Ever been confused by the politics of a fictional society?

[Embracing_Madness]

Have you ever found the politics of the society described in a novel illogical? Ever questioned the author's grasp of how governments work? On my part, I'm very confused by the politics in Veronica Roth's Divergent (if anyone can clear this up for me, by the way, that'd be much appreciated)

What's the point of all these factions? I don't quite see how cultivating just one specific virtue is supposed to keep their society safe or strong or whatever, especially since it seems so easy to get kicked out of a faction and become one of the 'useless' factionless people that Abnegation has to feed on charity. It's like the worst kind of elitism, an incredibly inefficient and wasteful way of using human capital, and would probably encourage crime, thus keeping the society from that safe/strong ideal.

It becomes even worse when you think of that age-limit thing Dauntless has going on, which means that all their old members are going to become homeless and unwelcome eventually. Who'd subject themselves to serving a faction that is going to kick them out like that? Didn't it gall any of those post-Dauntless factionless members, to have to get charity from those Abnegation 'stiffs'? Did none of those post-Dauntless factionless members ever think of using those fighting skills they learned in the past to rebel?

As for the others, who'd subject themselves willingly to being drugged by their faction (Amity serves bread with a peace serum in it)?! Also, who decided to put Abnegation, the faction which eschews power, in power? Did all the other factions get together and say "Yes, Abnegation is a great choice because they're not good at asserting themselves politically (or at all) and they're inferior to us and would probably never interfere with our plans"? Seriously. This is a situation in which the political leaders (Abnegation) is disdained by their intellectuals (Erudite) and their police (Dauntless), and nothing was being done to solve this. Did Abnegation mean to be in power permanently through whatever status quo they had - is there even such a thing as elections in this world?

All in all, I find it incredibly baffling and incredibly disturbing and puts into mind an image of five glorified cults jockeying for power in an enclosed city while everybody else just suffers. Thus, I wonder, does Roth know how weird the politics of Divergent is? It's like a story from the point of view of the villains, except that the villains are deluded into thinking that they're the heroes.

So how about you? What's your weird-politics book of choice?

[NanoWasabi]

I can't say that I've ever been confused by a books politics, I simply accept it as part of the story. Having made it through the first half of Divergent, I think that I can say that the government is screwed up on purpose by the author. While it might not be totally realistic for a government to get that bad without a rebellion, it's certainly a good story element, and I'm excited to see how the problem gets resolved.

[moderntimes]

Embracing, some books aren't meant to be taken literally, particularly fantasy or speculative fiction, and most particularly juvenile fiction (aka "YA" which is all the rage, even with adults). Or, the author simply isn't accepting that humans act the same, regardless of whether they're in a "sword & sorcery" wizard's tale or a dystopian made-up society.

I've not read "Divergent" but according to your description, it's apparently the author attempting to impose non-human behavior onto human beings. So naturally you're "confused" -- although I'd instead say "irritated" in that you seem to understand the concepts and society perfectly, just that you don't think it makes any sense.

Politics isn't the only factor in this sort of false imposition, especially in fantasy or SF, where general behavior (not necessarily political) is imposed on characters when that action just doesn't make sense. I've been a lifetime fan of SF but not so much fantasy, because in fantasy, it often seems that the author tries to make the human characters behave like animated (or anime) instead of real. This has lopped over into SF so much that I've essentially given up on the genre, as the authors seem to think that because the humans are living in an L5 satellite in the 24th century, they won't behave like real people.

As a mystery writer myself, when I set out to create my series of modern American private detective novels, I decided that I would NOT have "speculative" characters such as weirdly named bad guys (Bonzo Bonkers, etc) nor have old maid librarians solve vicious murders (called "cozy" mysteries). Instead, I've sweated blood to create a "real life" private eye who actually has law firms and insurance agencies as clients (most PIs work on retainer for both), who went to college, who has a realistic lifestyle (he's not a 240th degree Secret Black Belt in Martian Judo, ha ha), and who pays his light bill, drives an SUV, and owns an iPhone and has a website.

Thankfully, people who've read my novels have been impressed by the realism. I've had cop pals ask me "How do you know so much about how cops really work?" and actual private detective friends say the same. It's call "research" and intense attention to detail. But not just the physical stuff, but the way the characters behave, how they speak, how they think. Other writer pals have remarked as to how "real" the characters behave.

Please don't misunderstand -- I'm not bragging although I am proud of my books. But my main premise is that the author cannot abandon human behavior or human makeup just because the book is fiction. Unless of course you're writing a deliberate farce, like "Tom Jones" or "Catch 22". Otherwise, the author really needs to work within the boundaries of human behavior and motivation, and, as you imply, the book's a sham.

[lnygaard]

What I took from reading Divergent was that you couldn't take it seriously. It gets even more strange by the end of the series. People don't read stories like Divergent because they resonate with them; but because its a fun fluff read to kick the weekend with. If you want to talk about real dystopian that makes you think you check out The Giver or 1984.

It is a little disturbing that books like these and the Hunger Games are so popular. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed reading them, but its kind of a reflection on our own society that we find them so interesting. Hmm....

[Embracing_Madness]

Thanks, moderntimes! That was a good explanation. I realize that books like Divergent would be more enjoyable if you're there for the adventure and go along with the flow. Heck that could probably even apply to books like Twilight - they're enjoyable if you don't look too closely at the detail and try to apply contemporary societal norms to them, which I haven't been able to do so far. I'm just not used to reading books with that mindset, but I'll try. (P.S. Agreed, Inygaard. 1984 was a FANTASTIC dystopia that you could really sink your teeth into. I suppose that's why it's classified as a classic adult fiction while Divergent's young adult.)

[RobertManchester]

Have you ever found the politics of the society described in a novel illogical? Ever questioned the author's grasp of how governments work? On my part, I'm very confused by the politics in Veronica Roth's Divergent (if anyone can clear this up for me, by the way, that'd be much appreciated)

What's the point of all these factions? I don't quite see how cultivating just one specific virtue is supposed to keep their society safe or strong or whatever, especially since it seems so easy to get kicked out of a faction and become one of the 'useless' factionless people that Abnegation has to feed on charity. It's like the worst kind of elitism, an incredibly inefficient and wasteful way of using human capital, and would probably encourage crime, thus keeping the society from that safe/strong ideal.

It becomes even worse when you think of that age-limit thing Dauntless has going on, which means that all their old members are going to become homeless and unwelcome eventually. Who'd subject themselves to serving a faction that is going to kick them out like that? Didn't it gall any of those post-Dauntless factionless members, to have to get charity from those Abnegation 'stiffs'? Did none of those post-Dauntless factionless members ever think of using those fighting skills they learned in the past to rebel?

As for the others, who'd subject themselves willingly to being drugged by their faction (Amity serves bread with a peace serum in it)?! Also, who decided to put Abnegation, the faction which eschews power, in power? Did all the other factions get together and say "Yes, Abnegation is a great choice because they're not good at asserting themselves politically (or at all) and they're inferior to us and would probably never interfere with our plans"? Seriously. This is a situation in which the political leaders (Abnegation) is disdained by their intellectuals (Erudite) and their police (Dauntless), and nothing was being done to solve this. Did Abnegation mean to be in power permanently through whatever status quo they had - is there even such a thing as elections in this world?

All in all, I find it incredibly baffling and incredibly disturbing and puts into mind an image of five glorified cults jockeying for power in an enclosed city while everybody else just suffers. Thus, I wonder, does Roth know how weird the politics of Divergent is? It's like a story from the point of view of the villains, except that the villains are deluded into thinking that they're the heroes.

So how about you? What's your weird-politics book of choice?

I fear you maybe look to deep or to close at the book take a step back for me you do not have understand every little thing thing to enjoy a book

[moderntimes]

I think much of the problem is that you're trying to infer adult motives and structures into "kiddie-lit" books. Stuff like Divergent and Hunger Games are meant for teens and therefore the author may simply not have cared sufficiently to imbue the book with adult concepts.

My recommendation is to junk the YA and start reading books for adults. Unless of course you're still a kid -- I don't know your age.

Which is why "1984" has realistic, albeit dystopian, political mentality and themes. Other books, such as Joyce's "Ulysses" (or some of the stories in his "Dubliners" provide a very accurate depiction of political life (turn of the century Dublin). That's just one example -- there are many. But these are books for grownups, definitely not YA genre.

And my apologies -- a bit of my personal bias leaked out, as I simply cannot understand the fascination that many adults in this forum have for juvenile fiction, especially fantasy. Each to his own, of course, but those who relish YA-style fiction shouldn't expect political or social themes in such books to be developed toward any maturity.

[Little House]

While I don't think that Divergent qualifies as "Great Literature" by any definition, I think that you have all forgotten that it is part of a trilogy. It is only the first part of the story. All of the questions Embracing_Madness asks are answered in the last book. Who put the factions in place? Why have factions? Why are the Abnegation in charge? It all makes sense after you have read the whole story.

To be honest, I felt that the last book was a bit lacking, in a "could that really happen?" sort of way. But just as you wouldn't write a bad review after only reading the first third of a book, you really should finish the trilogy before complaining too much. And before anyone says that a book should stand alone if it is a book, this one does. It is only in understanding the world the author built that you need to have read the whole series in order to make sense of it.

[moderntimes]

Little, I strongly disagree about having to finish (and of course BUY) all the series for there to be a coherence in the foundation of the books' premise, its "conceit," as correctly describes any book's foundation.

Sure, story lines are wrapped up in the concluding book and plots resolved. At least I assume so, not having read Divergent nor do I intend to, it being YA and I being a grownup. But the bases for the constructed society and its formulation, the very groundwork of the story arc, should be at least outlined such that readers like Embracing aren't left in the dark. And of course I'm presuming that Embracing is in possession of his/her faculties enough to ferret out such tenets.

As I said, I'm writing a series of private detective thrillers. The first 2 were purchased and published, I've just completed the 3rd and I'm now seeking representation, while blocking out the 4th novel in outline.

I've worked very hard to ensure that any reader who picks up book #2 (Blood Storm) will not be in the dark as to the main characters and the book's premise. I put small asides and narrative sequences into the novel so as to bring new readers up to speed on my private eye's life and misfortunes. I also re-introduce principal arc characters (those who exist through the whole series or at least more than one of the novels) and let the reader know who they are and how they relate to the entire theme of my novels (which is, by the way, "redemption").

Pick up ANY solidly written novel of a series. For example, the Lucas Davenport "Prey" series by John Sandford. Each novel tells a newbie reader enough about Lucas (he's a top investigator for the state crime commission) and his surgeon wife, his adopted daughter, Lucas' team of cops, and so on.

This sort of background layout is incumbent upon any series author, I think. To not do so, and to expect the reader to shell out bucks for all the books just so the underlying premises of the stories are coherent is a cheat.

Of course, books like the Prey series and my own private eye stories are set in modern America and are realistic. So we (the authors) don't need to tell new readers how cars work or how police operate, nor do we need to create an entire fictional "world" each time. Which is another reason I tend to avoid fantasy -- too much time is spent in creating that special "world" -- dystopian or not -- and to do so to any decent depth takes lots of exposition, some of which can be burdensome.

[Little House]

ModernTimes,
It is a bit difficult to argue the point regarding this book when you have not read it. I also find it a bit disconcerting that you discredit an entire genre of books simply because of the intended audience. I would guess that you are not much older than I am, (if that photo is of you), but I work with children and young adults in an educational setting so I try to stay up with what they are reading. Being able to discuss the finer points of a book has a lot more educational value than telling someone to read something else. I have read a lot, in many different genres. I have found some children's books to be better written than some "adult" books. When my daughter saw your comment that the original reader should only continue to read YA if they are young, she wondered aloud that if you thought those books were not good enough for adults, why would they be good enough for her? (She was offended that you might think she was less capable of understanding a sophisticated plot.)

Back to Divergent, I have read the book and found that it was a good stand alone story. I think the problem is that the characters of the story bought the simplistic explanations given in the first book. For the story to work, the characters had to be in the dark as to the real reason for the Dystopian Society. I don't want to give away too much, so I feel like have both hands tied behind my back. (One you haven't read the book we are discussing, two I can't tell you what happens.)

I still stand by my recommendation to Embracing_Madness: read the rest of the series.

[booklovingolfer]

I have been confused many times, but I am really not into politics so it is hard for me to focus on this aspect in a book.

[moderntimes]

Little, thanks for the cogent commentary. I did say that YA fantasy was a bit of a pet peeve and that I may have gone a bit overboard in criticizing that genre. Naturally I meant no affront to individuals who are fans of that type of fiction. And yeah, that's my picture -- I'm a grumpy old critter, and sometimes that leaks out.

If a series of novels contain plot threads that start and end within the overall arc, it's perfectly okay as I see it. But if there are major concepts and themes that require the reader to engage in the whole series before an understanding of the "world view" is comprehensible, then I think that yes, the author is doing the reader a disservice.

Of course I have no idea whether the underlying concepts are sufficiently resolved in a single volume of the Divergent trilogy. You may be correct that these themes are properly explained. It may be so.

That specific series notwithstanding, I still maintain that the author owes it to the reader to write individual novels that stand alone such that it's unnecessary for the reader to purchase the entire set.

Regarding YA genre itself, I've got no doubts that there are superb novels extant in that genre. It's just not my cuppa tea. If there's a bloody murder, I detail it (much to the consternation of my more queasy friends), and if there's an argument, I may use the f-bomb as well. And during a sex scene, well, I want the reader to be slightly aroused.

But I'm writing for adults and my somewhat graphic depictions of crime violence and nasty, brutal thug behavior isn't hinted at. My "theater" is more of the Senecan and Shakespearean tone, not the off-stage depictions of classic Greek drama. But that's my style, decidedly not of the "cozy" mystery subgenre.

But I was also reading Hemingway, Faulkner, and Henry Miller at age 12, too. So I left juvenile-targeted fiction behind me pretty quickly, and therefore may have a slightly jaundiced view of YA books as a result.

[Embracing_Madness]

I was more perplexed than intending to complain, little house (I apparently wasn't very good at conveying that onscreen). You have a good point about completing the series before commenting, though I should note that I've finally done so and to be perfectly honest, my questions haven't changed much even after the big reveal - without giving out any spoilers, it still felt pretty illogical. But that's ok; it was a decent read when I focused on the adventure bits so I'll let the questions go. I do agree that these books have been amazing for encouraging a reading habit for many people - it's been great to see my younger relatives enjoy fiction so much!

[gali]

ModernTimes,
It is a bit difficult to argue the point regarding this book when you have not read it. I also find it a bit disconcerting that you discredit an entire genre of books simply because of the intended audience. I would guess that you are not much older than I am, (if that photo is of you), but I work with children and young adults in an educational setting so I try to stay up with what they are reading. Being able to discuss the finer points of a book has a lot more educational value than telling someone to read something else. I have read a lot, in many different genres. I have found some children's books to be better written than some "adult" books. When my daughter saw your comment that the original reader should only continue to read YA if they are young, she wondered aloud that if you thought those books were not good enough for adults, why would they be good enough for her? (She was offended that you might think she was less capable of understanding a sophisticated plot.)

Back to Divergent, I have read the book and found that it was a good stand alone story. I think the problem is that the characters of the story bought the simplistic explanations given in the first book. For the story to work, the characters had to be in the dark as to the real reason for the Dystopian Society. I don't want to give away too much, so I feel like have both hands tied behind my back. (One you haven't read the book we are discussing, two I can't tell you what happens.)

I still stand by my recommendation to Embracing_Madness: read the rest of the series.

I agree with you. I am a fan of YA myself and some of them are much better written than some so called "adults" books that I have read or reviewed. I don't read just YA books mind you, though I don't see why I have to apologize for reading YA, and I find it jarring that people who don't even read YA books look down at them. They are just like any other genres. Some of them are good and some suck...

I have read the first two books in the Divergent series and wasn't confused at all. I have found the second book less good than the first, so I didn't bother to read the third one.

[suzy1124]

W/all due respect YA books fail to hold my interest, ( I'm sure they're great for YA ) that being said , I am VERY CONFUSED BY " real life " politics which at this point in time rivals any fantasy / fiction book...truly OUT OF THIS WORLD....