Your Military Science Fiction Isn't Really Military Science Fiction

Scott Tortorice

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2003
Messages
7,663
Reaction score
99
Location
The shadows
Country
llUnited States
This is a really good article. I don't agree with everything, but it definitely makes a lot of good points:

Your Military Science Fiction Isn't Really Military Science Fiction

Futuristic militaries are a staple in science fiction. With their powered armor and laser guns, military science fiction novels are among the most exciting reads out there. Except for one problem. Most are not really about warfare.


While military SF involves military personnel and technology, the cores of the stories tend to focus on elements other than warfare. Before I'm tracked down and shot for saying that, let me qualify that statement. Military SF novels aren't about the institution of warfare; they focus on the effects of war, on the soldiers, on the morality of an organization, and on what humanity will do to survive.


But warfare is much more than just its destructive effects: It is an institution with its own theories and reasoning. It represents significant strategic, economic and political events, all coming together in a destructive crescendo. When military science fiction focuses on people, there is very little about warfare, and how it is conducted. In these tales, futuristic warfare is often incredibly simplified, on both the storytelling level, as well as the actual elements that make up the story. Here are some of the biggest problems with representations of war in most military SF.
This is a point that applies to mil sci-fi gaming as well:

Warfare, especially in its modern form, is an incredibly complex beast, and that's just dealing with a single planet. In numerous books, planets are approached as if they were countries, with warfare being conducted as small scale tactical assaults that are over by the end of the day. Not only is this unrealistic to the nth degree, it's an incredible oversimplification and abridgment of how warfare is actually conducted. Furthermore, with many of the aforementioned books using units that focus on highly mobile, unsupported tactics, the idea of capturing a planet becomes flat out unrealistic. (Well, more so than military units fighting on other planets.)
I still yearn for the day that a 4X game makes planetary conquest as difficult as it right well should be.
 

pward

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
70
Location
Springfield, IL
Country
llUnited States
I still yearn for the day that a 4X game makes planetary conquest as difficult as it right well should be.
Turn report #23456 - Sir, the Generals on Planet X are requesting more troops, it seems we underestimated the reproductive and developmental speed of the indigenous life forms soldier caste. I quote: "Bullets we have plenty of, thanks. We need more troopers to pull the triggers."
 

Dr Zaius

Chief Defender of the Faith
Joined
May 1, 2001
Messages
8,902
Reaction score
408
Location
The Forbidden Zone
First name
Don
Country
llUnited States
Some of the Warhammer novels do a decent job in this regard, especially when dealing with hostile planets are brought into "compliance." In a few cases the novels actually go into some impressive detail, explaining how such campaigns developed over a period of months and consumed vast quantities of resources and manpower. Still, these military operations aren't usually the focus of the book being but a small part of the overall story.

The author of that article is correct in pointing out that many sci-fi books treat military campaigns as if they are something that can easily be done before lunch.
 

Scott Tortorice

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2003
Messages
7,663
Reaction score
99
Location
The shadows
Country
llUnited States
I agree with Warhammer 40K books. While they, too, are over simplified (basically, every strategy is a "Kill 'em all!" approach), at least most 40K authors bring the carnage to a level that is suitable for a planetary conquest with "conventional" forces. Not only that, but some of the Gaunt's Ghost novels are remarkably detailed. I think Dan Abnett's Necropolis was one of the most detailed descriptions of a military campaign, both at a tactical and operational level, that I have ever read. Seriously. It was a wonderful depiction of how small unit actions influence operational level decisions and ultimately the entire strategic picture.

I think one of the problems with the author of the original editorial is that he seems to be approaching mil sci-fi from more of a space opera perspective (which is more about adventure than conquest). For example, he never mentions Hammer's Slammers, a series that contains some very detailed depictions of tactics and strategy during a time of hover tank warfare (also the political dimension). Someone pointed out that The Lost Fleet is also another good example of detailed fleet warfare in space. I agree. Campbell goes to a level of remarkable detail depicting how fleet warfare in three dimensional space, involving huge distances where communications can take minutes to travel from ship to ship, will be quite unlike WWII naval warfare. Some pointed out Honor Harrington...another good series for a detailed look at fleet ops. While I haven't gotten too far into the series yet, Weber and White's The Stars at War seems to contain some detailed strategy and tactics, along with difficult planetary conquests set against grand strategy - not surprising since the books are based on a 4X board game. :)

Detailed depictions of future warfare abound in short fiction. Cordwainer Smith's The Game of Rat and Dragon, aka Pinlighting, is one of the most imaginative mil sci-fi I have ever read (if you haven't read this short story, DO SO NOW!!!! You'll never look at your cat the same way again! :)). Fixed Price War by Charles Sheffield is a remarkably prescient look at the nature of war during a time of what we now call CGI. This is one of those short stories that any "futurist" must read as I think it is slowly becoming prophetic. Single Combat, by Joe Green, is a devilish look at warfare during a time of nanotechnology. The Screwfly Solution, by Raccona Sheldon, is a wry look at the easiest way to conquer a planet (you've probably seen variations on this story on TV and in the movies under countless other names; it is popular because the implications are chilling as well as not surprising). Now, some of these stories probably would violate pure mil sci-fi, but they nevertheless take military operations into a thoroughly original direction that sheds any 'WWII in space' trappings.

Ultimately, I think the problem is that since time immemorial, authors have used war as a mere vehicle. They aren't really interested in the art of war, just the ramifications of war at a human level. That's okay. I rather read the mil sci-fi equivalent of The Killer Angels than the mil sci-fi equivalent of a Tom Clancy novel. :D

BTW: If you are of like mind, read A Special Kind of Morning by Gardner Dozois. I am often a big critic of this "New Wave" author/editor, but this war story is one of the most remarkable I have ever read. His mastery of the use of language to create an unforgettable emotional environment is simply...staggering. It is a true literary work of art.
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
482
Reaction score
46
Location
SW Indiana
Stackpole's Battletech novels did a decent job of depicting "realistic" warfare, but only in glimpses. That is, we never know more than the characters know. In these novels, no planet is ever completely "pacified." It's depicted as being nearly impossible on even lightly populated, agricultural worlds.
 
Top