I am not a fan of military sf. Why go into space to wage war? Surely sf readers want to look through a telescope or a chronoscope, not along the barrel of a gun? Poul Anderson wrote military sf well because he wrote everything well, including much more than military stuff. I am far less interested in any author whose career is built on military sf.
Because the Man-Kzin Wars stories are a military sf series, their plots require the deaths of many kzinti at human hands despite the formers' greater ferocity and physical strength. In fact, we understand that each Man-Kzin War significantly reduces the kzinti population. In Poul Anderson's trilogy, Werlith-Commandant and his crew, Weoch-Captain and his crew and Ghrul-Captain all bite the dust.
Ghrul-Captain attacks two unarmed human beings in their own ship. How do they prevail? Craig knows his martial arts while Tyra, having brought cooking utensils along on this mission, runs to the kitchen for a sharp knife...
There is always a way.
11 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I'm puzzled by your puzzlement over the idea that there will be war in the future, both on and off planets. I would personally not be in the least surprised to find both humans and non-humans having quarrels and fights escalating to the intensity and scale seen in organized conflicts called wars.
Why do wars happen? Because humans (and, I strongly suspect, if they too are fallen, non-humans as well), will so often have differing ambitions, hopes, drives, beliefs passionately held, etc. And if differing races are biochemically similar enough to each other to desire the same kind of planets, then you get another source of possible conflict. This all adds up to conflicts and wars in the future being far more likely than not.
When good writers like Anderson, Pournelle, Niven, Stirling, etc., shows us wars in the future, my view is they are simply being realistic. Also, to show conflicts in their stories makes them more interesting and likely to be sold.
I fear the kind of SF you seem to most prefer, about abstract ideas or the dull details of every day life (such as what time I got up in the morning or what I had for lunch) won't be that much interesting to many readers. Not that I don't believe ideas and the small details of life can't also be done well! Because they have been, by the writers I listed (and others not mentioned).
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I expressed not puzzlement that there will be war in future but lack of interest in sf focused on future war.
Paul.
Sean,
Some kinds of wars are less likely. Someone able to cross an interstellar distance will have to take his environment with him, therefore is less likely to fight to acquire an environment on arrival in another planetary system. Wars for resources are more likely when resources are scarce than when they are abundant. If I had 5 billion dollars, then I would not begrudge you 10 billion!
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Well, the way you WORDED it made me think you were puzzled! And I think stories having a problem or conflict needing to be resolved will always be more INTERESTING than merely a mostly abstract story.
There are good reasons why, for example, Edgar Rice Burroughs stories and the early works of Heinlein sold better than Olaf Stapledon's works ever did.
I still disagree with your second comment. The need for a protected environment while traveling in space, whether by STL or FTL, is merely the means needed for achieving desired goals. Those goals can be either peaceful or warlike: such as colonists traveling to settle an uninhabited planet or a hostile fleet arriving to attack an enemy.
Resources are important, but they will not be the reason for why wars happen. Wars have been and will be fought as well for passionately held ideological or religious beliefs. I only need to mention Muslim jihads during and after the life of Mohammed as one real world example!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I think that the jihadists were appropriating territory, not just imposing their beliefs.
Paul.
Sean,
OK. "Why go into space to wage war?" referred to the contents of science fiction stories about space travel. It meant, "Why imagine and read about space travel that is just for the purpose of waging war rather than for purposes like exploration, discovery, alien contact etc?"
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But Mohammed and his successors waged jihads for both reasons, seizing territory, gaining wealth, AND Islamicizing the conquered territories.
Science fiction stories can either focus or not on war. If some writers like Pournelle or Stirling preferred that, why not? If their military SF is done well, I can and have read such stories with interest and pleasure. And part of how they did such stories so well is because they included examination of serious ideas in their works.
Even Pournelle/Niven gave us discovery and alien contact in works like THE MOTE IN GOD'S EYE. And Poul Anderson excelled in stories about exploration, discovery, settling of other worlds. and contact with aliens.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But the Islamicizing alone would never have motivated armies. At most, missionaries.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But it did! Islmamic fanaticism was one of the drives or urges motivating these jihadist armies.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It was one of the drives but it would not have motivated military conquest if there had not been a lot of people wanting to grab land for themselves. People who merely want to spread a belief do not do it that way.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And adequate response has to be complex. Yes, Mohammed and his successors appealed to the avarice and greed of their followers in waging jihads. But the Koran does have Mohammed claiming as well that Allah commanded Muslims to wage war on non-Muslims, promising them loot and land for those ghazis who survived and a similarly prosperous afterlife with the houris and non intoxicating wine in paradise for those who fell in battle. That is using the Muslim religion to encourage and spur on jihads.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment