Thread: A Foreword to a Novel (Each Man Fixed His Eyes)

I've been reading a lot of dystopian literature recently and thought I would attempt to write something; every sentence I have to reread to make sure its not a pale immitation of Brave New World or Nineteen Eighty Four. I was reading Day of the Triffids as well and decided to try and adopt (you can also read adopt as steal) Wyndham's recounting/storytelling style. What I have written is a foreword or something similar, written by my protagonist and placed at the front of an account of Britain's collapse into totalitarianism. It is supposed to be a heartfelt plea for someone to read his story despite the latter anti establishment ethos. Not sure it comes across passionately enough, but any thoughts you have will be greatly appriciated and will be repayable by interweb hi-fives.

Draft 2

I read a book by Postman once, I doubt it still exists. He feared Orwell, and he feared Huxley. Both censorship and the lack for a need of it; a self sedating mass or the snivelling mound crushed under a totalitarian boot; a synthetic, irrelevant faux world that diluted meaning beyond recognition or the snatching hand, taking from us those snippets we call 'truth'; crushed by those we hate or crushed by that we love. Initially it looked as if Huxley was correct, Postman in his time saw the soma of ours. We grew docile and the state grew wider, stronger and delved further into our lives. We barely noticed the intrusion, the ever encroaching hand in our entertainment induced stupor. Such a person cannot be expected to resist, and resist we did not. We stand now in a purgatory, the boot hangs at half mast above us. Only those on the fringes notice it, and indeed do not notice it for long.

I digress, though, from my task. Dear reader, I apologise for imparting on you the burden of hearing my story, for I know this text may not be available free from repercussions for many years to come. I wish this knowledge upon both no single person and simultaneously upon everyone capable of comprehension. I feel I can say without conceit or self deception that my story and the hidden story of our country, for dear reader it is our country, deserves heard in its entirety, free from the eyes that watch us and the ears that hear, far too from Yossarian's black marks and Squealer's impressionism.


Thus, I ask, implore, beseech, entreat, charge, obligate and lastly beg of you, both with these finite words and a motive far surpassing any linguistic expressionism, to read these pages and conclude as to what you owe to Leviathan, and what it to you.

Draft 1

I read a book by Postman once, I doubt it still exists. He feared Orwell, and he feared Huxley. Both censorship and the lack for a need of it; a self sedating mass or the snivelling mount under a totalitarian boot; a synthetic, irrelevant faux world that diluted meaning beyond recognition or the snatching hand taking from us those snippets we call 'truth'. A deprivation or privation few could or would recover from. Both accounts of dystopias inhuman beyond argument, but what of both combined?


I digress from my task though. Dear reader, I apologise for imparting on you the burden of hearing my story, for I know this text may not be available free from repercussions for many years to come. I wish this knowledge upon both no single person and simultaneously upon everyone capable of understanding. I feel I can say without conceit or self deception that my story and the hidden story of our country, for dear reader it is our country, deserves heard in its entirety, free from the eyes that watch us and the ears that hear, far too from Yossarian's black marks and Squealer's impressionism.


Thus, I ask, implore, beseech, entreat, charge, obligate and lastly beg of you, both with these finite words and a motive far surpassing any linguistic expressionism, to read these pages and conclude as to what you owe to Leviathan, and what it to you.

What I got from it was a plea for his story to be read, despite the inherent risks of doing so. I think it came off quite well, especially since the plea seemed wrapped in a an urgent demand. I can definintely see the influences Brave New World/1984, but it doesn't seem like a theft of style to me.

Cheers, its good to get some feedback. I'm usually pretty sketchy at writing very emotional scenes, they usually come out Disney channel cheesy or z list style acting! So its encouraging to hear its getting better.

'Tis quite good, but you could include a more concrete description of this "faux world" and some of the atrocities that are actually occurring... as well as eliminating a few of the "implore" synonyms.

Well the social analysis postman gives for society sort of relies on an audience that has read Orwell and Huxley, as do I. To explain Huxley even any more briefly than Postmans dystopian repression/sedation i think would detract from the urgency of his foreword. The body of the novel is about the spiral into totalitarianism and although i think it is sometimes useful to foreshadow, I dont think in this particular instance it wouldnt be beneficial to any subsequent suspense.

Yes, but I don't mean social analysis, I mean very specific details.
Details can help to make it sound more urgent.

I added a second draft.

I see your point Trides but I disagree in this instance. It is fundamentally a plea to be read and not an explanation. The following chapter is a summary of his life until the start of the Second Troubles (a fictional worsening of the Financial Crisis where Britain chose to annex Ireland as collateral for propping their banks up.) I think a vague foreshadowing will be more effective than giving a specific example of exactly how the Government now stands, for the novel is an account of the descent into this state.

The foreword, whichever draft you use, for I see no reason to say one is better or worse than the other, does make me want to read on, almost demands that I do, which is the feeling you're aiming for. The writing style suits the objective: straight to the point, an immediacy, heavy in tone leading to the reader's understanding of the gravity of the story about to be told.

On another point, when Orwell wrote 1984, the world was still recovering from two decades worth of Fascism, Nazism, and Falangism, and all the fear, repression, and destruction they bought. The fear of Communism was building up to its dizzying heights. At a time when the western world is almost universally democratic, when Arab populations are striving for the same, and when millions are pushing for freedom and democracy in those places where these things aren't prevalent, can you make this story both current and believable? If you can, then I'm already looking forward to reading it, for even in your foreword there is demonstration enough you can handle the prose.

One thing I didn't get, not sure if it's a typo, a mistake, or if I've misunderstood something:

Thus, I ask, implore, beseech, entreat, charge, obligate and lastly beg of you, with both these finite words, and a motive far surpassing any linguistic expressionism, to read these pages and conclude as to what you owe to Leviathan, and what it to you.

BOTH these finite words? Which two words does this refer to?


Good luck with this.

Scott.

Ah well the both refers to the stream of verbs and to the feeling/motive he puts behind it. The language with which he constructs the plea and the motive for the plea with the former being much less intense than the later, in his mind anyhow. Quite how constrained we are by language is another topic all together...which Orwell also considers with Newspeak. Coincidence!!!? Well actually yes, I hadn't thought about it until now. Perhaps that section is not clear enough, well definitely not clear enough if it wasn't clear to you as a reader; I shall try a rewrite soon.

Another good point, and one I think I can maybe answer with wishy washy liberalism or by just ignoring reality a bit more and making stuff up.

I think if we look at the modern world there are hints of overly strong Government, whether it is overly strong though I guess is a debate on the function of a state but I am getting off topic again. France relatively recently banned face coverings in public, the largest group affected obviously female Muslims. France also expelled the Roma population. Then there is the US Patriot Act, British Terrorism Acts and so on.

Now I am not saying this amounts to any sort of facism, especially not compared to the regimes you mention but I hoped to use Postman's view of the modern society, a Huxlien (sp?) one, to explain why a society wouldn't prevent the encroachment of a state similar to the ones above but on steroids.

As to the why, why would a state do this I'm thinking I'm going to beef up the financial crisis a bit. Maybe a collapse of some states, big Euro banks going under, that would probably wreck enough havok for a nationalist right wing party to take control. Then as it gradually comes out of recession it sedates the population as per Huxley and encroaches on society. I like to think this is all possible but improbable. It's all based on reality, but then taken to an extreme.

You definitely have some good ideas. Go for it. I'm not sure if the current global climate engenders a descent into totalitarianism, but this gives you a goal to achieve by writing this novel: to convince those who don't believe it possible that it is actually a very real threat to our future society.

Have you read much on totalitarianism, apart from the fiction you have mentioned in this thread? I have somewhere a lengthy essay published in the 1970s, discussing the key concepts of totalitarianism, kept from my days at uni, which I found really insightful when I was studying the subject. I'll see if I can find it out and let you know where to find it in the case you think it may be of use to you.

It would definitely be of use, that's really good of you! I've read bits and pieces, I do enjoy it immensely, but there has been very little on my uni course and the reading for that takes up most of my time. From what I have read, the Dispossesed was rather excellent, as was Day of the Triffids.

I think you are absolutely right about the current political climate so we'll have to wait and see if it is workable or just contrived. Either that or mangle reality a bit further. Pretend the Soviet Union didn't go all skwiffy or something.

Hi ElDavido

I've found that essay out, and I can't seem to find any record of it being from a periodical, which I thought it was. It's written by Leonard Schapiro, and published in 1972. I did a quick search and he had a book published that year, called simply Totalitarianism, and so it seems that the photocopy I have is taken from that book. I also remember a book by Hannah Arendt, called The Origins of Totalitarianism, being very useful at the time.

I think consensus of opinion is that the nature of totalitarianism has historically been determined by the differing conditions under which such regimes have blossomed, and as such there are differing definitions as to what exactly constitutes a totalitarian regime. Different examples are bound to have similarities, though I think there may be enough flexibility in the concept for a novel to be set in a 21st century totalitarian regime without it being unbelievable.

Hi Bilston, just checked my Uni library and its got about 14 copies of each, in my opinion that's slight overkill but hey! Also Schapiro is Glaswegian, well sort of Glaswegian, so I'm going to read his book first methinks.

Cheers for the advice.