Good Military Science Fiction.

[Connor MacLeod]

I dunno, Connor, I might still recommend Miles Vorkosigan. True, Miles has insane luck, but none of it would mean a thing without insane daring to back it up. Like hijacking a mercenary ship, claiming to be mercenaries and recruiting all the mercenaries just defeated. His parents have a lot less in luck and sheer, dare-the-universe-to-hurt-me audacity, and their books like Cordelia's Ransom and Barrayar are still quite good.

Except that the Vorkosigan series is only partly 'military' sci fi, and far more of it tends to focus on non military, non technological solutions (and as much on diplomacy and human interaction) as well as Miles generally bullshitting his way trhough with wits and luck and charm. Luck plays a HUGE role where Miles is concerned, and that kind of breaks it requirements-wise.

Ender's Game? Parts of it get a bit weird, but the training at Battle School is good, having a decisive weapon they use it early and often, and there'll be a movie in a year.

I could only ever stomach the first novel, and I've never been able to enjoy any subsequent ones because I'm not quite sure what Orson Scott Card actually intends as a vision for the series.

Best David Weber, before he became fixated on detail, was Mutineer's Moon and sequel, the Armageddon Inheritance. Both are available free online. Might also recommend the Apocalypse Troll.

Early Honorverse books, the path of the fury stuff is good. The Dahak novels are good if you want something in the vein of starfire (which is basically all tech development and ships blowing other ships up.)

Large parts are stupid but if you want cool military hardware with GIGATONS!!! of firepower and brave men firing them into the horde, try the Posleen War series by John Ringo: A Hymn Before Battle, Gust Front, Eye of the Storm and Hell's Faire. Just expect the literary equivalent of a Saturday morning cartoon, lots of cool flashy ideas that fall apart if you think too hard about them.

The problem is they don't even sustain the 'morning cartoon' effect becuase it generally becomes about the latest technology tidbits that earth/posleen have introduced, how only Mighty Mike is the bulwark between humanity's total obliteration and how everyone else not Mike (or his gRandpa, who I loathe with a passion because of that 'independent militia gun nut with a self sufficient farm' stereotype does far better with Home Alone tactics than most of the rest of the world's militaries.), the women shaped starships with tits and a vagina for a docking bay (I wish I was kidding about that, ugh..), and Ringo's general incapability ot maintain consistency even on the technical side of things nevermind story (one minute nukes are literally useless against the Posleen, then they are.) Hymn Before battle had some promise, but the series quickly loses momentum after that and just stagnates and hasn't recovered since (and in some cases has gotten enen MORE offensive.) Maybe if he'd gone the route of 'deliberate satire' it would have been tolerable but there's that vein of 'serious' to all the writing that simply puts it into more of the 'right wing wish fufillment' category.

[StarSword]

I recommend the Confederation of Valor series by Tanya Huff. Protagonist is a senior NCO in a tri-species military, fighting a war against aliens with unknown motives. Spoiler

War actually started by sufficiently advanced aliens as a sociology experiment.

Good action, frequently hilarious, a little romance.

I'm also reading the Ciaphas Cain novels right now and enjoying them immensely.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

Right after recommending the Posleen novels is probably not the best time to try to draw such a long bow, buddy.

Is the fact that all the books (even though he asked for any media) in this thread are familiar to me? Are people really just recommending the same stuff over and over?

You're familiar with the Age of Ra/Zeus/Odin/Aztec series? You poor man!

Seriously, those are some of the funniest books I've read, in the way that Ringo is funny. You can guess all the author's hobbies in the first three chapters.

I know everyone here holds him in contempt, but I really enjoy Harry Turtledove's World War series.

Also, Retief is like MilSF, with politics instead of Mil.

[Stark]

Hey, I'm not stupid enough to read it. But its a bit sad when any 'recommend me xyz science fiction' thread just gets very similar responses. I imagine people are comfortable recommending 'acceptable' stuff (like Hammers Slammers, Fucking Turtledove Jesus Christ, etc) and not anything potentially risky or disputable.

Maybe people see the niche as being so shallow because they've defined it that way.

[Havok]

Stark you need to write a tongue in cheek sci-fi book using all your powers.

[Stark]

I'm pretty confident the adventures of Badman Actual and Admiral Freelancer already exist in numerous books.

[Havok]

Badman Actual.... I am going to steal that for my own fanfiction of my own drawings.

[Connor MacLeod]

I could think of alot of 'military' sci fi like I said, but not that many that actually fits the requirements given above, and even then I'm not sure on some details. This isn't something you can deal with absolutes, alot of it si relative because it deals with personal percepton. What I view as 'realistic' or what is a 'good' character is not something I can expect other people to agree with. Likewise, ym definition of military has been broadening in recent times: I would consider a story to be 'military' if it deals with things stemming from, for example, a conflict but may not actually involve people actually shooting at each other (or at least, not engaged in actual, direct, war we see.) Maybe it involves the effect of a war on a local settlement, or people back home behind the lines having to deal with things. Or maybe it deals with the soldiers and the impact prolonged conflicts have on them (Joe Haldeman's novels are a good example of that, but there are probably lots of others that would qualify.)

Of course if I just say 'watch gundam' too as my first response, doesn't that start to get repetitive?

[Stark]

The key tragedy in the life of Badman Actual is basically Rambo, except instead of breaking down because of police brutality he broke down because a hooker said he was SO BAD

BADMAN ACTUAL DO YOU READ ME

DO I HAVE TO GO BACK TO THIS HELL AGAIN NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

And of course the 'hell' isn't Vietnam, its a science fiction military where the TO&E hasn't allocated enough heavy support per infantry and neglected the doctrine of Every Rifle a Soldier - a truly insane world.

EDIT - Connor, it seems from the consistent recommendations that the idea is that it's the very dry, Squad Niner out of Fort XKCD went to Hill Zeta and fired their Roosevelt Cannons (designed by Colonel Fan-Insert during the battle of Scifi Reference) style. Its strange to me that if that's what people want, they appear to have totally missed the point of much of this fiction (much as reading Culture for the GIGATON FEATS is fundamentally missing the point).

[Connor MacLeod]

It seems liek it keeps coming back to the definitions people want to impose on things, like these issues are somehow neat and clear cut and processed into nicely ordered little niches, when it's nowhere near the case. I actually run across this fairly often with sci fi fans.. there seems to be this inherent desire for an 'absolute' view on things, which can reflect in various ways (for example, I've heard people say that 'lack of a canon policy' is actually a contributer to a universe being inconsistent, which is pretty hilarious to me on all levels.).

There seems to be (at least with the segment of sci fi fandom we're dealing with) a certain discomfort with treating things in a relative, uncertain sense. I can also see some parallels in some of the past 'hard' sci fi discussions too, IIRc.

[Vendetta]

There may be something in that. I mean one of the tricky things with themes in fiction is that they exist in the abstract, rather than being specifically delineated by the text (except when we're being meta like, say, Life of Pi). Whilst it's tempting to say that people don't get it because they're not clever enough to think around the text itself to arrive at an abstract viewpoint it may also be the case that people aren't comfortable with it because if it's not laid out in the text in concrete terms they can never be definitively right about it.

Some people might not be comfortable with that ambiguity.

[Stark]

Connor has speculated in the past that the focus on numerical analysis (and using that to determine how 'good' something is) might be attractive because its a formal process that arrives at a number. Its a laundry list of 'feats' and 'events' which can be quoted, rather than a personal understanding of subjective textual elements which can't be 'proven' by maths and expose one's personal feelings and ideas.

If there's a market that looks for these things, it may drive the creation of fiction that satisfies it.

[Connor MacLeod]

I have also grown to think that some sci fi fans may simply be uncomfortable with uncertainty or a 'relative' approach to things. Absolutes (like numbers) can be much more structured and consistent and easy to adhere to without having to resort to intangibles, and its much easier to argue without getting into the murkier waters of abstract things like theme and concept.

and if its the sort of debate where you get chastised or judged for being 'wrong' or holding the 'wrong' opinions, you're quite possibly not going to want to stick your neck out on anything remotely murky. You'd stick to nice, safe, absolutes that you can back up with something solid. I suppose that can create a osrt of mindset where you start looking at all sorts of things in that way - sort of how hwen you have a hammer, every problem becomes a nail.

I don't actually have any proof mind, but I know that in my case, structure and certainty are/were very important to me and I tend to be uncomfortable on more speculative/muddy ground, when it comes to things like themes, and there is a certain fear of being judged in that. Part of it also just comes from the way my mind works, and not exposing myself to anyhting but a 'structured' approach in the past, too. In that sense it was very much a matter of 'breaking' old habits and forming new ones, which can be difficult and even uncomfortable when you're transitioning.

Edit: Also if there are other people who do have similar issues, or are prone to such, there is always the danger of groupthink, which can only amplify the problems and make exposure to alternatives even more difficult.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

Hey, I'm not stupid enough to read it. But its a bit sad when any 'recommend me xyz science fiction' thread just gets very similar responses. I imagine people are comfortable recommending 'acceptable' stuff (like Hammers Slammers, Fucking Turtledove Jesus Christ, etc) and not anything potentially risky or disputable.

What do you mean by disputable? Retief isn't disputable? :p

Part of the problem here is that the term Military Science Fiction is a loaded one. It assumes a Military (and often right-wing) viewpoint, generally, as well as a focus on the military and its machines. If that's not what he was looking for, he could have said "Space Opera" or "Space Warfare" or something else.

These days it seems like most space-based science fiction involves a war, or uses a war as a bcakground to explore certain themes. We could recommend everything from Peter F Hamilton to Vernor Vinge to early Asimov stories, but then he would really have to slog through pages full of product descriptions to find anything that appeals to him. And that's not even getting into TV, movies and video games.

Maybe people see the niche as being so shallow because they've defined it that way.

[/quote]

MilSF, like Steampunk, Cyberpunk and other such terms, purposely describes such a narrow portion of the genre (in terms of style and ideas) to allow customers to stay in their comfort zones indefinitely. Can you imagine what would happen if someone bought a book with a space battle and an eyepatched German on the cover, and it turned out to have a liberal POV? Mass hysteria!

[Stark]

I don't think I'm competent with the cues for genre - every time I bought a book with a spaceship on the front as a kid, it turned out to be a science fiction story from the 50s or 60s (which means it had maybe a spaceship once but was actually about nerdy scientists getting babes). I mean, do science fiction books where the cover art matches the description of the ships in the text exist outside licenced properties?

Since I haven't actually read much of this stuff, when you say 'often right wing', do you mean the stories push a right-wing, military-glorifying, fund-more-jet-fighters agenda, or that the events and plot themselves appeal to right wing people? The stuff in this sub-sub-genre I've read didn't seem outright political, but they certainly did reinforce 'right wing' ideas like TOUGH MEN SHOOT FIRST and THE GOVT CUT THE BUDGET SO SPACE CRUISER CONSTITUTION WAS NEVER FINISHED and USE MOAR NUKEZ.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

Usually, it's along the lines of TALK = APPEASEMENT or CIVILIANS SCREW IT ALL UP and/or OUR SOLDIERS ARE HEROES, along with what you said.

Actually, my favorite MilSF at the moment is probably the Merrimack series by Rebecca Meluch. It hits so many of those notes it's impossible for me to believe it's not a parody. The book starts with an explanation of why the US and the SPACE ROMANS are honorable enemies, while the UN are craven cowards, and it goes from there.

PS: Shipboard marines WILL use swords to kill space bugs.

[Ahriman238]

I don't think I'm competent with the cues for genre - every time I bought a book with a spaceship on the front as a kid, it turned out to be a science fiction story from the 50s or 60s (which means it had maybe a spaceship once but was actually about nerdy scientists getting babes). I mean, do science fiction books where the cover art matches the description of the ships in the text exist outside licenced properties?

Since I haven't actually read much of this stuff, when you say 'often right wing', do you mean the stories push a right-wing, military-glorifying, fund-more-jet-fighters agenda, or that the events and plot themselves appeal to right wing people? The stuff in this sub-sub-genre I've read didn't seem outright political, but they certainly did reinforce 'right wing' ideas like TOUGH MEN SHOOT FIRST and THE GOVT CUT THE BUDGET SO SPACE CRUISER CONSTITUTION WAS NEVER FINISHED and USE MOAR NUKEZ.

Try this. The villains of the Freehold books are SISSY SOCIALIST WHALE-MEN whose government is utterly inept, except for the secret police who suppress religion, politically incorrect sppech, and family values.

The villains in Honor Harrington are likewise socialists, who have to conquer the universe to pay for the 90+% of the population that's welfare queens. HH also features the government that gave away all it's power, so at least there's some balance there. Oh, can't forget the vast interstellar empire where Congress is so vast and ineffcient elected officials have exactly no power while the permanent undersecretaries decide policy. HH actually sort of stands out in that every government, even the beloved British Parlimentary system, has moments of stupidity, graft and outright evil. Which itself is sort of a conservative message.

1632 is about a modern US town sent back in time to the Thirty Years War. Try reading it or any of the sequels (except the Grantville Gazette) sometime and take a drink every time someone mentions how awesome AMERICA and FREEDOM is. Take two every time it's suggested that WV redneck coal-miners perfectly represent everything that's great about America.

I mostly see the neo-con pandering as a Baen books thing, I'm sure there are others who do it.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Try this. The villains of the Freehold books are SISSY SOCIALIST WHALE-MEN whose government is utterly inept, except for the secret police who suppress religion, politically incorrect sppech, and family values.

The villains in Honor Harrington are likewise socialists, who have to conquer the universe to pay for the 90+% of the population that's welfare queens. HH also features the government that gave away all it's power, so at least there's some balance there. Oh, can't forget the vast interstellar empire where Congress is so vast and ineffcient elected officials have exactly no power while the permanent undersecretaries decide policy. HH actually sort of stands out in that every government, even the beloved British Parlimentary system, has moments of stupidity, graft and outright evil. Which itself is sort of a conservative message.

1632 is about a modern US town sent back in time to the Thirty Years War. Try reading it or any of the sequels (except the Grantville Gazette) sometime and take a drink every time someone mentions how awesome AMERICA and FREEDOM is. Take two every time it's suggested that WV redneck coal-miners perfectly represent everything that's great about America.

I mostly see the neo-con pandering as a Baen books thing, I'm sure there are others who do it.

Well see, that's kind of the problem right there. I mean, why people try to use the term "military" instead of just saying "conservative". Because, to be perfectly fair, in the fatty sci-fi nerd community (of which I am a member) conservative view points are usually lampooned...like that. Like there is NO possible way a person may hold those beliefs or in any way identify with "redneck coal miners" or perhaps BE one, and want to read about such people.

And to be honest, by saying THAT, it's highly possible now I'm going to be "accused" of being a conservative even though I'm not. Like at all.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Ghetto edit:

For example, and maybe it's just this forum but in my experience it's not, I've seen Baen books--which have a loyal fanbase--basically described as little more than reprints of the Turner Diaries. Now, I've read a lot of Baen books, and objectively they're...just not that. But the very NOTION of a predominantly conservative viewpoint in books, or a sci-fi book which "panders" to such things, is seen as so repulsive it warrents whole threads about nothing but "OH MY GOD Becky! Look at this book! It's so...like...right wing!"

Now again, I'm not conservative, but if I WERE one I can see how maybe I'd rather just call it "military sci-fi" and not have to bother with being made fun of because, perhaps, I genuinely enjoy the 1632 series and I find the idea of "rednecks" being important characters or even the main characters and NOT portrayed as stereotypes for mockey to be...fun? Enjoyable? Relatable?

I dunno, maybe it's because I kind of soured on the "traditional" liberal belief system over the last year or three but I can see how it may be attractive to people who don't view the government as something entirely necessary or inherently good, or unironically enjoy "gun culture" and hold strong religious or conservative beliefs.

[andrewgpaul]

The thing with the 1632 series is that a pinko lefty has apparently snuck into the building and no-one else has noticed. Well, two; there's Lois McMaster Bujold too.

And you can always tell the bad guys in one of Weber's novels - the politicians. Doesn't matter what side they're on, they're baddies. The Starfire novels were the worst for that, I thought.

They're possibly stretching the definition of "military", but you could always try Iain M. Banks Use of Weapons or Ken McLeod's The Cassini Division. I don't remember anyone mentioning The Forever War; it's basically the antidote to Starship Troopers.

I'd like to see some MilSF that actually considers the changes in military culture brought on by the setting they're in. The usual suspects seem to simply transplant the author's favourite branch of the US military IN SPACE! and leave the terminology, ranks, protocol and suchlike largely untouched. Where's the MilSf from the point of view of the alien hive minds, or the disembodied brains controlling a squadron of warships? Or even something like the Eldar in 40k, where the "war persona" is something they put on and off as the situation requires it. Some of the Known Space stories kind of address this, where one character has to come off his anti-psychotic meds simply to mecome "insane" enough to plan a war.

18-Till-I-Die, can you stop fucking posting? The board software keeps telling me "At least one new post has been made to this topic. You may wish to review your post in light of this." Give over a minute.

edit: no need to "ghetto edit" here, either. You can just edit your post. Like this.

[Stark]

I'd like to see some MilSF that actually considers the changes in military culture brought on by the setting they're in.

Its interesting you mention that, because the best part of Gundam 00 was where the world (and the superpower militaries) had to adapt and attempt to deal with the out-of-context problem of super-powerful mystery terrorist robots. Even the less interesting later parts have a lot of time devoted to the idea of how this impacts the world, the militaries, ideas of duty and goals of government, etc.

And man, the idea that nerds 'aren't conservative' is interesting. I'm beginning to see that nerds are much more authoritarian in their wish fulfillment than they might like - definitions of 'conservative' can be pretty broad, but I think this has a part to play in the sort of fiction they enjoy.

[Ahriman238]

Ghetto edit:

For example, and maybe it's just this forum but in my experience it's not, I've seen Baen books--which have a loyal fanbase--basically described as little more than reprints of the Turner Diaries. Now, I've read a lot of Baen books, and objectively they're...just not that. But the very NOTION of a predominantly conservative viewpoint in books, or a sci-fi book which "panders" to such things, is seen as so repulsive it warrents whole threads about nothing but "OH MY GOD Becky! Look at this book! It's so...like...right wing!"

Now again, I'm not conservative, but if I WERE one I can see how maybe I'd rather just call it "military sci-fi" and not have to bother with being made fun of because, perhaps, I genuinely enjoy the 1632 series and I find the idea of "rednecks" being important characters or even the main characters and NOT portrayed as stereotypes for mockey to be...fun? Enjoyable? Relatable?

I dunno, maybe it's because I kind of soured on the "traditional" liberal belief system over the last year or three but I can see how it may be attractive to people who don't view the government as something entirely necessary or inherently good, or unironically enjoy "gun culture" and hold strong religious or conservative beliefs.

See, I actually enjoy much about those books, but even I have to admit all the crowned heads of Europe and Richelieu besides fearing and respecting the political skills of Mike Stearns (whose only previous experience with leadership was being a union boss) or Harry Lefferts casually besting noble swordsmen is pretty silly.

My main beef with including politics in literature is it usually detracts, a lot, from the book. Especially if the author is just going to get on his soapbox, like Williamson in Freehold or Kratman in, well, everything he ever writes. Compare with say, the Star Wars TPM prequel Cloak of Deception. That was a book mostly about mystery and political intrigue. It was interesting, engaging and never once tried to be about contemporary real-world politics. There was a lot of debate about the right of the Trade Federation to arm up to resist piracy, and the taxation of trade routes, but the book never took a position for or against taxes or gun control because these issues were just means to an end or leverage for concessions the characters, good and bad, used against each other.

Again, one thing I do like about Weber is that he shows a failed socialist state AND a failed laissez-faire government, the liberal and conservative parties are BOTH corrupt and short-sighted (while the heroes' centrist party is all shiny and good.) It at least shows he tries.

[Agent Sorchus]

Well then the statement that most Mil sci fi is conservative in politics begs the question, what would a liberal military sci fi novel look like? And in general isn't the conservative nature of the mil Scifi just similar to regular military fiction and its political slant?

[Stark]

It probably is, and for the same reasons: people read it to feel strong and safe. That's why its 'mass market', after all.

I mean its not hard to find science fiction that is (if not 'liberal' depending on your views) pretty apolitical - indeed back in the day being unsatisfied with current politics was an element in science fiction.

And really, exploring ideas of governance and rights etc is one thing; writing a book where the people the author ideologically dislikes get constantly exploded is another. I'm less concerned with politics in fiction than clumsy politics being a detriment to fiction. If you can tell an author's politics from his story about spaceships in space having space battles, he's probably trying too hard.

[Ahriman238]

It probably is, and for the same reasons: people read it to feel strong and safe. That's why its 'mass market', after all.

I mean its not hard to find science fiction that is (if not 'liberal' depending on your views) pretty apolitical - indeed back in the day being unsatisfied with current politics was an element in science fiction.

And really, exploring ideas of governance and rights etc is one thing; writing a book where the people the author ideologically dislikes get constantly exploded is another. I'm less concerned with politics in fiction than clumsy politics being a detriment to fiction. If you can tell an author's politics from his story about spaceships in space having space battles, he's probably trying too hard.

The world may just be ending. I... agree with Stark. I don't mind politics, I mind having politics rammed down my throat. Politics can make for fascinating reading/viewing. I mean, how many people like DS9, Song of Ice and Fire (Game of Thrones, for those who just watched the TV show) or Babylon 5 specifically because they had complex worlds where sympathetic characters could be divided by their ideals or loyalties?

Writers just need to stop trying to be topical and relevant unless they can actually DO topical and relevant without detracting from the story (hint, most writers can't.) Hell, there's a sci-fi movie later this year about the obscenely rich living in a space hotel to get away from crowded, polluted Mother Earth, and the efforts to curtail immigration so the hoi polloi will stay on Earth to be crapped on from above. I haven't seen a trailer but it will have to work damn hard to convince me to see it when the premise seems so obviously written as a social commentary.