subtle that makes you say that?

[Daria Morgandorffer]

The Earth Abides is my absolute favorite in this category!

[lolo]

Mar 20, 2014 10:47:10 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Mar 20, 2014 10:09:55 GMT -5 aurora said:

I love The Handmaid's Tale but I wouldn't describe it as "Christians" taking over.  I'm curious: did I just completely forget (it's been a few years), or is there something more subtle that makes you say that?

I was also going to say, that's not what that book is about, but I remember a few years ago someone summarized it as a book about what happens after the environment collapses or something and I was like, ummm... no. And the only consequence of the entire discussion was a ton of spoilers that pissed people off.

No, that is definitely what it is about. I can't link on my phone but even wiki describes it as a Christian totalitarian regime. Obviously it's extreme and not very Christ like, or it wouldn't be dystopian.

[ttt]

More accurately, it's about what happens when Christian fundamentalists take over the government. 

[lolo]

Mar 20, 2014 11:55:14 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Mar 20, 2014 11:52:52 GMT -5 lolo said:

No, that is definitely what it is about. I can't link on my phone but even wiki describes it as a Christian totalitarian regime. Obviously it's extreme and not very Christ like, or it wouldn't be dystopian.

It might be a Christian totalitarian regime, but the book is not about what would happen if Christians took over the government. Sorry. It's not.

Would you agree that it's part of the premise? Or the setting?

While the plot isn't explicitly about the sons of Jacob takeover, to ignore this aspect of the book limits its social commentary and mitigates the tension and irony in the government's professed beliefs and Ofred's experience. In addition to being Ofred's story, it's also about the tension of a national narrative that is disingenuous in her experience.

[lolo]

Mar 20, 2014 12:11:03 GMT -5 ttt said:

More accurately, it's about what happens when Christian fundamentalists take over the government. 

This is an important clarification. Thanks.

[NewOrleans]

Handmaid's Tale is definitely a takeover by some form of wacky Christians. The setting is Gilead, which is a Biblical allusion. The sons of Jacob and Ham (Biblical allusions) are allowed to emigrate to their respective homelands because their religion cannot be practiced in Gilead. The title itself is a Biblical allusion to the story of Rachel and Leah who used handmaids to outbreed each other.

[NewOrleans]

other dystopians, fantasies, and futuristic things I've come across lately.

• Ready Player One by Ernest Cline
• The Testing by Joelle Charbonneau - highly recommended to Divergent and Legend fans
• Article 5 by Kristen Simmons
• The Selection by Kiera Cass
• Variant by Robison Wells
• Anna Dressed in Blood by Kendare Blake
• The Other Normals by Ned Vizzini
• The Magicians by Lev Grossman
• The Raven Boys by Maggie Stiefvater
• A Monster Calls by Patrick Ness
• Throne of Glass by Sarah J. Maas
• Shadow and Bone by Leigh Bardugo
the Horsemen of the Apocalypse series

[NewOrleans]

Mar 20, 2014 13:23:31 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Mar 20, 2014 12:31:23 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Handmaid's Tale is definitely a takeover by some form of wacky Christians. The setting is Gilead, which is a Biblical allusion. The sons of Jacob and Ham (Biblical allusions) are allowed to emigrate to their respective homelands because their religion cannot be practiced in Gilead. The title itself is a Biblical allusion to the story of Rachel and Leah who used handmaids to outbreed each other.

Yeah, but now we're in narrator v. author territory.  Anyway, this is the second time I've had this conversation, I think.  I mean, I distinctly remember a conversation a few years ago where someone was like, "It's about X" and like 15 people jumped in and were like, "No.  It's a feminist novel.  It's "about" patriarchal control of women..."  There was a whole discussion in there about how the entire "setting" of the novel, like the birth rate crisis and, wasn't there an environmental disaster or something, too where people were afraid to even leave Gilead because they thought that beyond the gates was some kind of certain destruction?  Anyway, all of that, as delivered via the media via Offred is supposed to be considered "unreliable."  So, Atwood naming the book "The Handmaid's Tale" doesn't mean *she* is trying to allude the OT.  She is just referencing the reality of her protagonist.    

Just looking at wiki, the government is also a military dictatorship, but the book is not about the military.  

I am not saying that the setting is not a theocracy.  I'm just saying that the fact that the specific theocracy is Christian does not make this book a sort of cautionary tale of what would happen if Christians took over the government. 

I agree.  I was just clarifying that the setting is in some sort of Christian dystopia, not that it's "about" Christian anything.   

[Deleted]

So. Honest question, because I've never read The Handmaid's Tale. What *is* it about?

[pixy0stix]

The Magicians by Lev Grossman - I read this. So not worth it. It's very nonsensical. A whole lotta book that doesn't really do anything, story-wise.

[NewOrleans]

Mar 20, 2014 14:07:40 GMT -5 @shenanigans said:

So. Honest question, because I've never read The Handmaid's Tale. What *is* it about?

Ofred is a handmaid.  Handmaids are breeding women assigned to households to increase the birthrate.  Women have no rights whatsoever, not even the right to speak.  So the book is "about" men controlling women, women being valued only for their ability to procreate, and women being even unable to bond with each other in any type of sisterhood because the men have pitted the women against each other to cause competition and resentment.

[Deleted]

Mar 20, 2014 14:17:37 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Mar 20, 2014 14:07:40 GMT -5 @shenanigans said:

So. Honest question, because I've never read The Handmaid's Tale. What *is* it about?

Ofred is a handmaid.  Handmaids are breeding women assigned to households to increase the birthrate.  Women have no rights whatsoever, not even the right to speak.  So the book is "about" men controlling women, women being valued only for their ability to procreate, and women being even unable to bond with each other in any type of sisterhood because the men have pitted the women against each other to cause competition and resentment.

thank you! I have to say that for some reason I thought it was about dystopian christian society ... I guess from the title? I'm not sure, but I had that in my mind. Not that it was a feminist piece. 

I didn't fail any of my Women's Study courses in college either! Somehow. 

[aurora]

Mar 20, 2014 13:23:31 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Mar 20, 2014 12:31:23 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Handmaid's Tale is definitely a takeover by some form of wacky Christians. The setting is Gilead, which is a Biblical allusion. The sons of Jacob and Ham (Biblical allusions) are allowed to emigrate to their respective homelands because their religion cannot be practiced in Gilead. The title itself is a Biblical allusion to the story of Rachel and Leah who used handmaids to outbreed each other.

Yeah, but now we're in narrator v. author territory.  Anyway, this is the second time I've had this conversation, I think.  I mean, I distinctly remember a conversation a few years ago where someone was like, "It's about X" and like 15 people jumped in and were like, "No.  It's a feminist novel.  It's "about" patriarchal control of women..."  There was a whole discussion in there about how the entire "setting" of the novel, like the birth rate crisis and, wasn't there an environmental disaster or something, too where people were afraid to even leave Gilead because they thought that beyond the gates was some kind of certain destruction?  Anyway, all of that, as delivered via the media via Offred is supposed to be considered "unreliable."  So, Atwood naming the book "The Handmaid's Tale" doesn't mean *she* is trying to allude the OT.  She is just referencing the reality of her protagonist.    

Just looking at wiki, the government is also a military dictatorship, but the book is not about the military.  

I am not saying that the setting is not a theocracy.  I'm just saying that the fact that the specific theocracy is Christian does not make this book a sort of cautionary tale of what would happen if Christians took over the government. 

And with that, I am now way down the rabbit hole of old Nest threads...  And I'm realizing that when we argue about history or literature we're all kind of assholes, so now I'm in sort of a shitty mood.  So I'm done.  It's a good book.  Everyone should read it.  Some people will get it and some people will think it's "about" what would happen if radical islamists attacked the United States.  In the grand scheme, thinking that it's "about" a fundie Christian government, isn't the worst summary in the world.  At least it will make you skeptical of fundie Christian politicians who seem to regularly attempt to enact policies that would make aspects of the Handmaid's Tale a distinct reality.  

I had to leave for a bit, but this is what I remember.  Sorry if I triggered a bad mood!

I definitely agree everyone should read it.  I love that book.  Now I'm going to add it to my "re-read soon pile."

[lolo]

Mar 20, 2014 12:16:57 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Mar 20, 2014 12:12:25 GMT -5 lolo said:

Would you agree that it's part of the premise? Or the setting?

While the plot isn't explicitly about the sons of Jacob takeover, to ignore this aspect of the book limits its social commentary and mitigates the tension and irony in the government's professed beliefs and Ofred's experience. In addition to being Ofred's story, it's also about the tension of a national narrative that is disingenuous in her experience.

I would say that is the setting. In the same way that I would say the setting for Charlotte's Web is a farm, but the book is not about a farm or farming. I'm not even sure I would say that it is "the premise." The premise is that the rights of citizenship are based on gender rather than race, class, or nationality. I would say the Christian government is a vehicle for that premise.

That makes sense. I can appreciate that point of view. Yes, it's an oversimplification to say that it's just about an uber Christian government, just like my other summaries using only a few words were oversimplifications. But you guys were right to call me out on that.

That said, I understand that a lot of people read THT from a gender roles/feminist/critique of feminism perspective. And absolutely that is integral to the work--maybe even the premise, depending on what terms we use and what emphasis we place on what part of the story (not to mention author vs. reader in the assignment of meaning...).

I don't bifurcate the feminist reading/critiques from readings/critiques that look at political structures, nationalism, religious rhetoric, etc. And that's why the religious undertones and political structure are more than just a setting for me.

[Daria Morgandorffer]

Apr 24, 2014 10:58:14 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

I'm recommending a book by one of our own (sort of).

The book "Above All Men".

You all need to read this so we can talk about it together.

Reasons I love this book:

It's a good story.  Just plain and simple.  The story has a compelling arch right through the last page.  

It introduces (for the first time?) the idea of a "Slowpocalypse" where the collapse of society isn't sudden due to zombies or a bio-event.  Rather the collapse is slow, tied to environmental and consequently geopolitical causes.  Because of this, you have a sense of how abnormal things are, but the characters are carrying on as if it's relatively normal, just a low thread of anxiety throughout the book.  The characters were essentially like frogs in a cauldron.  A little here and little there, slowly slowly, until they're building an outhouse because the indoor plumbing doesn't work anymore.

It's midwestern in setting and voice and "culture."  I love the midwest and I get pretty tired of seeing it portrayed as the foil or its people as the lovable idiots to the more sophisticated and refined coastal folks.  

This book had me at the opening sequence when the author describes the midwestern storm sky to a T.  That sky is my favorite midwestern phenomenon.  I painted my bedroom that color.  

In a lot of apocalyptic literature, the "mother" figure is extremely one dimensional.  Doesn't the mother die in the first chapter of The Road?  I mean, basically she's generally portrayed as a nag or the person who doesn't really get it or, at best, a person who is so preoccupied with the protection of her children that she actually ends up threatening their safety (or just dying with them).  I'M SO FUCKING SICK OF THAT SHIT!!  The mother here could be better developed, but she's a HUGE step in the right direction.  She is the "calm", the strength shouldering the anxiety of her entire family including her very damaged husband.  And she doesn't die. 


Reasons this book is hard (but you should read it anyway):

The lack of punctuation and quotation marks to indicate the speaker force you to read it slowly and sometimes, you have to go back and go "A, B, A, B, okay, A is speaking here."  I think the author does this imperfectly.  But I get why he's doing it and I agree with the reason - it slows the pace of your reading and creates a sort of mild sense of frustration and tension in the same way that the circumstances of the protagonist happened slowly and created frustration and tension.

It probably legit falls into the category of literary fiction, so it's brain exercise.  I took me a full month to read it.

I'm up for the challenge. I just finished re-reading the entire Plantagenet series by Sharon Penman and need to step out of the Middle Ages for a while. 

ETA- downloading now! I'll report back

[2curlydogs]

Oct 18, 2013 15:08:01 GMT -5 jillianashley6 said:

And if you, or anyone, hasn't read The Name of the Wind and The Wise Man's Fear by Patrick Rothfuss you really really should. They are quite possibly two of my favorite books ever written. Its like Harry Potter for adults

I am reading The Name of the Wind now and am RIVETED. OMG.