Dystopias became fixed locations in the 2000s. Starting with The Hunger Games in 2008 (perhaps), a series of interesting-yet-similar trilogies came out, like clockwork, as publishers tried to get in on the rush for dystopia dollars (which I’m assuming spend like real dollars, but are only available in gold or other valuable metals).
Some of the original dystopias created this territory for us. From a science fiction perspective, post-Armageddon novels like Earth Abides or A Canticle for Lebowitz imagined post-biological/nuclear weapon worlds, while those trapped under the peculiarly Soviet brand of dystopia like Zamyatin and the Strugatsky brothers created incredibly well-imagined worlds that rivaled anything Wells, London, Orwell, or Huxley were producing in the West. We can continue further down this rabbit hole with truly imaginative novels like Delaney’s Dhalgren (I often wonder if Samuel R. Delaney will ever fully get his due as an influential science fiction and fantasy writer), but the crux of the argument is this: these narratives create worlds that have recognizable literary borders that readers can quickly identify. These borders include some configuration of ruined planet, barely-surviving remnants of humanity, and survivor figures who are heroically striving against these destructive forces in the hopes of restarting the world, hopefully this time with a better plan/ideology.
Vandermeer’s Dead Astronauts uses those generic expectations in a barely-recognizable fashion, and in the process of transforming those borders takes dystopias to a whole new level. The world of Dead Astronauts (coming from the Borne series, so having read Dead Astronauts first I am out-of-sequence) has been degraded by a bioengineering firms, here represented by what I’m assuming is the sole survivor, The Company, and some of the creatures that The Company has created through what is essentially the type of torture that Neal Stephenson documents in his Baroque Cycle series beginning with the Royal Society’s insane “experiments” have survived to dominate this new landscape.
Vandermeer’s language evokes the pain and suffering that millions of organisms had to go through in order for The Company (and its real-world equivalents) to do the kind of research that I guess their shareholders demand. The most coherent (from a narrative standpoint) character is the Blue Fox, who I’m guessing is mostly fox but also lots of other organisms, and who is able to pass seamlessly through borders of time and space that either do not affect it or have been so altered by The Company’s experiments that they are unrecognizable or ineffective. The fox is an interesting choice on Vandermeer’s part, as it evokes beauty in a way that animals like coyotes may not but seems tameable and not frightening (in its original incarnation) in ways that wolves could never be. That said, this Blue Fox is terrifying, but it also does not seem to want to harm what’s left of humanity, except perhaps for Charlie X, a clinically insane research scientist who has created a monster that he has no idea how to control, one that roams the wasteland that used to be the Georgia/Florida coast.
Dead Astronauts also features the types of rebel leaders we are used to seeing in dystopias, even if these folks are reincarnated astronauts who end up fighting other versions of themselves as they cross space-time borders. While these three start the narrative, they are not its primary source, and we barely hear from them by the end. The ambiguous shape and often unidentifiable forms that they take are disconcerting, at least to me, as generically we expect either heroic figures who are sort of ambiguous in how they seek to start the revolution or ones who have clear superpowers and who have to defeat an even greater power to trigger the new world. These dead astronauts have neither coherent plan nor any sort of understanding of the ways in which the world has changed, and they spend lots of energy confronting versions of themselves that they run across as they travel – often inadvertently – through time.
Vandermeer’s imagination is spectacular, and his ability to take a well-worn form and invigorate it through both the sheer virtuosity of his language *and* the barely-recognizable contours of the world he has built gives me hope for the future of the genre. Dystopias that are locked into the last man standing have relatively obvious generic and cultural biases, and their appeal seems to have run its course until the next round of pop culture recycling, yet Vandermeer, along with the Afro-Futurists, offers entirely new possibilities in envisioning how we might destroy ourselves. We can only hope that these warnings from the not-so-distant future will help us alter our behaviors and start thinking of the world that we leave our descendants.