A WAY WITH WORLDS:
YIN AND YANG: UTOPIA DYSTOPIA CORNUCOPIA
By Steven Savage
Archives available at The Way With Worlds Home Page

Once, there were two kingdoms, a very good kingdom, and its neighbor, a very bad kingdom. The people in the good kingdom were happy and nice, the people in the bad kingdom mean and oppressed.

One day, the bad kingdom attacked the good kingdom, and there was a terrible fight. The good king and the bad king finally met in combat.

"I have a question," said the bad king.

"Yes?" the good king asked, raising his sword.

"Why is it our kingdoms are completely different, yet close by? Why is it that we have no similarities and thus fight? Why is it my miserable people conquer your happy people?"

"I don't know," replied the good king.

And both kingdoms vanished in a puff of logic.

Welcome to Yin and Yang, an irregular (read, whenever I have a theme) part of A Way With Worlds. In Yin and Yang, I'll take a look at opposite ideas and extremes in continuities, and how to reconcile them and/or avoid extremes that may damage your continuity’s consistency.

And, I think you can guess this column's theme already . . .

MY KINGDOM FOR A REAL KINGDOM!:
It's one of the most egregious stereotypes ever to show up in fiction; the really nice kingdom/country/planet and the really bad kingdom/country/planet, the fairy land of perfection and the oppressive yet-unstoppable nightmare, next to each other or close. Talk about metaphor all you want, this is a trap that can ruin a good continuity.

It's simple to say there's a Utopia and a dystopia, making it believable is another thing. In fact, honestly, unless you're doing complex political metaphor and analysis, its likely to end up not working.

Where's the flaws? Let's take an analysis of both sides of the situation and common flaws found within.

THE GOOD KINGDOM:

• Everyone is happy - For the average human group, its hard to get everyone equally happy.
• Everyone is happy, yet the kingdom is weak - The old "happiness breads weakness" argument. No one ever focuses on the idea that happy people may want to keep themselves happy.
• The ineffectual leader - The kingdom manages to be perfect yet the leader is a dunce? If he's so influential, why hasn't he messed it up (unless he's not the real government, which in case he doesn’t matter anyway).
• We're so happy we have no military - then you're also stupid if there's oppressive enemies, and its hard to imagine how stupid people achieved a utopia in the first place.
• Er, we degenerated - and the utopia lasted until one critical point and no one tried to fix it or saw it happen.

THE EVIL KINGDOM:

• We're oppressive and evil and controlling - and you don't suffer potential revolutions, being overthrown, an un-responsive sheeplike populace, etc.
• *We have Total Control of the Population - Ever read "Dilbert?" Think you could micromanage a kingdom?
• Our land is dark and dreary and blighted - SO how do you support your people? Those blasted fields and barren wastelands aren’t that great for farming.
• We're the most evil kingdom that ever ways - So no one has attacked you yet, banded together, etc.
• All are afraid of us - So why hasn't anyone banded together to destroy you.
• Our massive army strikes fear into the hearts of all - So how do you feed it and support it and organize it? Does your kingdom have any kind of economy?
• Well, we're evil - and?

ATTEMPTING RECONCILIATION:
Can you reconcile these opposites? Sadly, I think not. Simply defining something as complex as social-political structures is going to create a flawed, unbelievable, and shallow continuity. Simply saying that a Kingdom is good or evil is as much a cop out as saying a person is good or evil - definition is not motivation or background.

There are a few common ways to try and get simply good/evil kingdoms to work:

• The gods did it - this is a pretty good one, to cast the battle in a larger context. However, it can also be, to put it non-technically, lame and easily abused. Certainly it requires the definition of the complexities of the gods and still requires one to figure out how the societies manage to function.
• It's temporary - A temporary polarity just occurred between two cultures, and it just happened to make the perfect story.
• Well, it's really alien - Then you have a lot of explaining to do so the audience can understand. Attempting to be radically different may take you beyond simplistic definitions of good and evil anyway.

SUMMARY:
Don't fall into the simple good/evil trap in defining your societies. It may seem easy or obvious, but for strong continuities, rarely is that easy to pull off. Take the time to build your governments/cultures, and don’t fall into the simple good/evil trap.

STEVE'S SITES:
Recently, I've focused on sites to promote online projects. Now, I'd like to inroduce you to a few that may help you make money.

http://www.themestream.com/ - An article publishing site that lets you get paid for people viewing what you post. Seems orented towards columns and helpful ideas.

http://www.epinions.com/ - A review/advice publishing site. Express yourself, help out, make money.

http://www.iuniverse.com/ - Easy publishing in a bottle. A newer venture in making publishing more accessible to people, more author-oriented, and more print-on-demand focused. Worth a look. I'm keeping an eye on this one in the future!