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

[retyopy]

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.

Hmmm... An intriguinging premise, yes, quite, yes...

I really don't mind POV switching, so I'd go with... Main rebel character and a.... Errr...an...a...an...OFFICER! yeah, 'cause then it's not one of the bug boys, but he's not just a grunt. I'd read this. Sounds goood.

 

[Maximum_Power_Cheese_Supreme]

Most definately.

IMO it would be the only interesting thing in the story. Sorry to say, but the premise is incredibly boring. Seriously, I almost fell asleep reading it.

sure, you've got a sci-fi setting, but how often have you heard "Evil something killing poor but nice something, only for the poor something to be saved by a third force". It's really, really, bland.

The thing with sci-fi premises is that it seems to mainly be "this is the setting" I have in mind "there is this world called whatsitsname" and the group of "marines and soldiers" this is weapons they have .

You have to try and imagine how someone could make seem incredibly boring by an inadequately described premise.

 

[Jakub324]

Isaac Asimov

Would you believe it, the main character is called Alex Asimov. What're the chances?

 

[Brandon237]

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".

Yes, if the villain is on the chopping block, he isn't evil any more, cruel yes, but in the end we can see him as a human being. Many of the best villains are "evil" for often understandable motives.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Switching PoVs,like everything else, can be fucked up or done right.

I'd get rid of convict soldiers, the idea just doesn't work. Unless there are political or social reasons for doing it, or the military works way differently than it does now. The Nazis tried that in WW2, but they needed real military units to follow them round because they couldn't be trusted even to just massacre civilians. The Soviets just took deserters, political prisoners and so on and threw them at the enemy in front of everyone else being throw at the enemy, though theoretically they could be let out after a certain time.

 

[Saltyk]

From the perspective of the reader, POV switches are annoying. Odds are you'll switch when things are interesting and there is some conflict or question that desperately needs to be resolved. And suddenly, I'm some other guy 3,000 miles away from the story that I actually care about. It can work, but even when it does, I think you would do well to remember that the reader probably doesn't want to suddenly be reading about someone else. Also, telling the story from three points of view seems excessive. Maybe if the deuteragonist POV is used sparsely, like for one or two total chapters, you could use three POVs.

Of the ones listed, I'd use the officer. His story would flesh out the evil empire and let the reader understand the mindset and motives of the attackers. Also, it would humanize them.

Good luck!

 

[shadow_Fox81]

i think always linking back to the core themes is key.

its harder with heavily conceptualised fantasy realms because you always want to show people how cool all the stuff you created is.

at the beging you say "this is what my piece wishes to explore" then whenever you're stuck or editing you ask is what i am writing accomplishing that or indulging in childish self interest.

 

[votemarvel]

It's not the most original concept in the world but a story really depends on how it is told rather than the idea that spawned it.

One thing that puzzles me, which has been raised before. Why was this Empire not willing to risk the other planet rebelling by cutting off the supplies they were sending but are willing to risk them rebelling by killing all the people they were trying to help?

I know you likely wont want to reveal the exact reason for that if it exists, and thus spoil the story for potential readers, but I do hope you have an explanation in mind.

 

[Alluos]

It depends if you're just going to make the protagonist whine about being told what to do/ doing questionable things.

 

[Jakub324]

It's not the most original concept in the world but a story really depends on how it is told rather than the idea that spawned it.

One thing that puzzles me, which has been raised before. Why was this Empire not willing to risk the other planet rebelling by cutting off the supplies they were sending but are willing to risk them rebelling by killing all the people they were trying to help?

I know you likely wont want to reveal the exact reason for that if it exists, and thus spoil the story for potential readers, but I do hope you have an explanation in mind.

This is explained, but is hardly central. The sympathetic colony had already rebelled by the time Sola was attacked, so it didn't matter any more.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Your idea could use some work, but I'd be willing to suggest planning out your story first.
Write down the major plot elements, and then work out a way to connect them together. Pick your perspectives to work with, and add them to the appropriate events that take place.

I'm currently writing a story as well, and it focuses on two separate characters who get caught up in a conspiracy. They don't interact with each other until their paths cross. This allows me to make the clear distinction between each story arc, as the two characters are rarely seen beside one another.

Like I said, just plan your story out first, and fill in the blanks once your structure is settled. And don't listen to the people who say your work is generic. There are writers out there who turn out absolute garbage and get paid dividends for it. A generic work done well is fun to read, a generic work done poorly is not. Keep the writing quality high, and it shouldn't matter how derivative it gets.

 

[Jakub324]

Your idea could use some work, but I'd be willing to suggest planning out your story first.
Write down the major plot elements, and then work out a way to connect them together. Pick your perspectives to work with, and add them to the appropriate events that take place.

I'm currently writing a story as well, and it focuses on two separate characters who get caught up in a conspiracy. They don't interact with each other until their paths cross. This allows me to make the clear distinction between each story arc, as the two characters are rarely seen beside one another.

Like I said, just plan your story out first, and fill in the blanks once your structure is settled. And don't listen to the people who say your work is generic. There are writers out there who turn out absolute garbage and get paid dividends for it. A generic work done well is fun to read, a generic work done poorly is not. Keep the writing quality high, and it shouldn't matter how derivative it gets.

Every detail of the plot has been worked out, and thanks for the encouragement, and I hope your story goes well.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Your idea could use some work, but I'd be willing to suggest planning out your story first.
Write down the major plot elements, and then work out a way to connect them together. Pick your perspectives to work with, and add them to the appropriate events that take place.

I'm currently writing a story as well, and it focuses on two separate characters who get caught up in a conspiracy. They don't interact with each other until their paths cross. This allows me to make the clear distinction between each story arc, as the two characters are rarely seen beside one another.

Like I said, just plan your story out first, and fill in the blanks once your structure is settled. And don't listen to the people who say your work is generic. There are writers out there who turn out absolute garbage and get paid dividends for it. A generic work done well is fun to read, a generic work done poorly is not. Keep the writing quality high, and it shouldn't matter how derivative it gets.

Every detail of the plot has been worked out, and thanks for the encouragement, and I hope your story goes well.

Good. Finding the main plot points and how they work out is the easy part. How to connect them is the challenge. Do you want to go with character introspection between major events? Do you want side plots that run parallel to the main story? Non sequiturs focusing on random characters? The main events are simple enough to graph out, but the scenes in between can be troublesome, since you're choosing between how much padding or expansion you want. You don't want to get too bloated with exposition during the down times, but you don't want things to be so slim that your characters miss out on important development.

 

[Trivun]

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.

You seem to be confusing this too much with the idea of writing for a game. Having written, and read, plenty of stories (and read a lot of novels), and worked on game writing, I can tell you that the POV switch is a common and very useful tool in writing longer works like books - it's only a problem when you use it in game writing. Very few games do this effectively, some exceptions being the game Dreamfall, for example, which uses it well. But in your novel, I'd say that having multiple points of view is a good thing, especially if those points of view conflict. For example, I'd direct you to the works of Ian Irvine, an Australian author. In his fantasy epic, the Three Worlds Cycle, there are often multiple factions and groups working against each other or in allegiance with each other, and he often switches from the point of view between chapters of one group to another, usually one with conflicting goals. In the first set of books, for example, he switches from the main group straight to their main enemy, and vice versa, plenty of times, to show the differing thoughts, motives, ideas, goals, and so on, that each group has.

Therefore, I'd suggest you do include other main characters, IF IT WORKS WITHIN THE STORY CONTEXT. That is very important, that bit in bold caps. If you can reasonably work several characters into the story who are part of differing factions, then that would be great, and you can reasonably switch between them. As both a writer and an avid reader, I tend to prefer that myself because following one or two characters for the entire book gets boring (unless it's the main point, like a first person perspective work). Multiple views gives a much more interesting take, and allows you to build up conflict and build up differing views for the reader to think about without having to come up with contrived situations to do so. Particularly moralistic viewpoints.

At the end of the day, these are just my two pennies (or more), and it's up to you. But hopefully this helps you make a decision you're happy with, and that will give your future readers something much better to read. Either way, good luck with the book, and if it gets published let me know what it's called and where it's sold and I'll give it a look .

 

[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.

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.

In order:
They can easily bring about a propoganda blackout, and anyone they can no longer feed lies has already be rebelled. This didn't stop them because they're paranoid.
They can't just level the place from orbit because , for reasons unknown to the Solats, they want the city in tact. It is, however, speculated to be that the world leader, and the acting overrall commander of the Solat Military know a lot about the workings of their post-revolution allies.

Okay, you're telling me that they're willing to wage a huge, expensive, inhumane, and ultimately pointless military campaign all for the purpose of silencing a few people who might make some other people who have already defected dislike them a little more? How on earth did anybody think that would be a good idea under any circumstances? How could you even be paranoid about that in the first place?

Also, there are plenty of ways to eliminate a population while leaving infrastructure intact. An engineered viral outbreak. If the society is dependent upon artificial crops & life support, sabatoge. If not, the aforementioned asteroid goes on the opposite side of the planet. You can look at all of the dinosaurs in Asia for evidence as to what happens when you're on the opposite side of the planet as a large asteroid impact. There's very little reason to bring an army in full force.

 

[suncrafter]

Less is more.

 

[Jakub324]

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.

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.

In order:
They can easily bring about a propoganda blackout, and anyone they can no longer feed lies has already be rebelled. This didn't stop them because they're paranoid.
They can't just level the place from orbit because , for reasons unknown to the Solats, they want the city in tact. It is, however, speculated to be that the world leader, and the acting overrall commander of the Solat Military know a lot about the workings of their post-revolution allies.

Okay, you're telling me that they're willing to wage a huge, expensive, inhumane, and ultimately pointless military campaign all for the purpose of silencing a few people who might make some other people who have already defected dislike them a little more? How on earth did anybody think that would be a good idea under any circumstances? How could you even be paranoid about that in the first place?

Also, there are plenty of ways to eliminate a population while leaving infrastructure intact. An engineered viral outbreak. If the society is dependent upon artificial crops & life support, sabatoge. If not, the aforementioned asteroid goes on the opposite side of the planet. You can look at all of the dinosaurs in Asia for evidence as to what happens when you're on the opposite side of the planet as a large asteroid impact. There's very little reason to bring an army in full force.

No... The State believes the Solat Military has agents on every world, spreading anti-state propaganda (they don't). They're paranoid because if worlds have already rebelled, why not more? How can they trust their soldiers? Their officers? What if even more of their military was to turn on them? No, better to eliminate one source of the problem.
As for why they haven't just levelled the place with nukes: they want what's left of the Solat senior command structure alive and interrogatable.

 

[ICantBelieveItGoesBoom]

I think the Officer sounds like the best choice out of those 3 but the soldier could be good, maybe throughout the story he starts to lose his indoctrination and begins to see the horros of what is happening and deal with the guilt.

If you're struggling with how to switch perspective, look up Nought and Crosses by Malorie Blackman. It has a POV change with every chapter and a different symbol for each character (only 2 in the first book but it expands later in the series). It makes for an interesting read, especially when the characters interact and it switches POV rapidly, like a few sentences to each character.

Even if you don't like the book, (broadly put, its a romance dealing with racism), the POV style is very interesting.

 

[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.

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.

In order:
They can easily bring about a propoganda blackout, and anyone they can no longer feed lies has already be rebelled. This didn't stop them because they're paranoid.
They can't just level the place from orbit because , for reasons unknown to the Solats, they want the city in tact. It is, however, speculated to be that the world leader, and the acting overrall commander of the Solat Military know a lot about the workings of their post-revolution allies.

Okay, you're telling me that they're willing to wage a huge, expensive, inhumane, and ultimately pointless military campaign all for the purpose of silencing a few people who might make some other people who have already defected dislike them a little more? How on earth did anybody think that would be a good idea under any circumstances? How could you even be paranoid about that in the first place?

Also, there are plenty of ways to eliminate a population while leaving infrastructure intact. An engineered viral outbreak. If the society is dependent upon artificial crops & life support, sabatoge. If not, the aforementioned asteroid goes on the opposite side of the planet. You can look at all of the dinosaurs in Asia for evidence as to what happens when you're on the opposite side of the planet as a large asteroid impact. There's very little reason to bring an army in full force.

No... The State believes the Solat Military has agents on every world, spreading anti-state propaganda (they don't). They're paranoid because if worlds have already rebelled, why not more? How can they trust their soldiers? Their officers? What if even more of their military was to turn on them? No, better to eliminate one source of the problem.
As for why they haven't just levelled the place with nukes: they want what's left of the Solat senior command structure alive and interrogatable.

Worrying about potential espionage would be a good reason to eliminate the leaders of a planet, not commit genocide. Once you've overhrown all major government agencies, any propoganda machine that had been set up is now officially broken. There's no reason to kill everyone short of being cartoonishly evil.

Be honest, can you honestly imagine how the planning session for this would go?

"Gentlemen, some of our colonies have gone rogue. We have narrowed down the possible sources of corrupting influences to some people on this planet."

"Goodie. So what's the plan? Counter-espionage to eliminate their agents while avoiding an incident? Blockading their trade until they agree to turn over all pertinent information? Cranking up the ol' propoganda machine to drown out any more dissenters?"

"No, I'm going to try and kill an entire planet's population using basic land tactics instead."

"A grand idea! Next on the agenda: next weeks puppy-kicking competition. Have we agreed on the orphanage as the site of the first event? If so, I'll get some boys to burn it down right away."

Even if this were a sensible plan, remember what I said: Viral attacks. Sabotage. Indirect asteroid impact. Any of these could kill a population while leaving buildings intact.