(One of the reasons when I switched over to this site is that I wanted the freedom to write more personal posts to categorize my thoughts. I never felt comfortable doing that on krytyk's site. I'd forgotten to do so last year as too many events were far too personal to really discuss. But more and more items are piling up in my head these days, so this will be the first of my journal post entries.)
Five years ago, I’d probably have passed over this video. Great figures of history were interesting. So were military and political clashes. Economics? meh.
Yesterday, I anxiously watched this video with almost a sense of giddyness. I’ve already seen the topic discussed in books, but not as the central focus, and not in such an easy-to-share format. Goodness, I reflect now, my tastes really have changed.
To think when I first started writing, I mainly consumed anime and light novels. Sure, even back then I preferred my fiction deep and debatable. There’s no replacement for Legend of the Galactic Heroes and its 110 episode debate-by-example on the strengths and weaknesses of a Democracy vs Autocracy. But of course, works like that were rare. The overwhelming majority of fiction featured oversimplified facsimiles of the real world, and the more I learned about our world, the more I found such versions uninteresting. The prevailing trend in Japanese media hasn’t helped, as stories have moved increasing from professional authors to webnovel amateurs with very little scholarly or life experience.
I look at my media consumption these days. Gone are the pure fantasy and comfortable settings. Almost my entire reading catalogue has been replaced by nonfiction. To take a sample of my latest reading list:
- Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? by Graham Allison, as the Harvard professor dissects the greatest challenge of our generation: maintaining peace between two nuclear armed superpowers with clashing cultures and moral values (Confucian Collectivism vs Western Individualism), all while technology increasingly thickens the fog-of-war.
- The Tragedy of Great Power Politics by John Mearsheimer, the creator of “offensive realism” who coined a term that permanently shifted the way I look at the world: “liberal hedgemony” — the unipolarity of a post-Cold-War world that fed us the illusion that there is only one acceptable political belief.
- War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning by Chris Hedges, a decades-long war correspondent who describes war by both its addictiveness and its cruelty, how it both unites and divides us beyond all logical comprehension.
- The Forgotten Army: India’s Armed Struggle for Independence, 1942-1945 by Peter Ward Fay. Did Gandhi’s “nonviolent resistance” really work? Perhaps the credit belong to Bose, whom, in defiant defeat, achieved what Gandhi’s Quit India Movement never could: turn the British Indian Army against its colonial masters, thus making it impossible for Britain to hang onto their “crown jewel”.
Every one of these books made me question my existing beliefs and views of the world. Every one of them made me realize that all those ideals and values I’ve been taught are gross oversimplifications of reality, often to the point of being outright propaganda. Of course the ‘liberal elite’ want you to believe that ‘free trade’ is good for everyone (*cough* economic extortionism). Of course Gandhi and Nehru wants everyone to think they drove the British out of India peacefully (while downplaying Bose’s alliance with the Axis, the Red Fort Trials, and the Bombay Mutiny).
Even what fiction I consume has become more grounded in reality. I started watching the Qin Empire series during the winter holidays, based on the famous Chinese novels by Sun Haohui. The current series already run across four reigns and over 100 years, as it builds the story of how the Qin Kingdom — the poorest of the warring kingdoms in ancient China, became so overwhelmingly powerful that it eventually steamrolled the others and unified China into the first Imperial state.
There’s something to be said for Chinese media: it does not hesitate to challenge what others consider to be moral prerogatives by showing examples of how reality complicates the ideal. Nowhere else could I imagine entire episodes devoted to arguments such as Rule by Humanism vs Rule by Law (Legalism is merciless; it does not care if your crime is intentional or by accident, for exceptions become loopholes that undermine the law)… or Traditional War (abiding by ‘rules of engagement’) vs Total War (where civilians are treated as combatants and genocide becomes ‘strategy’)… or how Institutions can bring strength to a state in ways that a strong economy, military, or leadership can never manage.
“(Kingdom of) Wei’s strength lie in their armored troops and their merchantile wealth. Qi’s strength lie in their excellent leadership and righteous rule. Wu’s strength lie in their large territory and abundant populace… However, none of these strengths are lasting. A wise ruler will make these states flourish. A mediocre ruler will make these states wane. A foolish ruler will make these states collapse. Only a state with strong, binding Institutions will endure the test of time.”
– Chancellor Shang Yang, Qin State, Qin Empire I
Is it a surprise that the level of complexity I demand from my own writing also shifted with time?
My fear, however, is that my skills aren’t really up to the task. Complexity is hard. Consistent and arresting complexity, even harder. But the hardest is to not pull too much attention away from the bedrock of writing. As the Great Courses‘ audiobook on writing fiction once reminded me: all stories are driven by character. The only genre difference is… how much?
Author's CommentIf you've enjoyed this update, please take a moment to vote for Daybreak on Hyperion at TopWebFiction. Aorii isn't good at self-promotion so every bit of your support helps.
Thank you \(•ᴗ•)/
P.S. Please note that comments need to be approved (or your submitted email must have a previously approved comment) before they'll show up.
To me your stories have always incorporated politics as a prominent theme in the stories development, prominent because they were not solely vehicles with which you propelled the narrative along but because these events featured developed causes and consequences that tied closely to the narrative throughout. It is true that all stories are driven by their characters, but I think what is important for you is to simply define what level of autonomy you are comfortable giving your characters within your story.
I believe a good exercise in this is the role of a DM running a campaign in DnD (Dungeons and Dragons). The DM is very much a writer, with the responsibility of creating the world and dictating the events throughout the story but the twist is that the characters in his story are not under their control. There are ultimately two extremes as to how the DM can run the campaign; Sandbox and Railroad. In a sandbox the characters are free to pursue their own goals, the DM simply creates the world around them and simulates the appropriate responses to their actions while perhaps occasionally generating events and rewards to create an enjoyable experience. A railroaded narrative is one in which the world and events are purely dictated by the DM, often planned out in meticulous detail before hand. In this narrative the characters have their autonomy severely limited so that they are at the mercy of the worlds whims and are only at liberty to react to events as they unfold but not influence their nature.
I apologize if you are already familiar with these concepts but I believe it is worth noting that while both are narrative extremes, they both posses the potential to become engaging and enjoyable stories. It doesn’t matter if your story reads like a generic Japanese Isekai where each arc is self-contained and disconnected from one-another as the character accumulates trophies as they wonder about aimlessly, nor if your story reads like a historical record recounting the stuggles of people whose fates have long since been sealed, known to all but the characters themselves. What matters is that you are comfortable with the narrative you are telling, so long as it is a story you want to tell you will find a way to tell it.
I will not tell you that with passion you are destined to succeed, I am merely trying to say that regardless of what kind of story you write its potential to become a ‘good’ story does not change. Ultimately that goal is yours alone and as you abilities rise as do your expectations for what you can achieve, perhaps you will never reach that moving goal but be careful to not discount the progress you have made towards it since you may already have exceeded your original expectations.
I believe the evolution of your literary interests is nothing but a positive influence on your stories. The increased focus on practical and plausible politics lends increased depth and believability to your world building. In my assessment your narrative style leans more towards railroad than sandbox as while your characters act in their own interests they are regularly obstructed and opposed by the machinations of the wider world. Your stories rely heavily on overarching events to develop your characters goals and ideals, with the meat of the action being their attempts to steer these events to provide a means to their own ends and the twists often deriving from the unintended effects of their efforts.
As I said at the start, your stories have always incorporated politics as a prominent theme; they were not solely vehicles with which you propelled the narrative along, instead these events featured developed causes and consequences that tied closely to the narrative throughout. I argue that this is a great strength to your writing, engaging the reader with discussions and insight exploring technical topics through a fantastical narrative that’s detached from our world while plausible as its own. You approach politics, culture, strategy and tactics in the same stride that you tackle magic, religion, spirituality and identity. This is highly ambitious but that is precisely what makes it unique. Its understandable that this ambition may cast doubts on your ability to achieve, but understand there is no scale to measure your success.
…I apologise if this essay was a bit much but I did try to keep it to a minimum. I suppose you can simply take it as a symptom of your stories ability to engage me in discussion, albeit somewhat one sided lol. I appreciate I may have gone off on a bit of a tangent regarding DnD but just to tie up loose ends I will link below a relevant video that provides two good practical examples of a railroad and sandbox narrative from the perspective of a DM. I hope I didnt bore you too much and I look forward to the next chapter!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EkXMxiAGUWg
Just to complete the DnD analogy, unlike a DM you dont have to care how your characters feel since plently of good stories have ended without a happy ending. Both can be satisfying stories to hear told to you afterwards, whether its hearing about the grand saga of a band of heroes or the complex weave that nets an unexpected cast who simply make do. Hontestly just dont be too worried about making your narrative too complex, because while too much detail obscures the story you do quite well at providing the information and context at the right place and the right time. Perhaps one day your ambition may overreach you, but for now I think you should be more confident in your ability to weave a satisfying narrative.
You sure picked my busiest week to leave an essay xD Nevertheless, thank you for the very in-depth feedback.
Unlike a lot of people (and certainly a lot of writers), I don’t believe human agency is ever fully in control. The higher up an individual rises in society, the more their actions are defined by circumstance rather than choice. If anything, this ‘reaction’, which forces characters to choose between difficult choices — with repercussions often from outside their control — is what I’m really fascinated by in both reading and writing. I realized back in Daybreak this annoyed a lot of readers, but as you said, I have to tell the story in a way that I’m comfortable with.
A few beta-readers have told me before that wrapping big ideas like politics into the characters’ actions really is my specialty. Nevertheless I often find my plans a little too ambitious for my pacing abilities (^^’). You’re right though that I may be achieving goals in ways that even I didn’t expect. Looking back, I’ve certainly learned a lot, regardless of where I go with things.
(btw, I’m pretty familiar with GM terms as I did GM for many years; and yes my players accused me of railroad aplenty, especially in younger, less-experienced days)
Please do make sure to diversify your reading lists if you don’t already, because those books seem very typical of what I recall of you.
You probably want to check with actual IR/economics/whatever professors or students as well before attributing too much worth to any one book, because they’ll actually have an understanding of the relevant field.
Uh, two of the books I listed there *are* from IR professors (one from Harvard, one from University of Chicago) who advice the US government on a regular basis… ^^’
Of the other two authors, one is a Caltech history professor, and one is a Pulitzer-winning war correspondent. It’s not like I’m listening to random people babble xD
Sorry, I kind of fucked up with that entire paragraph. I was aware of all that, cause I did look the books up just for some extra info. The actual was not meant to put emphasis on the professor part, although obviously that’s rather important as well.
The point was supposed to be that it’s good to talk to actual people, the interactivity is very useful for learning. Books don’t tell you whether you understood them correctly and they also don’t impart you with context. Like if you’re just reading these because you’re interested and want some knowledge it’s not really necessary, but if a (high-level) book is really important to you, it’s best to also discuss them with experts (or students :P). The point is that they can provide the skills and background knowledge and other reading materials.
I suppose all this comes from a place of very heavy bias though, one that I don’t really want to get into here (it’s unrelated to the specific subject, to be clear).
Unfortunately, none of my friends are IR majors or have a career in diplomacy. I do discuss contents with a few other amateurs like myself (=P). The debates, discussion panels, and Q&A sessions usually dispel any potential misunderstanding of their writing though. Insofar as bias, I do research the political leanings of the authors I read. I prefer realists (realpolitik) because they’re less likely to uphold some ‘moral’ agenda, but I routinely reach across the spectrum to find someone whose credentials I can respect (but whose opinions I find challenging/uncomfortable) just so they can act as counterbalance.
As someone who reads a lot of psychology, trying to keep down my ‘cognitive bias’ is important to me =P
-The ‘liberal elite’ is opposed to the idea of free trade.
-The world is a complex place. Absolutely every work of fiction is an oversimplified facsimile based upon ideas the author believes or wants to push. No one truly understands how the world works and thus it is impossible to create a true reality.
-Most of these topics are macroscale theories. I don’t think you should worry about those in your fiction overly much because macro scale stuff just creates a setting. The micro scale character level actions are usually the far more interesting aspect of a fiction story.
I slightly retract my assertion about the ‘liberal elite’. It is a silly phrase used to demonize an ‘opposition’, but has no real meaning as it seems to be applied to different groups depending on who is using the term. So I guess it is being used appropriately here as people that don’t agree with you. (I, however, am used to seeing ‘free trade’ being espoused by conservatives in the US, and criticized by liberals)
The issue with that view is that when one writes characters in high leadership positions, as I like to do, they’re no longer merely ‘theories’. They became a core part of their beliefs, their motivations, and their actions. Seeing how a law or edict roll out is just as important to them as getting that next career promotion for the average person, making them not just “macro”.
I don’t use ‘liberal elite’ as a demonizing term. It’s simply an easy way to describe those on the liberal side with political power and their trends. I have no problem using ‘-elite’ with any other political faction, like or dislike =P
“The ‘liberal elite’ is opposed to the idea of free trade.” — everything I’ve been taught or read since high school (in America) disagrees with this statement ^^’