That’s today’s writing prompt. I’m not sure if they have used the word “absolute” because they mean it, or just because they like using lots of words.
Green Woodpecker feeding on ants
The obvious answer is that I don’t know. I haven’t immersed myself in many worlds. Two favourites with other people are 1984 and The Hunger Games. Yes, 1984 is depressing, but is it any worse than the worlds of Down and Out in Paris and London or The Road to Wigan Pier or Burmese Days. Orwell didn’t particularly like any of those worlds. Nor did the millions of real people trapped in them.
As for the Hunger Games, I’ve only seen one film so I’m not qualified to comment. I’ve seen even less of Game of Thrones, which also cropped up, but I tend to agree, from what I’ve heard of it, that the weather and sudden death don’t make it an ideal holiday destination.
Nobody seems to have mentioned Brave New World or Moby Dick. The former seems every bit as bad as 1984, possibly worse when you think your place in society is ordained from birth. And Moby Dick is set on a ship which, no doubt, has poor sanitary provision and heating and there are constant interjections about the natural history of whales. Cold, smelly, uncomfortable, wet and alternating between dull and terrifying.
Gingerbread Men
The world of Jane Austen, or the Bronte sisters wouldn’t be much better. It may have given us classic literature but Jane Austen would have lived to write more if she’d had better medical care and the Brontes, from all I read, would have done better if they had proper supply of clean drinking water.
That would probably be my answer – the worst world to live in would probably be any world that existed before 1945. Having said that, a world without nuclear weapons would probably be good too. – decisions, decisions . . .
Poppies made from plastic bottles
