World-Building
Jun. 12th, 2008 08:27 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chris_gerribWord Count for Space Rescue
Complete (62,594) Goal (80,000)
100% complete
Since Last Post = 385 words
Things accomplished in fiction: Just finished Chapter 4.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
jeff_duntemann asked me to “Describe more of your processes as a writer: How you conceptualize a plot, how you scope out chapters, how you design background elements (technologies etc.) how you research, and so on.” This seemed like a good idea, so I’ll take a stab at some of these processes.
To me, plot is the most important part of the process, and I can’t start writing the story until I have a basic one in place. Unfortunately, you can’t write a plot without building a world. So let’s talk world-building.
There are two standard tropes in science fiction, especially near-future SF, which I’ve always questioned. The first trope is what I’ll call the “Space Patrol” idea. Basically, some multinational organization is founded to regulate space exploitation. This of course leads to the establishment of a Space Patrol, populated by a collection of cleft-chinned Dudley Do-Rights straight out of a Hitler Youth recruiting poster.
The second trope is the “Space as 19th Century” idea. This assumes nations or groups of nations are busily grabbing colonies, which they are then defending and/or stealing from other nations by force. Neither trope really works for me. (You probably already figured that out by now.)
The problem with the Space Patrol trope is that it requires a lot of international cooperation. It’s also expensive, and a real hard sell to the constituent governments. The second idea, that of armed forces grabbing up colonies, is more viable, but in the short term doesn’t make a lot of sense. Conflicts arise over scarce resources, and I’m not seeing that. Here’s why.
The current governing principle of space exploration is the Outer Space Treaty signed in 1966. Basically, it prohibits nations from claiming territory in space or blocking other nations’ access to space. But there are several gapping loopholes.
1) Each State, to use the treaty’s term, can decide what activities it will undertake, or allow private individuals to undertake on its behalf.
2) Several key terms are not defined. For example, any nation can establish a “scientific and research” base on a planet. But what a “scientific and research” base IS isn’t defined.
If you assume reasonably cheap private spaceflight, something a whole herd of "alt.space" companies are working on, then what exactly prohibits Liberia, for example, from granting a license to a private company to set up a base on Mars? Also, this grant is by definition non-exclusive. So, Panama could set up a colony right next door if it wanted to. Granted, under international law, these countries are liable for anything that the private base does, but how does one sue a country? Answer: file a suit in that country’s court. Anybody see a problem here? (By the way, a similar concept is followed in merchant shipping, called Flags of Convenience)
So, under international law, no Space Patrol is needed. Each country does for itself. There’s also not much incentive for colonial wars, at least between countries. The future Cecil Rhodes (who by the way expressed a desire to colonize the planets) will license his or her colonies under whichever country offers the best deal. Although presumably this Rhodes-to-be would be interested in protecting their colonies, a small self-defense force would be sufficient. In short, I’m not seeing a big reason for countries to fight over planetary colonies. This leads to small Space Forces, focused on near-Earth operations.
Thus my vision of what Mars could look like, circa 2074, which is hundreds or thousands of tiny private settlements registered by hundreds of different countries. The settlers of these colonies wouldn’t necessarily be from the flag country. Instead, they’d be the same sort of folks who settled America circa 1700 – people who got kicked out of their old country for one reason or another.
To start tying this to plot, a key element of plot is conflict. Well, this situation is ripe for conflict. Much like the old Wild West, government and the law is thin on the ground, and almost by definition, the locals aren’t the sort of people who Play Nice With Others.
Complete (62,594) Goal (80,000)
100% completeSince Last Post = 385 words
Things accomplished in fiction: Just finished Chapter 4.
jeff_duntemann asked me to “Describe more of your processes as a writer: How you conceptualize a plot, how you scope out chapters, how you design background elements (technologies etc.) how you research, and so on.” This seemed like a good idea, so I’ll take a stab at some of these processes.To me, plot is the most important part of the process, and I can’t start writing the story until I have a basic one in place. Unfortunately, you can’t write a plot without building a world. So let’s talk world-building.
There are two standard tropes in science fiction, especially near-future SF, which I’ve always questioned. The first trope is what I’ll call the “Space Patrol” idea. Basically, some multinational organization is founded to regulate space exploitation. This of course leads to the establishment of a Space Patrol, populated by a collection of cleft-chinned Dudley Do-Rights straight out of a Hitler Youth recruiting poster.
The second trope is the “Space as 19th Century” idea. This assumes nations or groups of nations are busily grabbing colonies, which they are then defending and/or stealing from other nations by force. Neither trope really works for me. (You probably already figured that out by now.)
The problem with the Space Patrol trope is that it requires a lot of international cooperation. It’s also expensive, and a real hard sell to the constituent governments. The second idea, that of armed forces grabbing up colonies, is more viable, but in the short term doesn’t make a lot of sense. Conflicts arise over scarce resources, and I’m not seeing that. Here’s why.
The current governing principle of space exploration is the Outer Space Treaty signed in 1966. Basically, it prohibits nations from claiming territory in space or blocking other nations’ access to space. But there are several gapping loopholes.
1) Each State, to use the treaty’s term, can decide what activities it will undertake, or allow private individuals to undertake on its behalf.
2) Several key terms are not defined. For example, any nation can establish a “scientific and research” base on a planet. But what a “scientific and research” base IS isn’t defined.
If you assume reasonably cheap private spaceflight, something a whole herd of "alt.space" companies are working on, then what exactly prohibits Liberia, for example, from granting a license to a private company to set up a base on Mars? Also, this grant is by definition non-exclusive. So, Panama could set up a colony right next door if it wanted to. Granted, under international law, these countries are liable for anything that the private base does, but how does one sue a country? Answer: file a suit in that country’s court. Anybody see a problem here? (By the way, a similar concept is followed in merchant shipping, called Flags of Convenience)
So, under international law, no Space Patrol is needed. Each country does for itself. There’s also not much incentive for colonial wars, at least between countries. The future Cecil Rhodes (who by the way expressed a desire to colonize the planets) will license his or her colonies under whichever country offers the best deal. Although presumably this Rhodes-to-be would be interested in protecting their colonies, a small self-defense force would be sufficient. In short, I’m not seeing a big reason for countries to fight over planetary colonies. This leads to small Space Forces, focused on near-Earth operations.
Thus my vision of what Mars could look like, circa 2074, which is hundreds or thousands of tiny private settlements registered by hundreds of different countries. The settlers of these colonies wouldn’t necessarily be from the flag country. Instead, they’d be the same sort of folks who settled America circa 1700 – people who got kicked out of their old country for one reason or another.
To start tying this to plot, a key element of plot is conflict. Well, this situation is ripe for conflict. Much like the old Wild West, government and the law is thin on the ground, and almost by definition, the locals aren’t the sort of people who Play Nice With Others.
