So, I'm writing a book, and I can't decide whether or not to include this idea...

[Jakub324]

The year is 2457. Humanity lives on dozens of worlds, and almost everything is controlled by the state. I say "almost" because a few colonies broke away. One such colony is Sola, an inhospitable ice-ball of 800,000 inhabitants. The government send an army to obliterate Sola. Within in two days, the population has been reduced to less than 2,000 and what little of it remains hides in shadow, praying for a miracle. However, it is quickly becoming clear that the invaders aren't the most dangerous thing on the planet, and that the new threat might also be Sola's salvation...

I can't decide whether or not to tell part of the story from the perspective of an enemy. He could be:
Part of the officer cadre, highly educated, and under pressure to eliminate last vestiges of local resistance. They have three months to confirm the deaths of the last locals, or they will face a firing squad.
Part of the criminal company, so he'd be one of many convicts. Between them, they have committed every crime under the sun, and now they have guns and have been set loose on the locals. Characters witness them torture and then execute captured civilians. Almost all of them choose to flood their systems with steroids and combat drugs, which make them even more psychotic and merciless.
Ordinary soldier. Very indoctrinated, basic education only, most are conscripts. They make up bulk of the invasion/occupation force.

Do you think I should include this kind thing? It might help make the enemy seem less two-dimensional, but it's already seen through the eyes of both the protagonist and, on occasion the deuteragonist, and I heard a lot of people find POV switching annoying.

 

[bdcjacko]

You should only include what needs to be there.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

That's an interesting take on the idea. I like it. It makes the villain side seem more human, and less "generic faceless guys who you don't care about when they die".

 

[LikeDustInTheWind]

If you are going to use POV switching, I would recommend keeping it to two main characters, and In my humble opinion I think the officer would be one of the best choices because you can more easily show a human side than with a ruthless criminal or a random soldier. That's about all my ideas, hope that helps. Good luck!

 

[BonsaiK]

Plot makes no sense. How did Sola get 800,000 inhabitants if it's "inhospitable"? Why would the "state" want to control an "inhospitable" planet? Also why are they killing the locals? With only 2000 people left, their war is basically won anyway so why are they even still there? And now a criminal company are getting involved, to exploit only 2000 people? To what end? Haven't they missed the boat somewhat? Why would they not go somewhere more populous where there's more of an economy to sink their criminal teeth into?

You should tell the story from whatever perspective you want, multiple ones is also fine. Just make sure it's a story that actually adds up and makes coherent sense. You don't want to make another Battlefield Earth.

 

[Alssadar]

I personally find POV switching to be quite interesting, as it shows the moral gray area that can exists in the world.
It can also allow extra-characterization behind what is going on, from the different perspectives as well.
"They came to kill us."
"We came to liberate this colony for (xx) and, by (diety) we are going to do it for (reason)."
Also, if you do decide to make the invader's POV, a good idea would either be:
A. They are a fire team composed of the three who got stuck together due to some reason (separated, organization, et cetera.)
or B. There are these multiple characters (with these properties) that occur around the battlefield on separate occasions, leading the operations and such, that allows them to be the main antagonists to the population-rebels.

 

[Xian_Frost]

I agree with aegix and Nick. You should keep the POV switching to a minimum as to not confuse the reader on who they are following. Add the switch where it feels necessary.

 

[Jakub324]

Plot makes no sense. How did Sola get 800,000 inhabitants if it's "inhospitable"? Why would the "state" want to control an "inhospitable" planet? Also why are they killing the locals? With only 2000 people left, their war is basically won anyway so why are they even still there? And now a criminal company are getting involved, to exploit only 2000 people? To what end? Why would they not go somewhere more populous where there's more of an economy to sink their criminal teeth into?

You should tell the story from whatever perspective you want, multiple ones is also fine. Just make sure it's a story that actually adds up and makes coherent sense. You don't want to make another Battlefield Earth.

In order:
The planet's settlers (kicked off Earth for their part in a rebellion) survived through the generosity of another planet. Though their ally's aid was against the law, the government did little about it because it was the military heart of their empire and the entire planet took pity on the Solats, so they couldn't stop the help flowing without sparking a rebellion that might just see them topple from the throne.
The locals are being killed because the interplanetary authorities got fed up with the possibility of the Solats stirring another rebellion up, and as long as they were alive, the risk was there.
They're still there because their orders are simple: "Kill everyone. If just one Solat survives, the risk does."
The State doesn't want to control the planet, they just want every one of it's inhabitants dead so they no longer have to keep looking over their shoulders.
The criminal company is a division of the military, officially designated the "34th Penal company". They are not a corporate body, they just somewhat tame psychopaths.

 

[X10J]

The year is 2457. Humanity lives on dozens of worlds, and almost everything is controlled by the state. I say "almost" because a few colonies broke away. One such colony is Sola, an inhospitable ice-ball of 800,000 inhabitants. The government send an army to obliterate Sola. Within in two days, the population has been reduced to less than 2,000 and what little of it remains hides in shadow, praying for a miracle. However, it is quickly becoming clear that the invaders aren't the most dangerous thing on the planet, and that the new threat might also be Sola's salvation...

I can't decide whether or not to tell part of the story from the perspective of an enemy. He could be:
Part of the officer cadre, highly educated, and under pressure to eliminate last vestiges of local resistance. They have three months to confirm the deaths of the last locals, or they will face a firing squad.
Part of the criminal company, so he'd be one of many convicts. Between them, they have committed every crime under the sun, and now they have guns and have been set loose on the locals. Characters witness them torture and then execute captured civilians. Almost all of them choose to flood their systems with steroids and combat drugs, which make them even more psychotic and merciless.
Ordinary soldier. Very indoctrinated, basic education only, most are conscripts. They make up bulk of the invasion/occupation force.

Do you think I should include this kind thing? It might help make the enemy seem less two-dimensional, but it's already seen through the eyes of both the protagonist and, on occasion the deuteragonist, and I heard a lot of people find POV switching annoying.

Leave it out now, then include it as DLC.


Also, I think the officer would be most compelling, especially if you make him/her struggle with his/her orders. If you want to make him/her especially sympathetic you could include a drastic, potentially self-destructive crisis of conscience.

 

[thalendiril]

Personally, I think that you should write out what you think you want in the alternate point of view. Play around with your ideas. If you find that it doesn't fit, don't include it in the final work. If nothing else, you should have a greater understanding of the characters in your story.

 

[Freechoice]

"34th Penal company"

I snickered at that.

 

[Spiritofpower]

One of the gigantic nukes such an advanced civilization practically HAS to have would solve 800,000 potential rebels pretty darn quick. And, wouldn't absolutely annihilating the Solats kinda have the same effect as cutting off their supply lines? If not more so?

As for your original question, i think 3 is pretty much the maximum number of PoV's you can have at once, with a few notable exceptions *cough*AGAMEOFTHRONES*cough*.

 

[Kurai Angelo]

Plot makes no sense. How did Sola get 800,000 inhabitants if it's "inhospitable"? Why would the "state" want to control an "inhospitable" planet? Also why are they killing the locals? With only 2000 people left, their war is basically won anyway so why are they even still there? And now a criminal company are getting involved, to exploit only 2000 people? To what end? Haven't they missed the boat somewhat? Why would they not go somewhere more populous where there's more of an economy to sink their criminal teeth into?

Inhospitable is not synonomous with un-inhabitable. The Arctic is inhospitable but not impossible to live in. It may not be about controlling that particular planet but rather sending a message to any like minded independant places that the state would rather not see flourish on their own. Also, total eradication is a bigger message than fucking shit up a bit then leaving. Also, I got the impression the criminals were getting involved to oppose the army... as in, the locals didn't trust or like them, but were desperate and needed their help.

 

[vasudean]

As a writer myself, I think it would be a great idea to have the POV switch between the characters. It would blur the lines a bit and thus it would be a bit more compelling of a read.

 

[BonsaiK]

Plot makes no sense. How did Sola get 800,000 inhabitants if it's "inhospitable"? Why would the "state" want to control an "inhospitable" planet? Also why are they killing the locals? With only 2000 people left, their war is basically won anyway so why are they even still there? And now a criminal company are getting involved, to exploit only 2000 people? To what end? Why would they not go somewhere more populous where there's more of an economy to sink their criminal teeth into?

You should tell the story from whatever perspective you want, multiple ones is also fine. Just make sure it's a story that actually adds up and makes coherent sense. You don't want to make another Battlefield Earth.

In order:
The planet's settlers (kicked off Earth for their part in a rebellion) survived through the generosity of another planet. Though their ally's aid was against the law, the government did little about it because it was the military heart of their empire and the entire planet took pity on the Solats, so they couldn't stop the help flowing without sparking a rebellion that might just see them topple from the throne.
The locals are being killed because the interplanetary authorities got fed up with the possibility of the Solats stirring another rebellion up, and as long as they were alive, the risk was there.
They're still there because their orders are simple: "Kill everyone. If just one Solat survives, the risk does."
The State doesn't want to control the planet, they just want every one of it's inhabitants dead so they no longer have to keep looking over their shoulders.
The criminal company is a division of the military, officially designated the "34th Penal company". They are not a corporate body, they just somewhat tame psychopaths.

Wouldn't it be better PR for the "state" to let them live, given that it's actually not the Solats who are the real threat, but sympathy for them back home? Isn't living on an ice-ball punishment enough for them? 2000 people would probably struggle to even organise a successful crop-rotation system on a planet where nothing grows, as if interplanetary rebellion is their top priority - I don't think so, and neither would "the state". Cardboard-cut-out evil nasty enemies who do irrationally bad things at huge expense and logistic cost just because they can when there are other far easier options available are very unbelievable and chip away severely at your story's credibility. That's the real problem you're going to have with this story, not "what perspective do I tell it from".

 

[Hal10k]

The locals are being killed because the interplanetary authorities got fed up with the possibility of the Solats stirring another rebellion up, and as long as they were alive, the risk was there.
They're still there because their orders are simple: "Kill everyone. If just one Solat survives, the risk does."
The State doesn't want to control the planet, they just want every one of it's inhabitants dead so they no longer have to keep looking over their shoulders.

So every single one of those 800,000 people was a genius rebel mastermind? Because waging an entire war to kill 2,000 people doesn't sound pretty bright, to be honest. Even a small conflict is a logistical nightmare in terms of additional troops, equipment, basic living supplies, etc. Look at how much money the U.S. government is spending in Afghanistan. Now imagine that, plus all the expense to ship it to another planet (how does space travel work in this setting, by the way? That's never something to neglect.) It seems like it would be a lot of an effort to make on the off chance that you might kill Malcolm X.

Besides, you'd think that a smart organization would realize that total genocide would inspire a bigger rebellion than a few people they could easily out-propoganda.

Also, why would you need an army to eradicate that planet's population in the first place? Just chuck a good-sized asteroid at a planet and your job is already done.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

YES YES YES!!!

ANYthing to make an antagonist less 2 dimensional is a good thing and this sounds like the right track.

By the way, what's the title, because I want to read this!

 

[Ionait]

When it doubt, just try it out. Go ahead and write some chapters from an elected extra character's POV. It's always beneficial for a writer to flesh out every character, every area, the past, present, and future anyway. So even if you end up finding that those extra POV scenes are out of place/break flow, at least you have them for reference, and future scenes involving that character, even when not from his POV, will be more satisfying.

 

[Beliyal]

Write down everything, experiment with your ideas and choices and then choose what fits the best and what serves the story best. You don't have to limit yourself to only one thing; the more information and material you have, the better. Maybe you get more ideas and expand the setting as you write multiple versions of the same thing and it will only help you with the story. More POVs is not necessarily bad or annoying, but it shouldn't jump too much if you didn't plan it from the beginning. It might be difficult for the reader to understand why there's suddenly another character speaking if up until now, there was only one or two. Maybe it would be good to separate those POVs in two parts of the story for example. All in all, do some experiments with it and don't be afraid to test out multiple possibilities.

Also, take into account what people in this thread "complained" about the plot; it gives a great insight when other people comment on your ideas, because you on your own are your worst enemy. My friends pointed out a lot of inconsistencies and stuff that makes no sense in my drafts; things I couldn't notice for months, and probably never would.

Finally, I like your story, based on the little you told us. I hope you'll finish it

 

[LongAndShort]

Definitely, definitely. I'd ignore the whole psychotic drugged up convict thing, since you don't have a lot of scope to work with (they make far better, in my opinion, emotional catalysts and side conversationalist - see the judge from Cormac Mccarthy's Blood Meridian).

Instead I'd go for the foot soldier or the officer. Indoctrination and/or firing squads can make for some great character pain and opinions. If you're looking for examples, give John Birmingham and Harry Turtledove a read (notably their most recent series of books). Turtledove in particular (German tank drivers and Stuka bomber pilots fighting for the fatherland in the Second World War in his 'the war that came early series').