4 ms·

"Set in Earth's utopian future..." If I recall correctly, the earth society and government was actually pretty dystopian. Does that mean that Hollywood is alter

• waiwai933 15y ago
  It (i.e. the book) was more utopian than dystopian, but neither "utopian" nor "dystopian" are really appropriate terms here. The Earth-wide government wasn't much more than an UN (that changed after Peter got put in charge), but there was international peace and harmony since the Buggers were the primary concern, so one could say that that was better. But no significant oppression, etc.
  • fennecfoxen 15y ago
    To say that such a thing is "no significant oppression" is a contentious statement at best. The world government had imposed a two-children-per-family population-control policy, imposed on many members of society against their will, against religious objections. This is visited in the book(s), though not for overly long. Also, the young child has a government monitoring device implanted on his neck at the beginning of the book. That's pretty creepy. I suppose that if you're just saying that the oppression is not as gratuitous as 1984 or whatever, that's true. (The secret genetic engineering experiments to make people extra intelligent but then give them OCD to keep them under control is a later book, it's true.)
    • e_proxus 15y ago
      An utopia without birth control seems a bit unrealistic (that's what utopias is all about anyway), especially when you consider future medical advances. So I usually see birth control as somewhat orthogonal to the utopia vs dystopia discussion.
• waterlesscloud 15y ago
  It means it's some writer for Variety offering a summary of how they see the story. Entertainment journalism is not known for its accuracy.
• megablast 15y ago
  One man's dystopia, is another man's utopia, you just have to look at SOPA.