Dystopian Fiction East and West: Universe of Terror and Trial by Erika Gottlieb
Bibliographic record
Abstract
REVIEWS Erika Gottlieb. Dystopian Fiction East and West: Universe of Terror and Trial. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s Uni versity Press, 2001. 323. $12.95 paper, $75.00 cloth. In September 1945, Isaiah Berlin visited Moscow. It was the first time he had been in Russia since he had fled to England with his family in the face of secret police persecution in 1920. His Russian was still fluent, and in the brief thaw immediately after the end of World War II, he was able to meet and talk with some of the major Russian writers and intellectuals. He found them all gripped by fear. As Berlin’s biographer Michael Ignatieff relates: From his first night in Moscow [...] Isaiah was exposed to the atmosphere of gloom, shame and terror among ‘the scared’ ones who had managed to survive the Yezhovshchina, the whole-scale extermination of the Russian intelligentsia in 1937. In addition to the millions of ordinary people sent to labour camps or simply shot, the regime had exterminated the cultural élite [...]. By the time the killing and deporta tion were done, there was a vacant stillness in Russian culture, like a forest after an all-consuming fire. (136-37) The thaw soon ended, and Soviet writers were plunged back into isolation from the West until the Cold War was over. This is the climate in which the Eastern dystopian fiction that Erika Gottlieb discusses was written. As she points out, this litera ture is quite different from Western dystopias. Orwell, Huxley, Atwood, and the others were writing their books as a warn ing; Koestler, Grossman, Ribakov, and many others were writ ing about a fait accompli, with little hope that things would improve. More than half of Gottlieb’s book is devoted to the East ern writers — largely because most of those whom she discuss es are unknown to most Western readers. She has, necessarily, to devote a good deal of space to plot summary. This some times makes for heavy and, often, gloomy going. The atm o sphere of terror under which most of these novels were writ ten does not make for pleasant reading, particularly since the reader is haunted by the fact that the writers — often with great courage — wrote with the knowledge that their work could lead 761 ESC 28, 2002 to arrest, summ ary conviction, and either death or long impris onment in the Gulags Gottlieb claims that dystopian fiction “is a post Christian genre” and th at the hell on earth of dystopian societies “is not that far removed from Dante’s medieval dream-vision of Dis, the city of hell” (3). The purpose of both Dante and Western dystopian fiction writers is to warn readers against the sin of giving in to tem ptation — of sin on the one hand and totalitari anism on the other. Dystopian fiction, of course, moves beyond Dante’s hell to a state in which the core of individual mind and personality is destroyed by the elimination of love and family ties. “Ultimately,” Gottlieb writes, “by being relentlessly bom barded by state propaganda while also being deprived of pri vacy, and intim ate relationships, we may be deprived of the core of our being, our personal memory of the past” (12). After a brief survey of nineteenth-century precursors to mod ern dystopian fiction — especially the Grand Inquisitor section of Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov — Gottlieb moves to an analysis of Zam iatin’s We, the precursor of all the Western novels that Gottlieb deals with: Huxley’s Brave New World, Or well’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, Vonnegut ’s Player Piano, and Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale. We was one of the earliest attacks on the cult of the machine and technology that was adopted by Lenin after the Bolsheviks came to power. Henry Ford’s production line and Taylor’s time and motion studies became the bases of Lenin’s desire to trans form the Soviet Union into an efficient industrial state. D-503, the protagonist of We, is a m athematician and space-ship de signer who is perfectly content in his subservience to this ma chine state until...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".