- Sci-Fi Factions -

[Soviet Heavy]

In a science fiction wartime narrative, would you guys, as readers:

a) prefer to read about completely fictional factions/nations, or

b) prefer to read about the descendants of modern-day nations, with the story's geographic, cultural and political projections based on various international relationships that exist today, and developed in accordance with plausible predictions of the what the future may hold.

I personally favour the latter option, but it does carry an inherent (if low) risk of offending people, and trying to establish believable international advancements can be hard. I believe though that the immersion factor is worth the extra trouble.

But anyway, what are your thoughts? Real or Fictional?

The Helghast from Killzone fit B perfectly. Descended from mega corporations, and becoming the Sci Fi variant of Space Nazis

 

[Spoonius]

Sorry, no problems, I would rather read a story with a real background/setting because
A. its more relevant to where we are now and I can kinda figure out where I would be in all of it
B. I find alternate history very interesting and seeing what would hypothetically happen to countries very interesting

Those are some good points; especially your first one. I hadn't actually thought about the fact that people might see themselves as a part of the narrative if their country is represented correctly... and that's instant immersion right there...

You've helped me more than you realise by saying that

: |

C. It might just mention New Zealand which makes my day.

Actually, I can tell you now that New Zealand plays a big part in the story. Also, some of the main protagonists will be Kiwis

I shit you not.

first one is also good, but when done well, the latter is better.

Those incompetent shits. I will rape them!

Why is it better? I'd appreciate as much feedback as possible

Also, white writing shows up when somebody quotes you. Just saying...

The Helghast from Killzone fit B perfectly. Descended from mega corporations, and becoming the Sci Fi variant of Space Nazis

But they're just generic, evil bad guys right? Are they actually descendents of a nation that exists today, or are they made up?

Sorry, I haven't played Killzone.

 

[Mozared]

Real, it's more identifiable. Blade Runner wouldn't have been half as good if it had been an unnamed city, it was incredible to see how much LA had changed.

Yet there was nothing wrong with Sin City being... Sin City.

I'm really quite indifferent, though I'll go with the flow and say B.

 

[Spoonius]

I've decided to bump this thread, not because I want to keep it going for the sake of it, but because I want to hear more opinions.

While writing the backstory for my narrative, it's proven harder than I anticipated to implement real-world nations. In my opinion, the two biggest dangers at the moment are:
1) Misinterpreting or accidentally defying existing politics or international relations (unifying countries like Israel and Palestine, for example)
2) Offending readers

So I've decided to ask, once again, for your opinions. Should I continue along the "realistic as possible" route, or should I expect potential readers to accept what I write, even if they disagree with my projections and theories? How would you approach this?

 

[Ryuzaki]

I think you should take a realistic starting point and go from there. If your setting this a few hundred years from now a lot can happen with the different relationships of countries and even the entire outlook of the world, just look back a few hundred years in history and you can see how much things have changed. This means that existing politics, while playing some role on the future standing of countries, isn't hugely overriding to anything else you want to add.
Also having a real world starting point and then going from there means that readers will become immersed in the story much more quickly, as less back story will be needed to outlay the situation.
Looking at your other thread, if you are going to have two factions fighting each other, remember that no one goes into situations with the intent of being evil. Everyone has motives and both sides would probably fervently believe that they are in the right.
That's if you're looking at it from both sides though. If you are running the story though one side then you could have the view of the other side only though the propaganda that is released from the side you are following, with a few glimpses at what it is actually like. This would lead to showing that, behind all the propaganda, the people that you are fighting against aren't the horrors that they are made out to be. This would also give reason behind any predigest views by characters in the novel.
Those are my thoughts anyway, good look on the book.

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

i say A, it's good sometimes to change ourselves with new ideas!

 

[zHellas]

In a science fiction wartime narrative I'm writing, would you guys, as readers:

a) prefer to read about completely fictional factions/nations, or

b) prefer to read about the descendants of modern-day nations, with the story's geographic, cultural and political projections based on various international relationships that exist today, and developed in accordance with plausible predictions of the what the future may hold.

I personally favour the latter option, but it does carry an inherent (if low) risk of offending people, and trying to establish believable international advancements can be hard. I believe though that the immersion factor is worth the extra trouble.

But anyway, what are your thoughts? Real or Fictional?

I'd love to read both, actually...Though mostly B's.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Well, I guess it's up to you, but I found from my own random scribblings that you get a lot more freedom from plan A. I have a lot of random ideas, and the whole aesthetic and plot and pretty damn near everything is too unlike earth or how a future earth may be.

 

[Crimson_Dragoon]

I'd say it entirely depends on the story. Real nations work great in a hard sci-fi or or one that's set in the near future. In other stories, it wouldn't make sense. I thinking something like Asimov's Foundation series, where no one even knows about Earth anymore.

 

[Slaanax]

Anything less than 300 years with an earth based society option B, after a certain point enough change happens for people to associate themselves with another group. Very few people in the world would consider themselves Prussian or Roman decent.

 

[Dyp100]

I've decided to bump this thread, not because I want to keep it going for the sake of it, but because I want to hear more opinions.

While writing the backstory for my narrative, it's proven harder than I anticipated to implement real-world nations. In my opinion, the two biggest dangers at the moment are:
1) Misinterpreting or accidentally defying existing politics or international relations (unifying countries like Israel and Palestine, for example)
2) Offending readers

So I've decided to ask, once again, for your opinions. Should I continue along the "realistic as possible" route, or should I expect potential readers to accept what I write, even if they disagree with my projections and theories? How would you approach this?

Go realistic Sci-Fi, don't mind about "offending readers", people aren't as easily offended as they make seem, plus, any racism/sexism/whateverism that makes sense in the plot isn't offensive. People have different ideas, it's human, if people in your fiction are like that then they become more believable characters.

Also, nothing wrong with messing up a bit of politics, not everything is clear cut, especially in the world of politics.

When is it set, btw? What kinda level of hard sci-fi ya doing? Also...Are Brits involved in any way? 8D

 

[Sgt Doom]

Latter. If people get offended, let them be offended, the over-sensitive twats.

 

[SamSandy]

They both have their sides. Purely fictional factions and nations obviously give the writer much more creative liberties, but that's also what makes them harder to get "right" than factions based on modern nations.

I'm more of a fantasy-kind of guy, but I've read some great sci-fi novels, like the Hyperion/Endymion books, and I'm a fan of Doctor Who and Firefly. So from a reader's point-of-view, I personally would like to read a novel with a mix of fictional and realistic nations.

Oh, and merc hunter, there's a novel called "Chrysalids" by John Wyndham that features New Zealand as a haven for humans.

 

[Spoonius]

I think you should take a realistic starting point and go from there. If your setting this a few hundred years from now a lot can happen with the different relationships of countries and even the entire outlook of the world, just look back a few hundred years in history and you can see how much things have changed. This means that existing politics, while playing some role on the future standing of countries, isn't hugely overriding to anything else you want to add.
Also having a real world starting point and then going from there means that readers will become immersed in the story much more quickly, as less back story will be needed to outlay the situation.
Looking at your other thread, if you are going to have two factions fighting each other, remember that no one goes into situations with the intent of being evil. Everyone has motives and both sides would probably fervently believe that they are in the right.
That's if you're looking at it from both sides though. If you are running the story though one side then you could have the view of the other side only though the propaganda that is released from the side you are following, with a few glimpses at what it is actually like. This would lead to showing that, behind all the propaganda, the people that you are fighting against aren't the horrors that they are made out to be. This would also give reason behind any predigest views by characters in the novel.

I agree with your political points. The main reasons as to why I don't want to go down the "make it all up" route are:

1) Real = believable (and thus immersive).
2) You don't need to create and establish nations that really exist, you just have to bridge the gap between modern and future.

And I've always intended to have the characters propel the story instead of the author. In other words, I want to utilise as little direct narration as possible, and instead portray everything diagetically through the characters. So yeah, there will be racism and hate present within both factions, borne of ideological motivation and propaganda, but I definitely won't go for the "good vs evil" approach. Fuck no.

i say A, it's good sometimes to change ourselves with new ideas!

What ideas do you mean?

I'd say it entirely depends on the story. Real nations work great in a hard sci-fi or or one that's set in the near future. In other stories, it wouldn't make sense. I thinking something like Asimov's Foundation series, where no one even knows about Earth anymore.

I'm definitely going for hard sci-fi. In my opinion, the more plausible a scenario is, the more believable it is. Readers have no trouble believing something that they know is possible, and even less trouble if they think that it's likely.

Also, Earth still exists, but most of her natural resources have run out, and humanity is looking to other planetoids and mineral-rich asteroids for supplies.

Anything less than 300 years with an earth based society option B, after a certain point enough change happens for people to associate themselves with another group. Very few people in the world would consider themselves Prussian or Roman decent.

Good point.

Go realistic Sci-Fi, don't mind about "offending readers", people aren't as easily offended as they make seem, plus, any racism/sexism/whateverism that makes sense in the plot isn't offensive. People have different ideas, it's human, if people in your fiction are like that then they become more believable characters.

Also, nothing wrong with messing up a bit of politics, not everything is clear cut, especially in the world of politics.

I guess, but reading something that just doesn't seem likely or that offends you is a massive immersion-breaker.[/quote]

I want to be careful, that's all.

When is it set, btw?

Not sure about the setting, probably around 300-400 years from now.

What kinda level of hard sci-fi ya doing? Also...Are Brits involved in any way? 8D

Pretty hard. Although technology isn't the focus of the story, I want anything I include to be scientifically tight. So, no sound in space, no handheld laser guns, no FTL or Warp travel, etc.

And as for including Britain, I dunno. I don't think I could extrapolate the futures of most European nations without the help of people who live there. I want to include you fellas, but I don't want to mess it up if I do, if you know what I mean. In other words, I'll only include countries to whom I can do literary justice... :|

Latter. If people get offended, let them be offended, the over-sensitive twats.

Personally, I agree with you, but if I want to be taken seriously as a writer, I just can't risk it. There are way too many people in the world ready to scream bloody murder if somebody portrays them in a bad light.

I've used this example before, but the books of Matthew Reilly (an Aussie author) aren't sold in France at all, for no reason other than that he sometimes uses the French military as "bad guys" in his narratives.

Oh, and merc hunter, there's a novel called "Chrysalids" by John Wyndham that features New Zealand as a haven for humans.

Yeah, I remember starting a game of futuristic Risk once, only to discover that half of Australia was designated as a nuclear testing zone.

>: |

 

[twistedshadows]

I enjoy both for different reasons. I like the former for escaping from this world and delving purely into imagination, and I like the latter for considering what the future could hold for the real world, or seeing what this world could have been like if historical events had gone differently. Both types are good for different moods and mind-sets.

 

[Kuchinawa212]

A if done right. Like The Empire in Star Wars. I find those a thousand times more interesting then Ruskies of the future!!! but if you don't explain anything, then it's just a bear to figure out. So if you can work in a good explanation, then you're golden

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

what i meant, was that you have creativity, so you can imagine your own, instead of plagiating some other guy's stuff

 

[Deef]

I likes my b). It just grounds things a little bit, makes the story more engaging.

 

[Spoonius]

I enjoy both for different reasons. I like the former for escaping from this world and delving purely into imagination, and I like the latter for considering what the future could hold for the real world, or seeing what this world could have been like if historical events had gone differently. Both types are good for different moods and mind-sets.

I know what you mean, but with option B, would you be willing to give the text a little leeway in terms of believability, or would you only feel satisfied if everything were to be portrayed in a way that you think is entirely possible?

Ruskies of the future!!!

Fuck no. Shoot me if I ever do that.

what i meant, was that you have creativity, so you can imagine your own, instead of plagiating some other guy's stuff

Right. Sorry, I just didn't know what you meant

I likes my b). It just grounds things a little bit, makes the story more engaging.

How does it engage you?