Science Fiction and Strategy: Why It Sucks?

Andrew Liptak makes a provocative argument--military science fiction really, really sucks. And why?

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.

I have commented on some of the problems with a specific subgenre of this in io9 too. But the problem with Liptak's argument is that there is a misunderstanding of what fiction should ideally focus on. As experienced by characters, it is true that fiction will mostly focus on effects, with an ultimately shallow outline of the technologies and strategies involved. That's simply what fiction is. Some good science fiction does focus very much on the broader outline of the worlds involved, and I've blogged on them.

But the primary focus is the characters. A focus on the technologies, strategies, and tactics involved tends to amplify some of the worst tendencies of science fiction in general: a fascination with the technical details of machines or the outlines of future worlds rather than the people who populate them. There is an inherent tradeoff, and when in doubt, lean towards character. The contrast between the anime versions of Ghost in the Shell and the manga is instructive--the anime is much more about the characters whereas the manga is chock full of lovingly footnoted technical details.

Historical fiction, to some degree, has the kind of level of detail and thought that Liptak desires, but in large part only because the past has already been laid out for us. I don't think there's a strict either-or choice between character and detail, but at the same time a tradeoff certainly exists.

Comments

[YNSN]

The primary focus of any strategy is the characters/actors.

'Machines don't fight wars. People do, and they use their minds.'

There are books that, as you said, focus on the technology and actions of individuals in a conflict. But, the technology and actions are a direct result of the inner dialogue and perception of the individual. That is the whole crux of argument for the OODA-loop.

Which is why to me, the SciFi that deals with the individual in relation to their future (to us) environment is as good as it gets.

Interestingly, I just picked up my second book by Robert J. Sawyer. He doesn't write on future conflict, but he does deal with the human condition in terms of nascent technology. I like his books because they deal with the mismatch between an individuals environment and their understanding of it. This is where conflict begins, and that is what must be well understood if you are to understand the narrative at all.

[Andrew Liptak]

My main point with the article wasn't that books should be more like theorists, but more with world building - that didn't really come through, but there's some stories that have come through with a good understanding of military matters, and kept a fairly good story within it.

[S O]

The most impressive strategy in sci-fi was Palpatine's.

Raise to top with intrigue, provoke a war in order to build the loyal military might needed to subjugate the republic and then it's even irrelevant who wins the war because Palpatine leads both sides!

The only thing missing was a more thorough discrediting of the jedi order.

[cctv systems]

You may not feel that you need a reminder to keep your doors and windows locked.