Starhawk writes:
"That hurt."
Two thoughts come to mind:
(1) Everybody's a critic. On the Netflix site I routinely see customer reviews ranging from one to five stars...for the same movie. Ditto for book reviews on Amazon.
(2) Even the best have to start somewhere. I once read a very early story by Isaac Asimov and found it rather, er, unpromising. He got a lot better.
Certainly if Starhawk's story is to become more than just fanfic, it needs considerable polishing, much revision, and a good editor. As fanfic, however, it's fine as is. And compared to the Jim Theis story mentioned in another thread, it's Shakespeare.
With regard to the other points, I agree with most of what El_Phil wrote. Here are a few comments of my own:
1. (Star Trek) I saw very little resemblance to anything in Star Trek; certainly not the Federation or its "Mirror, Mirror" evil twin.
5. (romance) In a navy with mixed crews, romance is inevitable. I've read, for example, that in the modern US Navy, some 10% of female crewmembers are pregnant at the end of a cruise (the rest used birth control
). I've also read of considerable offshore "fraternizing" during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Since "From the Beginning" includes many cultural and social elements, romantic episodes aren't out of place (even if certain war fans among us find them boring).
The romantic writing needs some polish, of course; what I've read seems a bit Hollywood-ish. And barring some advanced Icaran beautification technology, the vast majority of Icaran military personnel would probably be pretty ordinary looking. In behavior, I'd expect female crew to be something closer to a female R. Lee Ermey (the DI in "Full Metal Jacket") or "Stormin Norman" Schwartzkopf than to "Dizzy" or "Carmen" in "Starship Troopers". Think "Vasquez" in "Aliens".
6. (winning easily) From the story and side posts I got the impression that the early campaigns went well, but the Icarans met stiffer opposition later; there were some horrific descriptions of Icaran ship losses and heavy casualties among some fleet elements. I also seem to recall more than one period when the empire suffered substantial mineral shortages (tell me about it!).
7. (pacification) When a whole city, continent, or world is subject to immediate destruction for the transgressions of a few, I suspect the locals would be falling all over themselves to help root out any remaining rebels.
9. (dull battles) This point has some merit, but not because of the nature of SEIV battle. Personally I LOVE the broadside-to-broadside depictions of combat from the age of sail (e.g. "Master and Commander"). Air-sea battles from WW II could certainly be dramatic (e.g. Midway), but were often just slaughters (e.g. the sinking of Repulse, Prince of Wales, Musashi, and Yamato, the Battle of the Bismarck Sea, the Battle off Cape Engano, etc.). IMHO the gun battles were at least as exciting, if not more so (the point blank night battles in the Solomons, the Battle of the Komandorski Islands, the Battle of the Denmark Strait, etc.).
However, even the most exciting battle can be dull if poorly described. As others have suggested, it's not necessary (and is sometimes counterproductive) to follow game events too closely. If a game battle is a lopsided one-salvo victory, its fictional description can be "sexed up" into a desperate hours-long stuggle with failing shields, damaged armor, rescues of crippled ships, and even a few losses that didn't actually occur in the game.
A note on sci-fi fighters: "The Unknown Critic" seems to be a die-hard fan of the George Lucas "WW II in Space" school of space combat. In real life, spacecraft can't do
aerobatics in a vacuum. In real life, aircraft have an advantage over surface ships because they operate in an entirely different medium. But even in fiction, space is space is space; "fighters" operate in the same medium as everything else and are therefore just smaller versions of conventional spacecraft. In a fictional universe where bigger is better, "fighters" are at the very bottom of the pecking order.
10. (capships rule) Unless there are multiple specialized roles (e.g. RL ASW, AA defense) or some efficiency of smaller scale, it's pure gimmickry to throw in various combat ship sizes just for entertainment value. Given fictional technology (warp drive, efficiency of large scale), 20th Century shipbuilding conventions need not apply.
11. (boring between battles) War has been described as "hours of boredom interrupted by moments of stark terror" (or something like that). In other words, any one individual, ship, fleet, planet, etc. will experience far more "peace" than war, even in the fiercest conflict. If an author chooses to include "peaceful" interludes in a war story/novel, the reader is free to skip over them. As I recall, Herman Wouk's "The Winds of War" and "War and Remembrance" were a lot more peace than war. Ditto for "War and Peace". For nonstop action, see a "Matrix" movie or read a Marvel comic book.
17. (dumb admirals) For a good overview of military incompetence throughout history, see Charles M. Fair's "From the Jaws of Victory", 1972. War is probably the most complex of all human endeavors, so it's not surprising that mere humans are less than perfect at it.
19. (no R&R) Given advanced Icaran entertainment technology (holodecks?) and the luxury of selecting unusually adaptable crews from "billions and billions" of candidates, I can see Icaran crews easily going without "shore leave" for extended periods. Alternatively, even on restive conquered worlds, the Icarans could make extensive safety zones for crew R&R; if they conquered Earth, for example, they might appropriate Australia and evacuate all but the most docile natives.
To summarize: Compared to professional writing, Starhawk's story predictably has a number of shortcomings. However, I think "The Unknown Critic's" assessment is wide of the mark on most of its points. I've been enjoying the story for what it is (amateur fanfic) and look forward to more.