Would this work, andwould you read it?

[Nick B]

I have begun a second baby project for times when my main work is to heavy and I need something lighter and very different to play with. This idea has been rattling around in my head for a few months now and yesterday I started to put pen to paper (or finger to keys rather), so I wrote a quick 'back cover teaser' and sent it to a friend to see what he thought. He liked it and threw some ideas back at me which was awesome, but I'd like a general thoughts/hates/facepalms/loves here to see if many people would actually like it (or to see if I've missed the boat entirely and someone actually wrote this novel already).

The working title is awful and I hate it - World War X (this most certainly won't be the title of the novel if it sees light of day), so here goes...


[FONT=&quot]World War X[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]What if the First World War never ended? The year is 1982, the Great War has raged for sixty eight years, dragging every nation and every corner of the world into the hellish conflict. Technology has flourished in unforeseen directions - led by necessity and brutality, and the race to create super weapons is heading towards the atom bomb. Factions rise and fall; alliances are created and broken in an unending slaughter of epic proportions.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is the story of British special forces Lt Jack Jones and his small team, assigned the task of destroying a German advanced weapons research facility somewhere in the Balkans.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]With the mission to find, infiltrate and destroy the base, Jones and his team are pushed beyond human endurance in a desperate attempt to avert the greatest massacre the world has ever known.[/FONT]


Basically the whole world is at war, though of course there are places that arn't blown to hell, just swathes of the continents that are perpetual battlefields, plus raids, bombings etc going on all over the place. Technology will be sort of locked into world war 1 style stuff, but more advanced, bordering into steampunk for the richer nations but with dwindling resources on all sides it is a real mish-mash of weaponry and technology. Battleships will still be the ultimate arbiter of power while aeroplanes are stuck with prop based engines. There will be zeppelins, vickers machine guns and service revolvers aplenty and possibly steam and clockwork powered equipment, heavy artilliary and vehicles.

Could this work? Would you read it? My research has begun!

 

[Nick B]

Oh, and I'm currently just 800 words into the tale as of tonight...

 

[AnyaKimlin]

My concern would be why hasn't the war gone completely nuclear? Are there now women involved? Is there a severe shortage of men? etc

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I'm with Anya, it needs expanded on. The tech for me is a big barrier, why development hasn't happened. Also, the social consequences - how is such a long, worldwide waf sustainable? How are crops being grown?

I think it could work but there's a fair bit of worldbuilding to consider.

 

[Nick B]

Like i said, its a baby right now and im researching the war etc. Basically advancement would have been put to a slow state as resources are restricted and research sabotaged by either side. The atom bomb is on the verge of being built.
It is a semi-fantastical setting, aiming into steampunk territory but later than the usual victorian era. Progress basicaly goes non linear, producing unusual science. The idea is that huge battlefields and no-mans land cover alot of places but there are plenty of places still ok ( im thinking britain is protected by its huge naval force blockading most attempts at attack, other places similarly protected) but recources such as oil are severely short. The story will be focused on Europe, which will be the primary battleground.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

My only concern is usually nothing advances technology faster than war. I've been watching MASH and seeing the developments during the first four series.

 

[Nick B]

Thats true, but this is fantasy, alternate human history that has to mirror some reality to a degree, but ultimately fantasy. The 'why' and 'how' shouldnt get in the way of a good story surely? I'm just kidding, i know some people need some reality in their fiction, but that can come, reasons can be built into the world.
What i'm interested in is, does the setting provoke interest, or does it sound uninteresting or has it been done already?

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Provided you can make a good reason why not and convince us, there is no problem. That might need to form part of your planning - why not? - and it might be quite central to the story?

 

[Nick B]

It will undoubtedly be important to the story as the main premise is actualy thwarting the development and use of the first nuclear weapon. Also, it may not sound it right now, i intend fairly light entertaining reading, with some humour as i want something very different and away from the serious sci-fi that our main work is.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

Actually I am the first to say accuracy be damned. But in this case I'd need to understand why things didn't follow the normal human pattern. It wouldn't just be something confined to this reality.

There are still places in town where there are iron railings missing because they used them for ammunition. During war innovation and finding better ways to kill the other side take priority over humanity.

However like Springs says, if you can make it work, you have a good story and decent plot then I'd read it.

 

[ZombieWife]

I heart M*A*S*H so much.

Anyway . . .

I like the overall premise. If you can work out some of the questions brought up by other posters, I think it would be a good read.

Has it been straight-up war for this long? Or on and off and cat-and-mouse? Is it all overt battle or maybe things have moved to more subtle tactics?

Since this is a "what if" historical scenario, do we have to include nuclear options? Perhaps someone killed Einstein and any other scientist who could possibly have created such a thing.

I think the seed itself has potential, yes. Play with it!

 

[tinkerdan]

I think you would have a devastated world with very little freedom[out of the necessity of war] and there is a strong possibility that there would be an unknown faction that would come out of that that would try to distance itself for peace[those disaffected by the long and horrible conflict.] that would bleed off the scientific minds to create their own well defensed existence and possibly even create the A bomb; which they've for years had to deal with as a moral issue which constantly comes for vote; until they are forced to use it on both sides to try to end the conflict and maintain their own existence.

In the end the peace keepers will become the major aggressor that will be hated by both sides. But they will be powerful by then because they have reached the moon and are using that as a place from which to rain down terror on the warmongers.

 

[AlexanderSen]

I wouldn't worry too much about explaining why there is no atomic bomb, it's more how you market your book. First of all it's a alternative world where WWI never ended so we already know there is a element of fantasy/what if in there. You could completely eliminate the bomb if you wanted to explaining that the events that occurred to develop the atomic bomb never happen. It is more just how you write the piece and create your world. I would pitch it as a alternative history piece.

The main thing that concerns me is the long 60 year war. With WWI technologies the destructive capacities would definately put a dent in the human capital and resources of a nation. The Germans by the end of WWII were starting to use child soldiers, cardboard instead of metal, and other cost saving measures to keep the war going. It would have to be a stall in the fighting such as prolonged trench warfare and a long cease fire truce to keep the war going, like the Korean War, which by the way is supposedly still going on - they are just at a cease fire. Also try studying the 100 years war between England and France.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

The lack of technological progress I can understand. If the war is too long and too costly then it will be stalled as R and D resources have to be expended elsewhere. I'm more concerned about what sort of state the world would be in after sixty eight years of war. Especially the first true mechanised war.

I would expect mass destruction to have rained in many parts of the world. Don't forget they had weapons like mustard gas, and even the longest trench battles would have come to an end with one side or the other winning. After that long fighting, I would expect the "rules" of warfare to have been forgotten, and mass slaughter to have almost become the norm. I mean once one side starts down that road doesn't the other inevitably follow it?

Able bodied men would be at a premium. So yeah, think child soldiers. Think woman with weapons. And think very few cobblers and printers and one hell of a lot of soldiers. Everything would be going into the war effort.

This would be a very bad world to be born into.

Also why 1982? Why sixty eight years? Why not the present day and a hundred year war - which would be apt since it's now the hundredth year since the start of WW1 and everyone seems to be celebrating it? I mean if technology hasn't really progressed what's the difference between 1982 and 2014? Just asking.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[ZombieWife]

Just the thought of the Battle of the Somme raging for many more years makes me shiver!

 

[Kerrybuchanan]

I think the idea is exciting and there's loads of scope for reasons behind technology development stalling, including the ones suggested above by Tinkerdan et al. Maybe espionage will be so effective on both sides that novel ideas are scrapped because there's no point in spending millions they don't have when the enemy has them too? Or maybe not!

I definitely think you need to address all the issues well enough to convince us, but if you can succeed it will be an incredible story. I hope you write it.

 

[HareBrain]

For me, I think you'd need to address what's happened with America. If technology is stuck largely at the WWI level for the European powers due to dwindling resources, then the US would never be under serious threat itself, and its resources and manpower would enable it to industrialise and develop advanced tech largely alone, surely?

 

[Cat's Cradle]

Very interesting concept, Quellist! My one thought is that this is the type of work that would, of course, require a lot of historical referencing throughout to even attempt to satisfy one of your core audiences...the alternate history folks. So, there would have been no Versailles, right, if the first war never ended (or a lesser Versailles maybe causing a lull in fighting)?; probably no Great Depression (at least due to the original circumstances that brought it about). What happened to Hitler without Versailles? Did Stalin still come to power in the USSR (with all the implications for a no-holds-barred, fight-to-the-end sort of war that brings)? (Is there a USSR?)

Roosevelt very possibly wouldn't have been elected (or at least he wouldn't have had 4 terms in office to shepherd the US through the depression, the war build-up, and the war itself), so you might have a Fortress America mentality amongst the isolationists in the US who likely would be in power (oh, the money to be made off of a world war when you are a neutral; perhaps this could explain advances in technolocy...if the US isn't pulled into the war for an extra 15 years or so, maybe we became the arsenal of Democracy, and continued warfare!); so where is Roosevelt, and what of Churchill--would his era of power be the 1920s, instead of the 1940s? Would there be an info-dump prologue to explain all of this? Or could you sprinkle enough of history throughout the story to answer enough of the more important questions... I think the What-Ifers could need a lot of legitimate-sounding explanations, if your more personal story of Lt. Jack Jones is to have weight for them (us). I know you must have thought of all this, but I would say if you can do a fair bit of believable world building, this could be a wonderful story. Okay, I went on too long! Keep us up to date on the story, and best of luck!

ps--I'm not sure if you are targeting the alternate history crowd, but I think this is an audience who would be naturally drawn to such a work, and might be the one audience who is most picky about the historical details of the book.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I think either alternate history or a pure fantasy approach. But, in terms of market, alternate would be the stronger of the two.

Harebrain brings up a good point about America and other parts of the world that are a little more isolated from Europe. Australia, for instance - why would they stay involved past a certain point?

It's a really intriguing idea - I suspect the ramifications would give me a headache for weeks!

 

[Nick B]

I have struggled with some of the above thoughts and to be honest am more inclined to stay up close with the action, only bringing as much history in as i actualy need to make things solid. The aim is actualy a more fantastical steampunk(ish) story. It may even be easier to write a brief timeline for the time period history to refer to, in which case the best option would be to use almost entirely fictional leaders, political shifts and technological advances.
I think as mentioned by kerry, much of the advances may be disrupted by espionage ( which jones will in fact be doing, thwarting the first atomic bomb). Also the idea of a neutral fortressed and technologicaly advanced america is interesting, leaving the rest of the world struggling. What i am envisioning is blocks of countries allied together with huge battlefronts where manpower and resources will be at a premium, while industry will be geared to producing arms and ammunition in a constant stream.

I think it will be far more geared to the low fantasy, steampunk and retro styled sf readership, idealy fairly light reading.