The domes in “The Dome” are all obvious metaphors for isolationism, but the underlying implication is that isolation is something to be feared; at one point, the phrase “hostile apartness” is even used. Solitude happens to a staple of fantastical fiction; often, there is one character or a place that is separate from the rest and is consequently treated with suspicion or fear. Sometimes, these fears prove to be unnecessary; the person or place turns out to be perfectly normal if a bit strange. Other times, these instincts are correct—the person or place is something to be feared.
In “The Dome,” both are true. In the beginning, when it is only the wealthy properties that have domes around them, the domes are viewed favorably; they are seen as posh and trendy. As the less affluent neighborhoods also begin to receive domes, however, the domes are viewed in a more negative light; crime increases and the material the domes are made out of is much cheaper. As time goes on and the entire country becomes isolated beneath the Dome, the rest of the world becomes extremely judgmental. It is still the same place that it has always been, but because it is now inaccessible to outsiders, it is now viewed with fear and distrust.
What makes this even more unsettling is the fact that we aren’t given any truly specific glimpses of life inside the domes. Our narrator gives us a very general idea of what life is now like without sharing their own personal experience with us, or the personal experiences of others. If we were able to see how certain individuals were coping with life inside the domes, it would allow us to sympathize with them and help us to imagine what life must be like in this situation. Since we are only told the general opinions of a few select groups of people, the story takes on an even more dystopian feel; it focuses on the many instead of the few, the collective experience instead of the personal experience. It also feels like a comment on current society–how everyone sort of just goes along with certain things (regardless of how strange or ridiculous they are) because everyone else is doing it too. In this way, the lack of individuality in this story feels even more relevant–not only does everyone just quietly accept the invention of the domes, but they all share the same opinion about them; they have picked up on the status quo and made it their own judgment.
Okay, Mary, this is all true. But somehow you haven’t gotten at the magic of Millhauser’s fiction. I’d like to know more: about voice, about structure, about playfulness, about mystery — about whatever it is you find in this work that creates pleasure, that enriches the reader. More more more.
I never actually thought of it related to the idea of isolationism. Though I do agree about it being a reference to society, and more importantly society today. It can very much be thought of as a classic dystopian story of people whose lives have been altered but don’t seem to care. This story kind of reminded me of “Under The Dome” by Stephen King, but with less of an explanation.