#Bleue

Imagine a world where tears only fall out of pure joy. Where you would never have to deal with your loved ones dying, where words can never hurt you. #Bleue by Florence Hinckel is a French, young-adult novel depicting a utopian-type society where the ultimate solution to peace and harmony is to obliterate pain. It suggests a world in which we don't have to hurt, where we don't grieve or cry. The memories remain, but the emotions associated to them do not; no sadness, but no love or joy either. They become blank images in our brain, transmitting absolutely nothing. The readers watch as at least three of the characters in the book lose their humanity. As they don't cry at their girlfriend's funeral, as they slowly lose all their humor, as they eventually lose themselves.

The initial prospect of not having to deal with the inescapable pain that comes with life seems like a miracle come true. It is only after we are introduced to an example of such that we truly see the consequences and what that would actually mean. The author describes how the governments believe this to stop wars and spread peace, yet putting these ideals into practice spurs very different results. Indifference becomes the substitute of pain, and it is stronger and more powerful than any other emotion. It is the most dangerous of them all, as human carelessness can lead us into doing the most reckless and horrible of things. As The Lumineers sing in 'Stubborn Love':

"It's better to feel pain, than nothing at all. The opposite of love's indifference." *

What would you prefer if your loved ones passed away? To eliminate the pain, taking all the person meant to you along with it, or to have to grieve and mourn, yet still remembering everything about them.

This, however, was only the first of various themes presented throughout the story. The second one is more realistic, and doesn't depend on a futuristic society in order to be relatable to our own. One of the main driving plot lines is the fact that minors are forced into this life and system, deprived of the freedom of choice. Although this is definitely not the same context and situation as in the book, one may argue vaccination laws are a similar issue. The controversy behind vaccinations has been spurring ever since the late 19th century, the first most important protest taking place in 1885. We, as humans, like to believe we don't belong to anyone, and the government's stronghold on our bodies and our choices goes against this notion of free will, and even poses religious controversy. We also like to believe that our beliefs are only our own, and no one can take them away from us, thus when someone forces us into going against them, that is when we feel weak, when the demonstrations will start. However, I think we can all agree that being forced to protect ourselves from deadly diseases is not the same as being forced to take away our humanity. I just wanted to address this controversial topic, and where the limits lie on free will.

This element of free will is later repeated, this time through the freedom of speech and thought. In the book, citizens have to gather secretly to discuss their thoughts against the authorities and the obliteration of pain laws. It raises the question, when does freedom of speech cross the line? Should it ever? It's a hard concept to think about; we say everyone has the right to say whatever they want, but what if what they're saying is racist, what if it hurts another? Freedom of speech only when the speech is in favor to you. Governments all over the world adopt this principle but in practice, forbid you to speak your mind. For example, in mid-2015 the 'Je Suis Charlie' incident arose regarding this topic. The French Magazine Charlie Hebdo was publishing satirical comics depicting Muslims which were deemed offensive to some. Perhaps they were right, perhaps they weren't, but where does the line draw on the magazines' freedom of expression? If politicians caused massacres every time a Simpsons episode aired, there would be no people left in the United States.

The question is, should there be any line at all concerning an individual's freedom of speech, art, literature, etc. no matter how it may affect others? We can defend all the political satire on Parks and Recreation, because we (at least I) agree with their views. The conclusion I reach is that undoubtedly, no type of illustration, no joke, no comment could ever go minimally close to justifying terrorism.

Finally, the last thought #Bleue had to leave me with was something we often see in most of our favourite YA stories. From The Hunger Games, to Divergent, The 100, V for Vendetta, etc. all these worlds ultimately end up with justice being fought for with violence the slaughter of innocents. Katniss had to take down the Capitol in order to capture President Snow, and while doing so, killing thousands of innocent children. Yes, they may enjoy watching the popular series on TV with their parents, but they're children growing up in a brainwashed society, pushed into following a lifestyle already carved into stone for them. The relatively new sci-fi series The 100 addressed this concept head-strong in the season 2 finale.

Clarke is forced to make a life-changing decision, ending up with the complete extermination of a whole community, killing friends who helped her people, killing small children with bright futures ahead of them. It is extremely important for literature, film, our own society, to stop glorifying war, for all our favourite series to speak about the consequences of war and find alternatives to violence. #Bleue is the only young-adult dystopia I've read so far to contain a peaceful revolution, where the rebel groups were divided into those who steemed violence was the only option and those who didn't. Where the protagonist refused any involvement with violence and yet still won. The exact point of including both alternatives in the novel was incredibly important as it opens our eyes to all the options and the lack of this in our popular literature. Of course, there's an understandable reason behind this which isn't hard to reach if you think about it. What was the difference between this book and all my various favourite ones? Although it being a sci-fi, futuristic, YA dystopia, why does this not classify itself into my 'best of the best' shelf? Simple answer: it was boring. Unfortunately, war, fight, rebellions, etc. offer an element of thrill, suspence and fear to the readers, and are therefore more entertaining and thus more popular. Let's admit it, wondering whether the female heroine will eventually kill the evil leader in the end is far more exciting than reading pages on pages of a teenager's thoughts. The important thing is balance, and control on our thoughts. War may be entertaining to read about, but that's just about where it ends.

*I now found out that there's an actual author who has a quote similar to this song:

“The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.”

- Elie Wiessel