posted
First draft is done; I would love for some critiques on the whole thing, or just these first 13 (OK, its 14 lines, but I hate cutting paragraphs in half). Words: 2,500 Genre: Sci-Fi There are no bad words, but a couple close calls.
quote: The M.G.S. Sea Lion approached the only opening in the dense forest canopy that could be found within zone 3-0-4. Its turbines whined with the strain of lowering twelve tons of hardware, hull, and battle armor to the moist terrain. Finally the shuttle settled into the soft soil and the tailgate door fell open with a resounding thud. “Move out you apes,” yelled the ugly looking pilot, Lieutenant Jefferson, sitting in the cockpit. “Get going, and get back here quick. If I start getting bored I can't say as I wont leave you monkeys behind.” Sergeant Basin just ignored the obnoxiousness pilot, Mercenary-Marines didn't dignify such ignorant remarks. Plus both he and the pilot knew the pilot’s superiors had paid highly for the marines' services. Any pilot who abandoned them would not be a pilot, nor alive, for much longer.
PS: I am still trying to come up with a better title.
[This message has been edited by SkorPiun (edited April 11, 2005).]
posted
I'm not particularly intrigued by this opening. I don't see anything that piques my curiosity. I do, however, see a few things that need discussing.
Military ops are fairly structured things -- and are likely to be so in this future world you're creating. Knowing how the present, real-world military operates could only benefit your story in terms of believability.
That said, a pilot can and will take off if he or his craft is in mortal peril. Of course, that doesn't mean they'll leave people behind when they have a chance at rescuing them.
So, more likely, a pilot will drop off a crew and come back later to pick them up. This not only protects the pilot and craft, it frees up the pilot to do other maneuvers as necessary. During wartime, pilots are very busy, and typically overworked, flying many missions per day. This is especially true of helicopter pilots (the type of present-day craft that would unload troops and cargo).
Secondly, it's more likely that whoever is in charge of the mercenaries will be the one doing the yelling. Pilots will make recommendations to the leader, naturally. They may even yell to hurry it up if they suspect they are about to come under fire. But they won't threaten to leave someone behind -- that sort of goes against every code a pilot has. So, even though a pilot might be required to take off when things get too dangerous, and certainly can do so if he deems it necessary, many pilots are true heroes in the sense that they would never do such a thing.
I realize this post seems contradictory at points, but it really isn't. Everything is based on risk and resources, and judgments are often made quickly during a war.
But this isn't a war, is it? It's a mercenary mission. So some rules change. Nevertheless, the rules will still function in a military fashion. A pilot isn't going to hang around so he can be killed while the others are doing their mission. Simple as that. A pilot will come back at a predetermined time, or will return when radioed to do so. Hanging around on the ground is certain death.
posted
HSO has some good points, though the particulars can be disputed depending on circumstances (which he already acknowledges).
I'll just throw in one comment on the whole scenario. Highly paid, competent mercenary companies have their own shuttles and insertion pilots. Competent but hard up mercenaries might not have their own shuttles, but they'll still have their own pilots. Particularly for guys that call themselves "marines" of any kind. Even if that role happens to be non-combat for a particular mission plan (like that means squat), it is still utterly mission critical or you wouldn't be doing it at all.
posted
If you haven't read the book, I'd highly reccomend it. I believe it's the best of Heinlen's books. Anyone writing military or soldier sci fi should definetly read it.
The most memoriable phrase in the book for me was Lieutenant Razack's "What a bunch of apes!", which is why I think this current fragmant shoulnd't use it. It's been done. Unless that was SkiorPiun's intent.
By the way, the movie was a masterpiece.
[This message has been edited by RetinoBlastoma (edited April 13, 2005).]
posted
In the sense that the director was avowedly opposed to all the ideals promoted by the book, and made a movie designed to do as much as possible to denigrate those ideals, yes. It was a masterpiece. Like all those films about Jews made by the Nazis.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
|
posted
I have ready the book, and watched the movie. The book is a true masterpiece (as are all of Heinlein's work, I strongly recommend Citizen of the Galaxy). The movie is just good. Even the movie makers themselves admitted that they did not really intend to adhere to the books ideals, and were more about making a "Big Bug" movie like those of the old black-and-white days.
quote:"Like all those films about Jews made by the Nazis."
Honestly, I think this is a bit too far, and maybe even a bit out of line.
[This message has been edited by SkorPiun (edited April 13, 2005).]
posted
It's just an opinion via an analogy... nothing to get excited over. Save the PC stuff for college and politics. Here were say what we mean and that's all there is to it. It's only out of line if someone is comparing someone to a Nazi. Which Survivor obviously wasn't comparing anyone to that...
All right, folks. Move along; nothing to see here.
posted
Just so I understand... What is wrong with making up your own marines and pilots in your own universe? Does everything we write have to reflect the way things are done in reality? If we are inventing our own types of these things, what do we have to do to make sure people don't get stuck on the fact that they are different? Do you know what I mean?
Like, lets say SkorPiun gets rid of the ape reference because it too much like Starship Troopers and he replaces it with something else, so its "new". Other than that, can he invent his own types of pilots or marines? Should he change the names of these job titles, would that help the matter?
I'm just curious because I have run into the same problem. At what point does a new invention or creation over-shadow not being accurate in reality? What can make it believable so readers don't get stuck on comparing it to reality? Thanks
[This message has been edited by Wenderella (edited April 13, 2005).]
[This message has been edited by Wenderella (edited April 13, 2005).]
posted
Well, there's nothing stopping anyone from doing whatever they want to do. But that's not the issue.
The military is steeped in tradition that goes back well before America became a country. Knowing that tradition well can only benefit. Besides, it's a (arguably) functional system. Not much is going to change about how militaries operate.
So, if you're going to create a whole new "type" of military, whether it be 20, 300, or 1000 years in the future, I strongly suspect that certain traditions will be kept, and only slightly modified to suit the times.
Obviously, I'm biased because of my military experience. I was a insider... I know how it works, or at least how things worked that I was exposed to. So, if I see something that seems so anti-military in the guise of a military story, I'm going to disbelieve it immediately. There should be, in my opinion, something that stays true to the traditions of the militaries for the past 2000 years... or so.
posted
With my previous comment, I did not intend to offend or be in any way confrontational. If I myself came on too strong, I apologize.
Also, in respect to the military-realities of the first 13 line I posted above. I appreciate all the suggestions. I’m certainly not an expert on military doctrine (unless being in a Mechwarrior league counts ). So I figured I would try to give a quick explanation about some of the points made, and see if my concepts still seem out of place.
quote:... a pilot can and will take off if he or his craft is in mortal peril ...
I agree here, but what the pilot said was, if I get bored I will leave. Which is not quite the same as mortal peril. It was meant as a means to show the pilot’s personality.
quote:... it's more likely that whoever is in charge of the mercenaries will be the one doing the yelling ... they won't threaten to leave someone behind ...
My objective here was to try to point out that these pilots were not at all professional, and actually a bit hostile toward the mercenaries their government has hired. In my next revision I am trying to make this a bit clearer. I also probably need to make it clearer that this pilot really is not in much danger.
quote:Highly paid, competent mercenary companies have their own shuttles and insertion pilots. Competent but hard up mercenaries might not have their own shuttles, but they'll still have their own pilots.
I would not entirely disagree here either. While this really is not covered in the story, I do have a reason for this. And though it is not really critical to the plot, I may try to explore some ways to communicate this reasoning without interrupting the flow.
Mr_Megalomaniac, Awesome! I’ll send it over, thanks
posted
Okay, the reference to Nazi propaganda was deliberately inflammatory. It is my honest opinion, though. The director said in several interviews that he found Heinlien's basic approbation of the military totally incomprehensible and said it was his intent to make it seem to the viewer that the militaristic human society was not any more morally desireable than the Bugs. I don't know if he actually said that he wanted the audience to think that genocide against such a society was okay, but he definitely implied as much.
I watched the movie and can honestly say that it certainly is well designed for that explicit purpose. I certainly found nothing in that movie to encourage me in the idea that there is anything particularly better about humans than Bugs. I found much that was unquestionably an attack on everything about having a military in general and having a strong military in particular. So yes, it was quite a piece of work. Well made to the purpose of the director.
Still, I used the Nazi reference to allow anyone to opt out of the discussion. True, I like to use it specifically for people that promote either genocide against humans they don't like or eugenics by elimination of the "unfit" (this amounts to the same thing, in the end). But I'm aware of the convention that invoking Nazis terminates the discussion. I did so because my opinion on the film version of Starship Troopers is officially unalterable and I don't want to hear any arguments about it being "good". If you liked that movie, you live in an entirely different aesthetic and moral universe from myself, and there's no point talking about it.
As HSO said, there's nothing to see here, I can't see the other side of this argument and the other side can't see my side.
With that over, I'm going to quibble with HSO a bit. There are many models for militaries other than the current American one...going with mercenaries shows that well enough already. And many elements of how a military is composed and organized can and will change radically over time. But at the same time, there are certain fundamentals to sucessful militaries that have not changed and will never change because they help armies avoid certain defeat. How you go about achieving victory is a constant evolution. How you avoid ensuring your own defeat is constant.
That said, if you make it clear that Sergeant Basin is aware that Lieutenant Jefferson is a military professional with a strong sense of mission and is merely engaging in a little verbal rivalry, it might work. But the joking would have to stay away from certain things that could not necessarily be taken to be jokes. Calling them monkeys and apes is one thing. Saying you might leave them behind is something else. Mercenaries are a bit twitchy when it comes to ways an employer might seek to evade payment, and most grunts are pretty twitchy about their relationship with pilots and REMF's and so forth. That's not gonna change, ever (by the way, "MF" can stand for various things, I'm keeping it PG-13 by definition for now).
All the same, if it isn't story critical, you might want to consider making it a mercenary pilot flying slightly unfamiliar hardware provided by the employer. Whether he just complains about it while flying perfectly or actually gives his mates something to worry about, you could work that either way.
posted
I can't really quibble with your comments about militaries, Survivor, as I feel that I agree with them... I think. Don't joke about leaving someone behind... The one thing that will never ever ever ever change is a structured "chain of command". It is this model which makes all militaries successful.
The American military branches (except maybe the Air Force) are based heavily on the English model, which are in turn (throughout the ages with heavy revisions) based on a Roman model. Naval traditions go back hundreds and hundreds of years, and are relatively the same. Although the "cat in the bag" is now a court martial rather than a solid whipping for offenses. The French and English fought so many naval battles against each other, that most of the naval tactics employed in present day are not so different than they were then, hundreds of years ago.
Obviously, land warfare has changed substantially. Gone are the days when "civilized" armies lined up on opposite sides and made themselves easy targets. Yet a closer inspection reveals that the structure, the chain of command, is precisely the same. Certain people give orders and certain people follow them. This must be the case for any army to function, otherwise it's chaos.
posted
Sure, the essentials of command and military discipline don't change, but the traditions aren't the essentials. They're merely the cumulative result of various attempts to implement solid principles.
Interestingly enough, I think that mercenaries would tend to adhere very strongly to the Prussian model which had such a strong influence on the modern militaries of the west. Much of our concept of how to carry out induction and training is based on the way the old Prussian mercenaries used to operate. But it isn't certain that mercenaries in the future would be based on the Prussian model. They might follow more of a clan or tribal structure, a commonplace among alien mercenaries in SF. I don't know that you necessarily want to go that direction with human hi-techs, though.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
