http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anti-utopian

anti-utopia
(redirected from anti-utopian)
 
an·ti-u·to·pi·a (nt-y-tp-, nt-)
n.
1. An imaginary place or society characterized by human misery and oppression; a dystopia.
2. A work describing such a place or society.

Ooooooooooo, I haaaaate the phrase “anti-utopian”.  GRAHHH!!!

Madmouse - 27 June 2007 12:27 PM

If anything, it’s more relevant to today’s society than to the time in which it was written.

I do not agree to that. It was as relevant then as it is now. Nothing new under the sun realy.

Stargazer - 27 June 2007 02:32 PM

Ooooooooooo, I haaaaate the phrase “anti-utopian”.  GRAHHH!!!

Yeah, More’s Utopia was a good book.  Why would you be against it?  Down with the anti-Utopians!!!

Accipiter - 27 June 2007 01:13 PM

I didn’t really think it was all that great.  Not that it was bad, but just not all that great. . .I much prefered Animal Farm.

It’s been a long time since I read it, though, so I can’t remember the exact reasons why I didn’t think it was all that great.

While the story concept and message of the book is very good and strong, I found the writing style a bit tedious. Indeed, liked “Animal Farm” more that way (and hence have the latter in my private library now, while not “1984” which I read in highschool).

LaMa - 27 June 2007 02:36 PM

While the story concept and message of the book is very good and strong, I found the writing style a bit tedious. Indeed, liked “Animal Farm” more that way (and hence have the latter in my private library now, while not “1984” which I read in highschool).

What language did you read 1984 in?  Maybe a Dutch version would be better or worse written, as far as style.

Accipiter - 27 June 2007 02:41 PM

LaMa - 27 June 2007 02:36 PM

While the story concept and message of the book is very good and strong, I found the writing style a bit tedious. Indeed, liked “Animal Farm” more that way (and hence have the latter in my private library now, while not “1984” which I read in highschool).

What language did you read 1984 in?  Maybe a Dutch version would be better or worse written, as far as style.

I read the original English version.

LaMa - 27 June 2007 02:33 PM

Madmouse - 27 June 2007 12:27 PM

If anything, it’s more relevant to today’s society than to the time in which it was written.

I do not agree to that. It was as relevant then as it is now. Nothing new under the sun realy.

I would agree with LaMa.  Every generation has it’s “rage against the machine” so every generation is going to feel some relevancy to it.  And, of course, depending on when you read it (I had to read it early in high school) and how actively you follow politics and the world (I didn’t much) is going to influence how you think and feel about it.

Of course, making a choice to read it because you want to as opposed to having to read it for a grade in a class taught by an evil overlord dictator English teacher might influence your outlook, too.

I had to read it in high school too, but found it boring and barely remembered any of it. Then I read it just a couple years later and loved it. So I’d have to agree with you Tah that your circumstances/political view definately affects how you feel about the book at a given time.

Kind of like how I read Jonathan Livingston Seagull when I was 11 or 12 and thought it was a nice story about birds. Then I started to re-read it years later and threw it out the window after a few pages.

I liked (and like) reading and had no problem with having to read books for my school curriculum. Some other “heavy”/“difficult” literature I read back then and loved (and love) include Steinbeck’s “The Grapes of Wrath”, several Shakespeare plays, and parts of Chaucer’s “Canterbury Tales” (in old spelling).

I love Grapes of Wrath, I have read it many times.