I guess I better write it down. Preferably somewhere I won't lose it.

The fictional book has a dystopia. There's no convincing the reader it's a dystopia. There's no carefully pointing out how certain actions much like what commonly occur in our own world are a big part of how it's a dystopia. There's no trying to convince the reader of what's right and wrong. There's certainly no grand scheme for fixing the whole world. There's just hero/s whom are finding ways to cope with the situation. Not exactly just merely surviving. But finding/applying positive coping mechanisms.

Along the way various insights may be included but never ever in a manner that they get in the way of the story at all.

It may be that to a large extent what could have been learned will simply fly over the readers head. Oh well. There is fiction and there's nonfiction.

...I think of Devo. And how their message, which wasn't really that hidden, (but was partially hidden as it would have pissed a ton of people off) was missed by almost everyone it seemed. Devolution. We're evolving into a stupider race. Our idea of a good time is getting drunk and laid. Being really (noncompartmentalizedly) smart is like having a disease.

They weren't hiding it much.

">

Mongoloid he was a mongoloid
Happier than you and me
Mongoloid he was a mongoloid
And it determined what he could see
Mongoloid he was a mongoloid
One chromosome too many
Mongoloid he was a mongoloid
And it determined what he could see
And he wore a hat
And he had a job
And he brought home the bacon
So that no one knew
Mongoloid he was a mongoloid
His friends were unaware
Mongoloid he was a mongoloid
Nobody even cared

A guy has Down's Syndrome but no one even notices because everyone else is at about the same level. Endless such songs parodying everything in our culture that disgusted them and, for all their preachiness they might as well have been mumbling grocery lists.

So it flies over everyone's head. Oh well.

Vancian coping was stoicism. That's why it appealed to me so much.
Salvatore appealed to me in that the dystopia/versus the compassion of the hero resounded with my own life. His coping was also.. stoicism.

Another coping is turning things into the absurd. Another is focusing on the welfare of others instead of the self. (Thank god for children?) What else? Religion/mysticism/art..., love, well... then maybe endless others. Could say everything is a coping mechanism. But focusing on the coping mechanisms of 'the hero'.

The books that gave a euphoric feeling had the hero's with coping mechanisms that were new to me.

There is also Ayn Rand's heros. Her coping mechanism was thinking you're superior to others and that The Game is all there is. Endless competing against all other people. The individual against all others. That is Life. That is The Way. Love it. Become it.

Such is the coping mechanism of a monster.

There is also Milan Kundera's coping mechanism. His was showing that yes, he agrees, life is horrible. Look at this. See? I understand. I agree. But I'll go further. I'll show you that it's even worse then you thought. In fact it's so bad that what you must do is give up. And turn to relatively small bits of happiness. Like a nice hot piece of ass. A beautiful sunset. That's all one can hope for.

Kundera is probably right but a real hero would not agree.

Polemical and preachy. I think that people who use these words in a derogatory manner have issues. The last person I recall who used the word polemical to dismiss things was this strange person who I guess was attracted to intelligent men just in the way that women are often attracted to power. And intelligence is a sort of power. So I guess in that way she was attracted to me. And thus as my idea of a good time is talking about intellectual stuff she was an intellectual poser. But it was just a pose. Ultimately she actually found talking about religion, politics, sociology quite boring.

And then when someone said things she disagreed with, they were a polemcists, etc. And this was some kind of derogatory quality.

It turned out that she was a moral monster BTW. Which probably goes along well with finding religion and politics boring...

Then there was this guy recently who in response simply to the the phrase "I'd like to write books with some social critique.." (and perhaps also because he looked up what one of my favorites book I earlier mentioned was and was trying to take an unfair shot at me), bizarrely replied with this long shpiel(sp) about being preachy, having 2D characters, etc.

What is funny is that his favorite two books were a rightwing preachfest that makes Fox News look fair and balanced and a Stephen King book (how much more 2D can the bad guys get then Stephen King?)

The reality is that as long as he agrees or it's irrelevant, then it's not preachy or annoyingly 2D. The minute he doesn't agree with what is being said then suddenly it's preachy, etc.

I think that perhaps I should consider it a warning sign whenever anyone uses the word 'preachy' or polemcist/polemical. Most like the person in question has issues.

All literature has social critique in it. That's what makes it literature. If it has nothing so relevant, then it's just fantasy fiction or sci fi. Occasionally works get miscategorized of course.

The majority of fiction simplifies the characters. It's understood that such is usually happening. Not a problem when it's something irrelevant like Stephen King or something you agree with. But if you disagree? Then suddenly most people start finding things wrong with it. Like endless things have been found wrong with Ayn Rand....

But I think if you dismiss something for being preachy or polemical, the problem is probably you. Personally I've never done such a thing. Even Ayn Rand, as much as I disagree with her, I still respect her for having an actual opinion about things that matter and trying to share her opinion. I don't hold it against her for making the characters more simplistic then real life.

Jack London's Martin Eden

I assumed that London was a rightwinger as his books are about rugged individualists who succeed in a world where there is nothing but winning or losing in the neverending struggle to survive. Such books were popular. Turns out London kind of hated that stuff and was a socialist. Martin Eden is the ideal rugged individualist and London tries to make him out as mistaken in how he is living. He has him commit suicide eventually. People hated this book. London went back to his Klondike Man Against the Elements stuff afterwards and people went back to loving his books.

People do love the rugged individualist who overcomes all in a harsh world. To varying extents there's Ayn Rand, Jack London, Neitzsche, and I suppose Jack Vance too.

It's not how I want to write. Perhaps books that make fun of such people?

But what else is there? Dunno. People who work as a team who don't want to "win" at all cost. Star Trek comes to mind.

Also the blacksmith as opposed to the wordsmyth. (Martin Eden) I can definitely relate to that.