An idea for a trilogy I had

[blah the Prussian]

First of all, if this is in the wrong place feel free to move it. In any case, this is an idea I have been tossing around for a while now, and I would like to hear your thoughts on it. Basically, it would be a realistic space opera told in a trilogy of either books or movies. This is the basic plot outline:

Background: After the end of the Cold War, the world was decisively divided into power blocs: the USA and EU, and Russia and China. Both of these power blocs eventually began colonizing space, starting around 2100. Meanwhile, on Earth, the power of corporations was solidified.

By 2500, humanity harnessed the power of black holes to travel through the universe fast. By 3000, they had colonized every inhabitable planet on the Milky War, the corporations doing to these planets what they had done to Earth. However, in the early 3000s, it all came crashing down. Due to an unknown cause, the Western powers and the Eastern Powers entered I to nuclear war with one another, wiping out humanity on Earth in a matter of hours. With this, the colonies descended into anarchy. Corporations seized full control of individual planets, while military commanders allied with them to get more power. Eventually, the Westerners were united by the Godwin dynasty, while the Easterners were united by the Volkov dynasty. A system of neo feudalism developed, with the unifies declaring themselves to be monarchs and the corporate executives ending all pretenses, and declaring themselves to be nobility. This continued to be the case for millennia.

Then, in the Eastern Empire, a Tsar named Vladimir the Great came to power. Vladimir, unlike his predecessors, cared for the common people, and so fought a war to centralize power in himself and away from the nobles, and create equal rights regardless of class. He succeeded thanks to his military genius, and the Eastern Galactic Empire became a free society. However, the peasants of the Western Empire looked on with envy. Their king was weak, and while he tried to help them, he lacked the willpower to challenge the nobles. Thus, they rose in a revolution that is pretty much a mix of Communism and Jacobinism. Eventually, the rebels began closing in on the royal homeworld.

Part one

The audience is introduced to King Albert, the king fighting a losing battle against the revolution, and his 5 year old son, Prince Arthur. Albert does not wins to flee, and so sends his son to live with the Volkovs, who will raise him as one of their own. He then surrenders to Grand Admiral Anderson, the brilliant commander who won the war for the rebels. He, and the rest of the nobility, are later executed, and a Communist state is instituted.

Meanwhile, Arthur is adopted by Tsar Vladimir, who treats him as a son. He and his adopted sister, Crown Princess Sophia, have a great relationship, playing together, learning together, growing up together. One day, a when they are both 8, Arthur tells Sophia who he is. Sophia promises to help Arthur reclaim his homeland when she is Tsarina.

Meanwhile, the practical application of the revolution goes about as well as you'd expect. Anderson hands over control of the state to the Politburo, a council of ten who are extremely corrupt, behaving like the old nobility and using propaganda and a ruthless secret police to keep the populace in line. The state becomes, essentially, 1984.

Vladimir dies eventually and Sophia ascends to the throne at the age of 25. She has become quite ambitious, wanting to live up to the legacy of her father, or maybe even surpass it. She wants to unite the galaxy. Arthur, meanwhile, has become a playboy, but one who still harbors the desire to return to his throne. He is essentially good-natured, though. Thus, when Sophia offers to fulfill the promise she made to him when they were children, Arthur accepts.

Sophia gives a speech to the Parliament where she declares that it is the duty of the Empire to free the People's Republic from its cruel overlords. Parliament, including Chancellor Zhu Dipeng (both Russians and Chinese are in the Empire) agree. Sophia and Arthur meet with the Imperial War Council, led by General Antonov, to discuss their strategy. Antonov says that spies have discovered that the Politburo is paying a visit to a recently pacified border planet, and that it would be the ideal time to strike. The council agrees.

Meanwhile, the Politburo learn that the Empire is preparing an attack, and call Anderson out of retirement. He promises to stop the Imperial fleet at the planet they are visiting, called Ausozera. Anderson prepares to lead the Imperial Fleet into a trap.

The fleet arrives at Ausozera, seeing that Anderson's fleet is half as strong as theirs is. Antonov orders the Imperial fleet into a spearhead formation, planning to smash through Anderson's fleet and land on the planet, capturing the Politburo and forcing them to restore Arthur. The enemy fleet folds easily, but this is all part of Anderson's plan. He outflank the spearhead, pinning it against the planetary defense systems. Antonov has fallen for his trap.

In the Imperial flagship, Sophia, Arthur, and Antonov scramble to prepare a new plan. Sophia suggests proceeding with the landings and capturing the Politburo, forcing Anderson to withdraw. Arthur agrees, and volunteers to lead the raid. A transport ship charges the planet over the palace where the Politburo is staying. It crashes in, and the recently pacified populace revolt again. Arthur and his squad capture the Politburo, forcing Anderson to the negotiating table.

Arthur and Sophia demand that Anderson withdraw from Ausozera in exchange for the Politburo. Anderson agrees, but demands Sophia's sister, Natalia, as insurance. Sophia reluctantly agrees after Natalia declares she is willing to be a hostage. Anderson's ships and the Communist garrison withdraw, and the Politburo are freed. The leader of the Politburo, however, immediately refuses to send Natalia back, placing her in prison and using her to taunt Sophia as retribution for his capture. Thus, the first installment ends, with the war beginning but a decisive blow not being struck.

So, what do you all think? I am obviously open to criticism, so do your worst, please.

[Moblin Major General]

Where are the aliens? You can't have a space opera without aliens?

[Ϲharlie]

Legend of Galactic Heroes worked out magnificently without aliens.

[blah the Prussian]

Legend of Galactic Heroes worked out magnificently without aliens.

This, pretty much. This was, incidentally, inspired by LOGH, if you couldn't already tell.

[Life]

I like the fact that you turned the Americans and Europeans into the evil side and the Chinese/Russians are good. Slight break from reality.

However, I personally am not a sci-fi fan. And I think you could actually pull off the same idea on Earth starting from the end of WW2 (FDR declares himself a monarch during WW2, Stalin actually gives a shit about his people in a break from tradition) and move your story about 100 years in the future with similar technology to what we have today. That's my own personal feeling.

[blah the Prussian]

I like the fact that you turned the Americans and Europeans into the evil side and the Chinese/Russians are good. Slight break from reality.

However, I personally am not a sci-fi fan. And I think you could actually pull off the same idea on Earth starting from the end of WW2 (FDR declares himself a monarch during WW2, Stalin actually gives a shit about his people in a break from tradition) and move your story about 100 years in the future with similar technology to what we have today. That's my own personal feeling.

But that is completely implausible. It goes against FDR's nature, and it goes against Stalin's nature. In any case, the idea is that it was a complete accident that the easterners are good and the westerners are evil, because 100 years before the story starts both are feudalistic corporate hellholes; the Easterners just so happened to have a leader who gave a shit and was competent enough to make a difference. Its for the same reason that the French succumbed to revolution while the Austrians and Prussians didn't; Frederick the Great and Joseph II were able and willing to improve the rights of commoners, while Louis XVI had his heart in the right place but didn't have the will to break the power of the nobility. The central themes of the story would be what being a leader does to a person as will become clear later on, and that would work in any setting; its just that dystopian earths and fantasy worlds are overdone as settings, while I don't think there has been a space opera in recent memory.

[Original Alear]

The central themes of the story would be what being a leader does to a person as will become clear later on, and that would work in any setting; its just that dystopian earths and fantasy worlds are overdone as settings, while I don't think there has been a space opera in recent memory.

There are two I can think of off the top of my head, one of which I read, the "Ancillary" trilogy, which I thought was rather good (though not as good as CJ Cherryh's stuff, which I think it was partially inspired by). The other that comes to mind I have not read yet. It's called The Saga of the Seven Suns. I just recently got the first book, but I'm working through other stuff first. Ancillary was in the past 5 years, Seven Suns in the past 10. More books are coming in the Ancillary universe. I believe both were quite successful. I know I am not being helpful.

I agree with Life, actually. I mean, I don't mean that his particular scenario is necessary, but I don't really see anything that requires a galactic setting. Maybe you have more ideas you haven't shared, so it's really up to you.

It would be good to know why Anderson seems to be very loyal to the politburo. It looks like he surrenders power to them, with the basic assumption (assumptions are not always good) being that he's not interested in playing politics, maintaining a position of public power, or something like that. Then he returns to military life, apparently with the primary goal of restoring them to power. This is really the only question I saw arising from the outline that interested me. This could be something you've already considered, but if you haven't, you should.

Why is the entire politburo visiting one planet? Especially one that is apparently vulnerable enough to attack that they see it coming? There are other questions, but they seem like things that might be developed in later books.

Edited January 19, 2016 by Sane Young Dog Man

[amiabletemplar]

But that is completely implausible. It goes against FDR's nature, and it goes against Stalin's nature.

To be frank, so is the idea that human cultures remain largely static and unchanged for over 6 centuries, despite developing into a galaxy-spanning polity (or two, rather). The two political power blocs of the Cold War were radically different from what you would have found 600 years ago, and the latter underwent a more-or-less analogous form of expansion into just ONE "new world." Not only do we need to assume that the Cold War persists for over 150 years (when space travel occurs), but we then have to assume that all those worlds remain culturally contiguous and static for a further 900 years. Giving FDR a longer lifespan and a bit more ego, and Stalin a bit less ego and a genuine belief in supporting the common man, isn't much more implausible: alternatively, the two of them could have been replaced at some point by candidates of your own design.

But you're probably set on the idea of a galactic empire--and, being Rationally Royalist, it'll have to be an Imperial one. There's nothing wrong with that. However, you might want to shift some of your ideas around. At the very least, you'll need to explain why Communism doesn't fall, or how it's able to remain more completely contiguous, since it didn't even last 50 years into the Cold War, let alone 1050.

In any case, the idea is that it was a complete accident that the easterners are good and the westerners are evil, because 100 years before the story starts both are feudalistic corporate hellholes; the Easterners just so happened to have a leader who gave a shit and was competent enough to make a difference. Its for the same reason that the French succumbed to revolution while the Austrians and Prussians didn't; Frederick the Great and Joseph II were able and willing to improve the rights of commoners, while Louis XVI had his heart in the right place but didn't have the will to break the power of the nobility.

It's probably not wise to question your thesis here (since this is a work of fiction, and thus you can do whatever you want), but your phrase "succumbed to revolution" is one I find...interesting. It's as though the Nation exists independently of its citizenry, and has a higher value or more important place than the needs or goals of its constituent citizens, even when considered collectively. Because, in general, I would argue that a nation cannot "succumb" to revolution, as though revolution were a disease that polities can catch and die from. Instead, I would argue that it is that polities build up cruft and detritus, usually but not exclusively in the form of catering almost exclusively to the desires and needs of a very small group of residents while ignoring or more frequently outright exploiting the remainder. In other words, a State does not die because it is infected with revolutionary thoughts; a State dies from the political equivalent of a heart attack, its metaphorical "arteries" so clogged with the plaque of nepotism and corruption that it can no longer perform the functions expected of a metaphorically "living" State. But since a total absence of any body politic usually results in banditry and mass violence, a replacement State (or, more commonly, many smaller replacement States) eventually arises to attend to the needs of those residing within its area of influence; since administration takes time and money, and serving the needs of the constituents cannot be done "for free," this necessitates the existence of further political realities like taxes, and at least in all of human history, the development of a bureaucracy (of ever-increasing intricacy).

Your examples of Frederick and Joseph would thus, rather than being individuals strong enough to weather the "disease" of revolution, would instead become the metaphorical equivalent of a dietician, personal trainer, and addiction therapist: the body politic they received was seriously ill, potentially on the verge of death, but through a rigorous diet/exercise/abstention program, cutting out all the "unhealthy" activities and forcing a painful but necessary detoxification, they warded off the ills that could have killed the State. Or, in other words: revolution is not the cause of death, it is a symptom of the disease. Sorta like how my paternal grandfather's listed cause of death was "renal failure," even though it was really the metastasized colon cancer that killed him.

I agree that the themes you're shooting for can be expressed in essentially any genre that has space for large political bodies. That is, I don't necessarily know that all genres of fiction can support a "politics" plotline, but any that can do so are absolutely able to investigate the themes you're looking at. The biggest concern facing you, if you're really serious about writing this story:

Don't let your personal philosophies control what, or who, you write.

It's extremely, excruciatingly easy for a writer--particularly a first-time novelist--to allow their work to become a tract, a soapbox from which to proclaim the greatness of their personal ideology. Even good, well-established authors can fall prey to this; consider Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy. The first book is lovely! But ideology begins to distort the story in the second book, and pretty much the whole third book is an author tract railing against organized religion (especially Christianity: every character associated with the Church is evil, up until the point they break from it, and characters who join up with it do so almost exactly at the same time that they pass the moral event horizon).

Avoiding this means constantly asking yourself: am I always painting people I disagree with (in this case, politically) as "evil" or "villainous"? Am I always painting people I agree with as "good" or "heroic"? Are there any valid counter-examples to the way I think, either places where something I believe is (politically) right just flat-out doesn't work, or places where something I think is (politically) wrong is successful? Do characters I (politically) agree with sometimes do things I dislike, or which are in-world considered heinous? Do some that I disagree with scrupulously avoid any such wrongdoings, either in my own eyes, or by the social mores of my story?

You're looking at an interesting, albeit somewhat dated premise ("great-man" history, more or less, though you may be allowing for something more like "great-human" history if women can also be such leaders). But there's a difference between presenting it and exploring it, particularly if the presentation is heavily one-sided (favorably or unfavorably). It's almost always more interesting to explore such premises, which means showing both how they can work, and how they can fail; showing their merits and their flaws with equal vigor and honesty. Given your investment in the premise as your preferred method of government (monarchy), it may prove a distinct challenge to give both the good and bad sides truly equal vigor and honesty.

...its just that dystopian earths and fantasy worlds are overdone as settings, while I don't think there has been a space opera in recent memory.

Eh, that's...not really true. Ever heard of Iain M. Banks? His Culture novels are absolutely space-operatic, and fairly recent. I'd say they're the biggest thing in space opera since Asimov, actually. Certainly they're the most frequently discussed space opera novels in the circles I've run. I've also heard things about the Saga of the Skolian Empire by Catherine Asaro, which is also very definitely space opera.

You should check out this wikipedia page: List of space opera media. The novel section is listed in alphabetical order by (first) publication year. While it might not be AS common as dystopia or fantasy, it's almost certainly more common than Cold War alternate history.

[blah the Prussian]

There are two I can think of off the top of my head, one of which I read, the "Ancillary" trilogy, which I thought was rather good (though not as good as CJ Cherryh's stuff, which I think it was partially inspired by). The other that comes to mind I have not read yet. It's called The Saga of the Seven Suns. I just recently got the first book, but I'm working through other stuff first. Ancillary was in the past 5 years, Seven Suns in the past 10. More books are coming in the Ancillary universe. I believe both were quite successful. I know I am not being helpful.

I agree with Life, actually. I mean, I don't mean that his particular scenario is necessary, but I don't really see anything that requires a galactic setting. Maybe you have more ideas you haven't shared, so it's really up to you.

It would be good to know why Anderson seems to be very loyal to the politburo. It looks like he surrenders power to them, with the basic assumption (assumptions are not always good) being that he's not interested in playing politics, maintaining a position of public power, or something like that. Then he returns to military life, apparently with the primary goal of restoring them to power. This is really the only question I saw arising from the outline that interested me. This could be something you've already considered, but if you haven't, you should.

Why is the entire politburo visiting one planet? Especially one that is apparently vulnerable enough to attack that they see it coming? There are other questions, but they seem like things that might be developed in later books.

Fair enough. However, it would seem to me that either I have been living under a rock or neither of those are mainstream, or at least not as main stream as, for example, the Hunger Games or Harry Potter (Dystopia, Fantasy). I chose the galactic setting partially because I wanted to do war in a non Middle Ages setting, and I didn't want nuclear weapons to be a big problem. Once again, I suppose I could change it, but I would need to change a good deal of the battles; for example, the structure of the final fight would have to be completely different. The character of Anderson will be explored more in the next part. Finally, I suppose it would probably make more sense for a single member of the Politburo to be visiting one planet.

To be frank, so is the idea that human cultures remain largely static and unchanged for over 6 centuries, despite developing into a galaxy-spanning polity (or two, rather). The two political power blocs of the Cold War were radically different from what you would have found 600 years ago, and the latter underwent a more-or-less analogous form of expansion into just ONE "new world." Not only do we need to assume that the Cold War persists for over 150 years (when space travel occurs), but we then have to assume that all those worlds remain culturally contiguous and static for a further 900 years. Giving FDR a longer lifespan and a bit more ego, and Stalin a bit less ego and a genuine belief in supporting the common man, isn't much more implausible: alternatively, the two of them could have been replaced at some point by candidates of your own design.

But you're probably set on the idea of a galactic empire--and, being Rationally Royalist, it'll have to be an Imperial one. There's nothing wrong with that. However, you might want to shift some of your ideas around. At the very least, you'll need to explain why Communism doesn't fall, or how it's able to remain more completely contiguous, since it didn't even last 50 years into the Cold War, let alone 1050.

You misunderstand. Communism does fall. This is Putin's Russia allied to modern China. Basically, Russia and China are already heavily controlled by companies, and the USA is going down that route. At this stage in Russia, for example, Putin could fall, but the oligarchs would probably retain their influence. In any case, of course there is more history to explore on Earth between the beginning of space colonization and the nuclear apocalypse, but to even briefly go over it would require an entire chapter of pure exposition, which I don't want.

It's probably not wise to question your thesis here (since this is a work of fiction, and thus you can do whatever you want), but your phrase "succumbed to revolution" is one I find...interesting. It's as though the Nation exists independently of its citizenry, and has a higher value or more important place than the needs or goals of its constituent citizens, even when considered collectively. Because, in general, I would argue that a nation cannot "succumb" to revolution, as though revolution were a disease that polities can catch and die from. Instead, I would argue that it is that polities build up cruft and detritus, usually but not exclusively in the form of catering almost exclusively to the desires and needs of a very small group of residents while ignoring or more frequently outright exploiting the remainder. In other words, a State does not die because it is infected with revolutionary thoughts; a State dies from the political equivalent of a heart attack, its metaphorical "arteries" so clogged with the plaque of nepotism and corruption that it can no longer perform the functions expected of a metaphorically "living" State. But since a total absence of any body politic usually results in banditry and mass violence, a replacement State (or, more commonly, many smaller replacement States) eventually arises to attend to the needs of those residing within its area of influence; since administration takes time and money, and serving the needs of the constituents cannot be done "for free," this necessitates the existence of further political realities like taxes, and at least in all of human history, the development of a bureaucracy (of ever-increasing intricacy).

Your examples of Frederick and Joseph would thus, rather than being individuals strong enough to weather the "disease" of revolution, would instead become the metaphorical equivalent of a dietician, personal trainer, and addiction therapist: the body politic they received was seriously ill, potentially on the verge of death, but through a rigorous diet/exercise/abstention program, cutting out all the "unhealthy" activities and forcing a painful but necessary detoxification, they warded off the ills that could have killed the State. Or, in other words: revolution is not the cause of death, it is a symptom of the disease. Sorta like how my paternal grandfather's listed cause of death was "renal failure," even though it was really the metastasized colon cancer that killed him.

I agree that the themes you're shooting for can be expressed in essentially any genre that has space for large political bodies. That is, I don't necessarily know that all genres of fiction can support a "politics" plotline, but any that can do so are absolutely able to investigate the themes you're looking at. The biggest concern facing you, if you're really serious about writing this story:

Don't let your personal philosophies control what, or who, you write.

It's extremely, excruciatingly easy for a writer--particularly a first-time novelist--to allow their work to become a tract, a soapbox from which to proclaim the greatness of their personal ideology. Even good, well-established authors can fall prey to this; consider Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy. The first book is lovely! But ideology begins to distort the story in the second book, and pretty much the whole third book is an author tract railing against organized religion (especially Christianity: every character associated with the Church is evil, up until the point they break from it, and characters who join up with it do so almost exactly at the same time that they pass the moral event horizon).

Avoiding this means constantly asking yourself: am I always painting people I disagree with (in this case, politically) as "evil" or "villainous"? Am I always painting people I agree with as "good" or "heroic"? Are there any valid counter-examples to the way I think, either places where something I believe is (politically) right just flat-out doesn't work, or places where something I think is (politically) wrong is successful? Do characters I (politically) agree with sometimes do things I dislike, or which are in-world considered heinous? Do some that I disagree with scrupulously avoid any such wrongdoings, either in my own eyes, or by the social mores of my story?

You're looking at an interesting, albeit somewhat dated premise ("great-man" history, more or less, though you may be allowing for something more like "great-human" history if women can also be such leaders). But there's a difference between presenting it and exploring it, particularly if the presentation is heavily one-sided (favorably or unfavorably). It's almost always more interesting to explore such premises, which means showing both how they can work, and how they can fail; showing their merits and their flaws with equal vigor and honesty. Given your investment in the premise as your preferred method of government (monarchy), it may prove a distinct challenge to give both the good and bad sides truly equal vigor and honesty.

Eh, that's...not really true. Ever heard of Iain M. Banks? His Culture novels are absolutely space-operatic, and fairly recent. I'd say they're the biggest thing in space opera since Asimov, actually. Certainly they're the most frequently discussed space opera novels in the circles I've run. I've also heard things about the Saga of the Skolian Empire by Catherine Asaro, which is also very definitely space opera.

You should check out this wikipedia page: List of space opera media. The novel section is listed in alphabetical order by (first) publication year. While it might not be AS common as dystopia or fantasy, it's almost certainly more common than Cold War alternate history.

I dont disagree with your interpretation. I just said succumbed because Prussia and Austria ended up better than Jacobin France, especially under Robespierre, and, generally, I think it would have been better had Louis XVI been able to lead an enlightened absolutist state. I am an adherent to the Great Human theory, and that is a minor theme of the story; Anderson is a great man, but he does not finish what he started. This results in the rise of the Politburo, and the creation of a state worse than what Anderson was fighting. I could engage you in a massive discussion of historiography, but lets just agree to disagree for now. Regarding an author tract, I don't think that author tracts are always bad. For example, "Animal Farm" is basically George Orwell saying that Stalin is evil, and it is a great book. I am trying to make this more of an "Animal Farm" and less of an "Atlas Shrugged". In any case, the Constitutional Monarchical system of government will cause problems later on, specifically in the final part, and Anderson, while it might not have been shown in the synopsis, is a genuinely good person. Once again, more about him will be revealed in the second part. The focus of the story is mainly on the relationship between Arthur and Sophia. This part focuses on their relationship at its high point, when they are adopted siblings and fighting together in a war against an Orwellian state. It will only be downhill from here, trust me.

[Moblin Major General]

I have an idea for a series as well, set in a post-apocalyptic fantasy world. The premise is that modern society was levelled by a gargantuan beast that was slain by 8 dragons, who give access to magic or some other occult powers. The series starts 2000 years after the catastrophe. My series draws from ideas from the Elder Scrolls, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and, among other things, Avatar: The Last Airbender.

[Life]

I have to say, this got me thinking.

I think I have devised a way to turn the Percy Jackson series into an actual good video game.

I blame this.

[blah the Prussian]

Alright, here we go for the second part.

We open with Anderson greeting his son, George, in the lobby of a jail. George is known for having anti-government sympathies, and is constantly being arrested by the secret police, however his father bails him out every time. In their transport, George expresses his frustration at the government, and thinks that Anderson should take over. Anderson replies that he did not fight the revolution to become military dictator. He furthermore states that in the People's Republic, if the people want the Politburo to change, the Politburo will change.

Meanwhile, Princess Natalia is being tortured by the chief of the secret police, Andrew Stevenson. Stevenson demands to know what the Empire's battle plans are, but Natalia once again refuses to tell him. Frustrated, Stevenson takes the recording of her torture and sends it to her sister, deciding he might as well use it to lower morale.

On Ausozera, Sophia orders her butler to dispose of the tape, not wanting to see it for obvious reasons. She then heads to the command center, where Antonov, who has been relegated to a strategic role due to his tactical failure against Anderson, briefs them on the state of the war. The Empire has amassed a massive fleet at Ausozera, ready to strike at the heart of the People's Republic. Antonov explains that the People's Republic is a highly centralized state, and that as such to take the capitol would most likely result in central authority collapsing. Arthur, Sophia, and their generals agree that a strike towards the capitol, originally Bellum but rechristened Marx following the Revolution, is for the best. That settled, they retire to their quarters.

Sophia still has to attend to her political duties, and an election within the Empire is coming up. The charismatic Xia Jun is running for the position of Prime Minister for the Nationalist Party, and he gives a speech in the Imperial Capitol, Planet Pyotr, declaring that the Empire must stand strong against the People's Republic. This is met with applause. It is clear that Jun is set to defeat the incumbent Prime Minister in the coming elections.

A series of flashbacks go into Anderson's backstory. He was born a minor noble on a key planet, but made friends with some of his serfs. He aways was fascinated with military history, and wanted to be a Royal Admiral. One day, though, his reactionary father found out about his friendship with the serfs, and tried to kill his best friend. He succeeded, but Anderson found out and shot his father to death. Realizing what he had done, he fled his estates to avoid prosecution.

For 5 years Anderson lived as a fugitive, before he fell in with a group of Communist rebels. His charisma and strategic/tactical brilliance quickly won the rebels a series of battles (note: if you think it is implausible for an aristocrat to be Communist, Lenin was an aristocrat). Under his leadership, the rebellion blossomed into an all out revolution, and he obviously won it.

However, Anderson had no interest in politics, and more than anything did not want to be remembered as a figure like Cromwell or Caesar. He thought of the People's Republic as his greatest achievement, and so he watched in denial as it got more and more tyrannical, deluding himself into thinking that what was happening was the will of the people.

Cut to Anderson commanding a fleet over a planet in rebellion. The Politburo orders him to use nuclear weapons against the populace. At this, George enters, and confronts his father about if he is going to obey these orders. Anderson replies that he must obey the will of the Politburo, and of the people. George loses his cool, demanding to know if Anderson really thinks that this is the will of the people. At this, Anderson breaks down. He finally admits that it was he who helped create the Orwellian nightmare that exists today, and that it was his inaction that allowed the state to devolve into tyranny. Anderson finally steps out of denial. At that moment, word comes in from Planet Marx that the Imperial Fleet is approaching. Anderson declares that first he will defeat the forces of the old order and then he will set the new order right.

The two fleets meet above Planet Marx. Sophia is now in full command of the Imperial Fleet. Unwilling to fall into the same trap a second time, She has decided to borrow a strategy from Shaka Zulu and use two spearheads to break through enemy lines. Suddenly, though, a transmission from Stevenson interrupts the battle. He demands that Sophia and Arthur call off their forces, or he will kill Natalia. He switches to a screen showing Natalia kneeling in a guillotine, and, rather than shake her head no, she is begging for her sister to save her. Sophia and Arthur consult with each other, but ultimately decide that it is their duty as rulers to fight. Sophia orders an attack. The blade falls. Stevenson then begins executing any and all political prisoners, as well as their families.

Anderson is rendered speechless by this atrocity. The public executions of political prisoners is causing more than a few crews to mutiny. Anderson weighs his chances, and realizes that he would have better chances fighting elsewhere. He declares that the Politburo are an illegitimate government, and he will stay loyal to the original revolution. This is met with wide cheers by his men. Anderson and most of the flee withdraw.

Sophia and Arthur are pleasantly surprised by this development, but Arthur is still furious about the execution of Natalia, who he always saw as a little sister to an even greater extent than Sophia did. Meanwhile, the politburo is in a panic. Imperial troops surround their compound, but Stevenson manages to escape. Arthur and his bodyguards pursue him. Stevenson flees to his mansion, and when Arthur forces his way in, Stevenson's young son stands in front of him. The boy begs Arthur not to kill his father. Arthur demands he get out of the way, or he will shoot. The child refuses, so Arthur opens fire, killing both Stevenson and his son. His bodyguard forces his way in at this moment, and Arthur lies and says that Stevenson used his son as a human shield and that he tried to save him, but there was nothing he could do.

Meanwhile, a large amount of planets are rebelling against the authority of the People's Republic. Some of the rebels declare for Arthur, but others are just angry. The People's Republic descends into lawlessness. Anderson is still out there, preparing for his finest hour. A victory parade is held on Planet Marx, as Arthur declares the Kingdom officially restored. And yet, it remains a hollow victory. The war is not yet over, and then, Arthur and Sophia must win the peace.

[Phoenix Wright]

i don't understand the premise. how are black holes being used to "travel through the universe fast"? why does anyone living within even a few lightyears (possibly even the planet mars) give a shit about what happens on earth? it doesn't make sense for earth to be the single political hub for an entire galaxy. that would be like putting every single world leader ever in one room, and that room is the only place where politicking gets done.

[Original Alear]

i don't understand the premise. how are black holes being used to "travel through the universe fast"? why does anyone living within even a few lightyears (possibly even the planet mars) give a shit about what happens on earth? it doesn't make sense for earth to be the single political hub for an entire galaxy. that would be like putting every single world leader ever in one room, and that room is the only place where politicking gets done.

Damn if that room ever exists I want to visit it one day. To eat whatever they're eating for lunch.

[blah the Prussian]

i don't understand the premise. how are black holes being used to "travel through the universe fast"? why does anyone living within even a few lightyears (possibly even the planet mars) give a shit about what happens on earth? it doesn't make sense for earth to be the single political hub for an entire galaxy. that would be like putting every single world leader ever in one room, and that room is the only place where politicking gets done.

Earth isn't the center of all political decisions, but it is the economic center of the galaxy. The colonies had a large amount of self rule, and it was only earth that was keeping them from fighting each other. Thats why the wars of unification happened following the destruction of Earth.

[Phoenix Wright]

i guess i'm overly critical on what can be seen as a small point, but that doesn't make sense to me either. :/ what makes it the economic hub? there are millions of earths in our galaxy--any resources earth has (some 30,000 ly away from the center of our galaxy, let alone the other edge) is sure to exist in much higher orders of magnitude abundance elsewhere. colonization makes earth matter less, not more, the way i see it.

Damn if that room ever exists I want to visit it one day. To eat whatever they're eating for lunch.

steak!

Edited January 22, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[blah the Prussian]

i guess i'm overly critical on what can be seen as a small point, but that doesn't make sense to me either. :/ what makes it the economic hub? there are millions of earths in our galaxy--any resources earth has (some 30,000 ly away from the center of our galaxy, let alone the other edge) is sure to exist in much higher orders of magnitude abundance elsewhere. colonization makes earth matter less, not more, the way i see it.

steak!

No, its fine, the whole point of this thread is for people to tear into the outline for the story. I'd prefer more criticism of the basic plot, though.

[Tolvir]

Kind of reminds me of this show on Sci-fi right now called The Expanse. Might be worth taking a look at for some ideas. It is about Earth being ruled by the UN, Mars being ruled by this military like corporation, and the miners in the asteroid belt that are treated as just about slaves. The entire show is about the tensions rising between the three factions with the miners on the edge of a revolution, and the UN and Mars being in somewhat of a cold war.

Edited January 22, 2016 by Tolvir

[Original Alear]

Phoenix, I'm not sure it's quite as clear-cut as you're making it out. I admit I'm not really educated on the subject, so I've resorted to wikipedia. The page on earth analogues there does indicate there are scientists who believe earth-like planets should be readily available to us, but it seems like we don't have data on them right now. The use of earth as a hub planet could simply be justified by its relative desirability as a world where life evolved naturally and complex ecosystems exist. The author could hold forth that while there are many colonies, possibly even partially terraformed, from which resources are being extracted, earth is still a far more habitable and comfortable environment for humans to live. Thus, elites in control of the an earth-based empire could be centered on earth because of their preference for it to most or all other planets.

I know there are further criticisms of this, for instance, the possibility that pollution could have made Earth less rather than more desirable.

There is nothing in the second book's outline that explains to me how an apparently brilliant commander managed to delude himself into being loyal to a corrupt government that is obviously not benevolent. Also, I think that the issue I raised earlier about the concentration of the politburo on one planet is still an issue - if only a single, or a few, members of the politburo are visiting the planet, how would landing on the planet and capturing them work as a strategy for complete victory over the PR? I know that letting fellow members of your ruling cadre wouldn't set a great precedent, but it seems unlikely that these apparently slimy individuals would be so loyal to each other that they'd risk substantial strategic concessions to save one of their own number. Further, since Anderson is apparently the one who makes the exchange at the time, it might make even less sense, since it seems like such a decision shows remarkable loyalty to the politburo as individuals.

[blah the Prussian]

Phoenix, I'm not sure it's quite as clear-cut as you're making it out. I admit I'm not really educated on the subject, so I've resorted to wikipedia. The page on earth analogues there does indicate there are scientists who believe earth-like planets should be readily available to us, but it seems like we don't have data on them right now. The use of earth as a hub planet could simply be justified by its relative desirability as a world where life evolved naturally and complex ecosystems exist. The author could hold forth that while there are many colonies, possibly even partially terraformed, from which resources are being extracted, earth is still a far more habitable and comfortable environment for humans to live. Thus, elites in control of the an earth-based empire could be centered on earth because of their preference for it to most or all other planets.

I know there are further criticisms of this, for instance, the possibility that pollution could have made Earth less rather than more desirable.

There is nothing in the second book's outline that explains to me how an apparently brilliant commander managed to delude himself into being loyal to a corrupt government that is obviously not benevolent. Also, I think that the issue I raised earlier about the concentration of the politburo on one planet is still an issue - if only a single, or a few, members of the politburo are visiting the planet, how would landing on the planet and capturing them work as a strategy for complete victory over the PR? I know that letting fellow members of your ruling cadre wouldn't set a great precedent, but it seems unlikely that these apparently slimy individuals would be so loyal to each other that they'd risk substantial strategic concessions to save one of their own number. Further, since Anderson is apparently the one who makes the exchange at the time, it might make even less sense, since it seems like such a decision shows remarkable loyalty to the politburo as individuals.

What I was trying to convey was that after Anderson retired, he watched the country he created fall into tyranny, and so he went into denial. He wants to believe that the Peoples Republic is a utopia because he doesn't want to admit to himself that his country is a hellhole and he could have prevented it. In case it wasn't obvious, he is my attempt to deconstruct the Camus archetype; it always bothered me how there is the tendency to act like people who were fighting for evil out of loyalty rather than genuine belief are somewhat admirable; if anything they are worse than the true believers because they know what they are doing is wrong. As such, Anderson is a man whose character arc is essentially owning up to his mistakes. Regarding the Politburo, I should probably change the plan to just be that capturing a member would strike a great blow. Anderson makes the exchange because the rest of the Politburo order him to do so. He isn't loyal to them as individuals, but he is loyal to the state, and since they are the leaders of the state, he obeys them.

[Phoenix Wright]

Phoenix, I'm not sure it's quite as clear-cut as you're making it out. I admit I'm not really educated on the subject, so I've resorted to wikipedia. The page on earth analogues there does indicate there are scientists who believe earth-like planets should be readily available to us, but it seems like we don't have data on them right now. The use of earth as a hub planet could simply be justified by its relative desirability as a world where life evolved naturally and complex ecosystems exist. The author could hold forth that while there are many colonies, possibly even partially terraformed, from which resources are being extracted, earth is still a far more habitable and comfortable environment for humans to live. Thus, elites in control of the an earth-based empire could be centered on earth because of their preference for it to most or all other planets.

@bold: that's fair, and a good idea. at least imo.

i think what i'm seeing is a failure in grasping just how vast these distances are, and how little earth physically matters in the big scheme. if one considers, for a moment, that earth is the only harbor of life in the entire galaxy, that still doesn't mean anything in an economic, political, or social sense. there are 1e17 miles distance between the edges of the galaxy. the earth is a mere 4,000 miles in radius. the earth has a negligible amount of resources compared with that of the galaxy. in the year 4000 we've colonized everything that can be colonized, earth simply doesn't matter. at all. (if black holes are being used to travel nearly instantaneously somehow, then people are definitely living on those other earth-like planets.)

No, its fine, the whole point of this thread is for people to tear into the outline for the story. I'd prefer more criticism of the basic plot, though.

i think my biggest issue with the plot is that it takes place in the year 4000 when it should take place in 1550. your story, as a whole, does not make sense because pretty much nothing in the premise makes sense. i like political commentaries as much as the next guy, but an argument for a constitutional monarchy in a book that takes place 3000 years or so after the last extremely powerful monarchy existed isn't going to get the point across.

really think over your setting.

[blah the Prussian]

@bold: that's fair, and a good idea. at least imo.

i think what i'm seeing is a failure in grasping just how vast these distances are, and how little earth physically matters in the big scheme. if one considers, for a moment, that earth is the only harbor of life in the entire galaxy, that still doesn't mean anything in an economic, political, or social sense. there are 1e17 miles distance between the edges of the galaxy. the earth is a mere 4,000 miles in radius. the earth has a negligible amount of resources compared with that of the galaxy. in the year 4000 we've colonized everything that can be colonized, earth simply doesn't matter. at all. (if black holes are being used to travel nearly instantaneously somehow, then people are definitely living on those other earth-like planets.)

i think my biggest issue with the plot is that it takes place in the year 4000 when it should take place in 1550. your story, as a whole, does not make sense because pretty much nothing in the premise makes sense. i like political commentaries as much as the next guy, but an argument for a constitutional monarchy in a book that takes place 3000 years or so after the last extremely powerful monarchy existed isn't going to get the point across.

really think over your setting.

There are plenty of works of fiction in space where powerful monarchies exist and are depicted in a positive light; Legend of the Galactic Heroes and Honor Harrington come to mind.

[ClevelandSteve]

In my own Sci-Fi series, the issue of why Earth is so important has to do with space colonization not being as far along as it is in your story. Only three Earth-like planets have been discovered by my story's timeframe, and they've all got populations of ten million or so colonists at most (and these colonists inhabit colonies owned by over twenty different nations). There are also domed cities on places like the Moon and Mars, but obviously colonization of places like that would be limited by how hostile the non-domed areas are to human life. By far, the vast majority of humanity still lives on Earth. Hence why Earth is still considered very important to humans. Also, like your story, there are no aliens (intelligent lifeforms, at least. The only alien life I've included so far amount to plants and algae that are responsible for Earth-like planets having Earth-like atmospheres).

And, since people have been asking "why not just set this in the past?", one way you can justify setting your story in the future is to showcase diversity and tolerance that would not exist in a historical setting. For example, one of my major characters, the captain of a space pirate ship, is a black woman with two lesbian mothers. Therefore, setting my story in the seventeenth-century age of piracy and exploration wouldn't make much sense from a historical accuracy standpoint.

[blah the Prussian]

Alright, here it is, the final part. Note to any budding directors: I will not allow you to split it into two parts.

So it starts with the remaining members of the Politburo signing the unconditional surrender of the People's Republic to the Empire (if someone could help me come up with nation named I'd be grateful). Sophia orders the Imperial fleet to fan out and occupy the remnants of the former People's Republic. Meanwhile, Arthur is restored to the throne as king. However, with the majority of policing, occupying and administration being handled, at least for the moment, by the Empire, there is a question as to how independent the new Kingdom really is.

One person eager to exploit this is Anderson, who has declared a remote star system to be the Second People's Republic. He is under command of the remnants of the Communist fleet, who lost a good deal of troops after the fall of the Politburo. However, with the chaotic nature of the fall of the People's Republic, it has been easy for Anderson to set up broadcasters, where he makes daily speeches denouncing Arthur as an Imperial puppet (which he kind of is). This has lead not more and more people flocking to his cause. Anderson resolves to march on the new Royal capitol when he has enough numbers.

Meanwhile, the members of the Politburo, as well as most of their henchmen, are found guilty of the usual (treason, crimes against humanity, etc.) and executed publicly. However, the execution becomes the site of a major protest, the protesters demanding an end to Imperial occupation. This worries Arthur greatly. He is then told that across the entire kingdom his people area protesting against the occupation. Arthur retreats into his palace.

Inside his palace, he confers with his chief advisor, Count Verginus, about what to do. (note: Verginnus will make appearances in previous installments). Bergnnus suggests that Arthur show his people that he is not a puppet by not acting like one. Arthur should take the side of the protesters, he argues, to win clout with his people and to get more power. Arthur reluctantly agrees.

Going out onto his balcony, Arthur launches into a fiery speech where he declares that the Imperial occupation forces need to withdraw. This is met by massive approval by the crowds, and the riots grow violent. Eventually, the Imperial fleet is forced to withdraw from most of the Kingdom. The people cheer Arthur and his triumph.

Meanwhile, in the Empire, Sophia is furious at this betrayal. She was the one who restored Arthur to his throne in the first place! Without her, he would be nothing more than a washed up, exotic playboy with no life. Xia Jun and his nationalists, meanwhile, have used this to gain support for their program and sweep Parliament, with Jun becoming Chancellor. He is giving speeches demanding that the Empire respond to this provocation, and fully annex the Kingdom. While Sophia is angry, she still is Arthur's friend, and she wants to come to an understanding with the King. She thus convinces Parliament to approve of her and Arthur meeting to negotiate a settlement that will hopefully please both parties.

Arthus and Sophia meet, ironically enough, on Auzosera, where this began. Arthur begins by demanding full independence, without any conditions. Sophia can sympathize with Arthur, but she knows her people would never accept bleeding for so much with essentially nothing to show for it. She suggests an economic union between the two countries, but what she suggests obviously favors the Empire. Eventually, negotiations break down, and Sophia returns to the Empire. She asks Parliament to declare war, which they readily agree to.

Arthur knows that the Imperials greatly outnumber the Royal fleet, and that he is not exactly the best of tacticians; Sophia was trained by her father, a military genius, and he wasn't. Thus, he contacts Anderson, saying that they are both fighting for the freedom of the nation, and that they can fight for control of the nation after they have won. Anderson, after some consideration, agrees, but plans to betray Arthur when it makes sense to do so. The two fleets combine and prepare to defend. Arthur and Anderson agree that there is no hope of taking the fight to the Empire, so their best option is to remain on the defensive.

Their combined fleet gathers next to a nebula, and when the Imperial Fleet appears, they retreat into it. Sophia knows that they are obviously planning something, but decides to use this situation to her advantage. Taking advantage of the mutual distrust between the allies, Sophia orders her fleet to encircle the nebula and move in from there. Anderson, for the first time in his life, has been duped (Note: If anyone has a better plan for Sophia I would be glad to hear it). He does, however, recognize that to encircle them the Imperial fleet has spread itself thin, and orders the fleet to split into two spearheads; his soon George will lead one, while he will lead the other. He hopes to split the Imperial fleet in two.

Arthur, meanwhile, is panicking, and orders his ship to flee at the earliest opportunity. While it is fleeing, however, it comes upon Sophia's flagship, and Arthur recognizes that if he kills Sophia the enemy will be thrown into disarray, and Anderson can win. He orders his ship to engage Sophia's flagship, and the two clash. As the two maneuver, neither can really get an advantage. However, Arthur rams his own ship into that of Sophia, and it breaks both of their shields. Due to the way Arthur planned the attack, he will get the chance to bring his armaments to bear first, destroying Sophia's ship. Sophia knows this, and can think of one final gambit. Contacting Arthur's ship, she pleads with him not to kill her. Arthur, on an implies more than anything else, orders his gunners to stop. The window of opportunity passes, and Sophia looks at Arthur, says "Sorry", and orders her guns to open fire. Arthur's ship goes up in flames.

Meanwhile, Anderson has not been fairing well against the Imperial fleet, and realizes that he has lost. He decides not to send any more of his men to die, and orders his fleet to surrender. He then retires to his chambers and shoots himself. When George hears this, he orders his ship to charge the enemy, but it is quickly annihilated. The war is over.
Sophia signs the annexation of the kingdom into the empire, and announces the formation of the Pan-Galactic Empire. After a few decades, the new territories are fully integrated. Sophia, in her mid forties now, is seen tutoring her daughter, the Crown Princess, in history. Her daughter asks if Arthur was a bad person for betraying her. Sophia thinks for a minute, and tells her daughter that if she ever finds herself in Arthur's position, she should do exactly what he did, with one difference: Don't lose.

So okay, thats a wrap. Obviously then ending could use a lot of work, so what suggestions do you have for that. Also, how did I handle Arthur and Sophia becoming enemies?

[Bman]

I really like your story, especially because you've chosen an interesting and unconventional ending compared to most other media. How would you imagine the overall look of your setting? How do the ships and the military look, and what weapons do they use(do the soldiers of the empire soldiers wear Pickelhauben, because it is the best helmet in history)? Since you seem so interested in the 19th/20th century, I imagined your characters wearing unifroms and cothing from that era, just with a sci-fi look.