Talk:List of utopian literature

Proposal to create page
There is a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dystopian_literature

I'd like to see the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_utopian_literature for a complete list.

There is already a small list on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia.

--Zarsoft (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

New entries
There is already a list on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia But don't just copy all entries - just the related to pleasant societies.

lquilter said: "I would suggest rewriting the list on Utopia to be two sentences long, mentioning Thomas More and one or two other works, and then linking to this separate list. --lquilter 15:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)"

--Zarsoft (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Revisions
--Rhododendrites (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Copied everything from the list at Utopia
 * fixed chronological order
 * new section headings
 * Added a lot of cn tags -- remember that a citation for determining inclusion on a list like this is not satisfied by citing the work itself!
 * Removed religious texts e.g. book of Revelation and City of God (we could include practically every major religious text otherwise)
 * added a bunch of references
 * copyedited many of the descriptions
 * removed dystopian "see alsos" other than list of dystopian literature
 * removed television shows and films
 * removed clearly dystopian, rather than utopian, novels
 * removed the following for no evidence of utopian nature, clear WP:OR, and other reasons that went beyond just a cn tag
 * The Book of the City of Ladies (1405) by Christine de Pizan.
 * Gargantua, written by François Rabelais (1532).
 * many more belong on this list, I'm sure -- I just ran out of time

Inclusion criteria
It seems like the inclusion criteria we've been working with is that either the book or its author must have an article on Wikipedia. It furthermore should include a citation -- especially if the book itself doesn't have an article -- explaining its fitness for inclusion here. Thoughts? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge List of Utopian novels into this article & table instead of plain list
So I'm proposing to merge List of Utopian novels into this article. Note that there's also no List of dystopian novels and that the article seems to be entirely redundant. I'd also suggest to adopt a table for the entries as in the other article. --Fixuture (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed this was a commonsense merge. There were a few there that weren't here. I've added them. This list needs some serious work, though. The table format of the other article looked nicer, but would be unwieldy here because this list includes more 20th-21st century works.
 * A good first step would be to require that every entry include a good secondary source for it being a utopian novel, whether or not the novel is notable.
 * Then we can discuss whether the list should only contain notable entries. It's an important theme/genre with a rich history, so it seems like a bad idea to include every random self-published scifi trash that happens to have a source calling it a utopia (and here I'm not actually referring to any one example).
 * Another idea may be to either split the list into pre/post 1900, or not split the list but format the list differently. For example, use a table with images for everything through 1899 and a standard list for thereafter. Thoughts? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I agree that the list should require sources for the entries being Utopian. I tend towards also including novels that were called Utopian that aren't that notable - they already have some notability for some source calling it Utopian and imo the list should have as its ideal to include all Utopian novels that are either popular and/or have some substantial Utopian content with the latter not necessarily requiring the work to be popular (and hence less likely to be named in many sources).
 * I'm for converting the entire list to a table with no sections for the centuries (tables can be sorted). While I'm all for adding covers many works don't have one which would make the table look weird etc. Also covers often aren't that meaningful anyway and aren't really needed and need extra work. So I'd leave them out as of right now at least.
 * --Fixuture (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Trying to list all of a particular non-exhaustible set is going to run into some part of WP:NOT, typically. By that I mean the goal is never to be a directory of all items in a given category except, sometimes, when the category is exhaustible (like a discography or list of U.S. presidents). With a list of examples from a genre, it's necessary to be discriminate such that we're using more than just existence/verifiability to justify inclusion. Hence the WP:CSC's default of each item being notable (for most lists). There are some lists that use quite liberal interpretations of "notable" to say that any one good source is sufficient, but it should really be sufficient sources such that if it doesn't have its own article, it could. An example fresh on my mind, and subject to a bit more abuse than this list, is List of YouTubers. There's no requirement there for a stand-alone article, but the bar is higher than just a reliable source verifying that "this person is a youtuber" -- it requires multiple (typically) sources showing significant coverage, in addition to verification.
 * Anyway, I don't think I'm actually saying something much different from what you're saying. I'm happy to grant more leeway to older works that don't yet have sources, but I would be against including non-notable examples of newer work (and, in the long term, older work), except where the sources not only call them utopian, but also provide significant coverage of the work. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 16:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Doubt concerning the new additions
you've added quite a lot of novels recently and I doubt that all of them are truly Utopian. I haven't read many of those so I can't say for sure but many seem off and I'm sure that Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe added here is not Utopian.

--Fixuture (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * By recently, you mean a year ago :) As I recall, I looked at some existing sources and found a couple others and just added a bunch that I could easily source. But it's not hard to find even more sources about Robinson Crusoe as a utopia. This may sum it up:
 * "After he became self-sufficient, Crusoe strove for civilization and utopia. As he returned to nature, Crusoe realized that some items like human company and cooking pans had great value while items like money and excessive food had no value. Eventually because of his advances in civilization, he was able to save a native man he named Friday and other unlucky Europeans from execution. Finally, Crusoe created a small community around his governorship of the island. ... Manuel argued that Crusoe's adventure symbolizes that by avoiding corruptions of society, mankind confronts a harsh return to nature and thereby returns to utopia."


 * There are plenty of others sources out there, too, including specific perspectives like Robinson Crusoe and Economic Utopia and Reading Robinson Crusoe from the lens of Islamic Utopianism. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

One entry that strikes me as rather odd is Gulliver's Travels (1726). None of the fictional countries depicted in the novel is either perfect or a role model for society.:
 * Lilliput has internal conflicts and disputes over seemingly trivial matters. Which end of an egg a person cracks has become a political issue and divides society. They want to conquer the rival nation of Blefuscu, and their defining trait seems to be ungratefulness. After Gulliver helps them win a war and rescues lives in a fire, the court accuses him of treason and wants to blind him. He has to flee for his own safety.
 * Brobdingnag has one particular instance of showing superiority to Europe. Its king is horrified to learn of the use of guns and cannons in European warfare and refuses it to introduce them to his country. Otherwise the realm enjoys public executions as spectacles and and its streets are infested with beggars.
 * Laputa is a realm devoted to the study of music, mathematics and astronomy. But its inhabitants have lost all ability to face and resolve practical issues. Subordinate realm Balnibarbi has been wrecked by the blind pursuit of science and by its own Bureaucracy. The Grand Academy of Lagado wastes great resources and manpower on impractical and poorly-conceived scientific experiments.
 * In Glubbdubdrib, a necromancer is able to summon the ghosts of historical figures. What Gulliver learns there is how distorted official history is.
 * Homer learns of the works of his scholarly interpreters and is very disappointed: "he asked them, "whether the rest of the tribe were as great dunces as themselves?""
 * Aristotle freely admits that his natural philosophy contains mistakes and that he based many elements of it on conjecture. He also rejects all attempts at knowing the true nature of the universe. "He said, "that new systems of nature were but new fashions, which would vary in every age; and even those, who pretend to demonstrate them from mathematical principles, would flourish but a short period of time, and be out of vogue when that was determined." "
 * Gulliver summons kings along with their ancestors in order for eight or nine generations, to examine their illustrious families. He is dismayed to discover that the true ancestors of the royal lineages were fiddlers, spruce courtiers, Italian prelates, barbers, abbots, and Catholic cardinals. S much for blue blood. He also traces the true origins of some noble and non-royal families to "pages, lackeys, valets, coachmen, gamesters, fiddlers, players, captains, and pickpockets."
 * Gulliver is disgusted with several historians, who he calls "prostitute writers" for their distortions of the historical record. They "ascribe the greatest exploits in war, to cowards; the wisest counsel, to fools; sincerity, to flatterers; Roman virtue, to betrayers of their country; piety, to atheists; chastity, to sodomites; truth, to informers".
 * Gulliver is also disgusted with writers of secret history and their fictions. They "send so many kings to their graves with a cup of poison; will repeat the discourse between a prince and chief minister, where no witness was by; unlock the thoughts and cabinets of ambassadors and secretaries of state"
 * With kings, politicians, generals, admirals, and nobles, Gulliver finds confessions of their own corruption. Tracing the origins of their rise to power, Gulliver finds that "some ... owed their greatness and wealth to sodomy, or incest; others, to the prostituting of their own wives and daughters; others, to the betraying of their country or their prince; some, to poisoning; more to the perverting of justice, in order to destroy the innocent"
 * Gulliver also discovers forgotten historical figures, whose loyal services to their princes and countries did not bring them fame or success. "I was told, "that their names were to be found on no record, except a few of them, whom history has represented as the vilest of rogues and traitors."... "They all appeared with dejected looks, and in the meanest habit; most of them telling me, "they died in poverty and disgrace, and the rest on a scaffold or a gibbet." " He even discovers that the Battle of Actium (31 BC) was won by the actions of a single commander of a ship. The man was not rewarded for his deed, was repeatedly passed for promotion in favor of royal favorites, and died in poverty.
 * Luggnagg is inhabited by immortals. However, they lack eternal youth. So they suffer all the infirmities of old age without an end in sight.
 * Japan is presented as religiously intolerant.
 * Finally the journey ends at the land shared by the Houyhnhnms (sentient, talking horses) and Yahoos (savage and non-sentient humanoid creatures). Gulliver discovers the human vices of the Yahoos and grows disgusted with humanity in general. The Houyhnhnms are viewed as perfect by Gulliver. However they willingly suppress information, and are more than a bit xenophobic and convinced of their own superiority. At the end, they expel Gulliver from their land, without caring at all for his loss.
 * Back in Great Britain, Gulliver becomes a reclusive misanthrope. He is disgusted by the "Yahoos" surrounding him, avoids contact with his own wife and family, and only cares about horses.

Which part of any of this is utopian again?Dimadick (talk) 10:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree it's odd. According to the source (and there are others, from the looks of a quick google I did), it's something like a "critical utopia" -- purported utopias where there are flaws obvious to the reader. Should that "count"? I don't know, but that's why it's in there. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That info should definitely also be in the article.
 * Also, if there are many works with these types of utopias there should be a column & appropriate column-value for these once the list is a table...
 * --Fixuture (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, if there are many works with these types of utopias there should be a column & appropriate column-value for these once the list is a table...
 * --Fixuture (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Wrong date
Where do the 17th-century dates for Gargantua and Pantagruel come from? According to the relevant article, the work actually consists of five novels: The Horrible and Terrifying Deeds and Words of the Very Renowned Pantagruel King of the Dipsodes, Son of the Great Giant Gargantua (c. 1532), The Very Horrific Life of Great Gargantua, Father of Pantagruel (1534), The Third Book of the Heroic Deeds and Sayings of Good Pantagruel (1546), The Fourth Book of the Heroic Deeds and Sayings of Good Pantagruel (1552), and The Fifth and Last Book of the Heroic Deeds and Sayings of Good Pantagruel (c. 1564). Series author François Rabelais actually died in 1553, and the last volume was published posthumously. Dimadick (talk) 08:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)