The Orion Team. discussion

Found a very interesting article written by a friend of a friend on twitter regarding a topic that's become particularly prominent in Post 9/11 spy fiction.

1) What do you think of this argument and do you agree or disagree with it?

https://killzoneblog.com/2014/10/prea...

Samuel wrote: "Found a very interesting article written by a friend of a friend on twitter regarding a topic that's become particularly prominent in Post 9/11 spy fiction.

1) What do you think of this argumen..."

For me, the author hits the nail on the head regarding certain issues. Execution of slipping in a theme you really want to convey can be tricky, especially if it's done in a lazy manner (creating a character and using them as nothing but a mouthpiece rather than developing them into something more) I suppose a good sign of this is if the negative reviews begin to have a common complaint of some kind.

I suppose it depends on hitting a balance one is content with and not getting drawn away from the other components that make up a spy thriller/novel.

Nifty website, thanks. At least half of one product line that I write, are thrillers. Good to know chatter is out there.

I'll re-post this link in my own groups too (if it's okay with you) to help send some more traffic to your buddy

Feliks wrote: "Nifty website, thanks. At least half of one product line that I write, are thrillers. Good to know chatter is out there.

I'll re-post this link in my own groups too (if it's okay with you) to help..."

Repost away! The debate on the topic the article focuses on is particularly important and deserves to be widened.

And maybe show not tell goes into it. Making a thematic point through the plot situations is a bit more efficient than dialogue. Although it also depends on integrating it into the story well and ensuring such a situation doesn't look out of place.

I used the 'show, not tell' method a lot in my novels and find it very effective for doing stories that include provocative or controversial themes. I must say that I personally dislikes intensily both mysoginy and racism and my stories have a distinct pro-feminist, egalitarian and humanitarian taints to them. One American reader even called me once a 'communist and anti-christian', to which two other readers immediately replied in my defense. So, conveying controversial issues and opinions in fiction novels is in my opinion both feasible and desirable for the sake of intellectual honesty and discourse. If giants of litterature like Hugo, Dickens and Orwell could and did do it, then why not modern authors?

Agreed. Writers shouldn't shy away from looking at controversial issues. It's the execution of them which is the tricky part.

My protagonist did an anti abortion screed in the WIP. Don't get no more controversial than that.

"I think many opinionated writers fail to entertain because they engage in extraneous pontificating, rather than make their ideas integral to the stories themselves.

The trick is to weave a provocative theme or premise into the very fabric of your story, making it the thread that connects your characters to each other and to the events of the plot."

I can cite an example of the above quote occurring in fiction. In a spy fiction video game of all things.

The game is set in an alternate reality version of the Cold War. An American soldier is dropped into Central Asia, assigned to hunt down a fellow special forces soldier who trained him.

While the character arc of the protagonist is important, far more compelling is the plot line concerning his target, a legend. The agent made her name in this fictional universe pioneering modern special forces doctrines and became a famed war hero in WW2. Post Second World War, she's become a Cold Warrior, tasked with fighting the unseen battles against the USSR.

This troubles her greatly, primarily because she worked well with many Soviet personnel in the 1940's and the father of her son was a GRU officer she met during that time.

Her concerns escalate when working on several operations in conjunction with the CIA, one which leads to an asset she worked very hard to cultivate defecting to the USSR, due to Langley treating him harshly and cutting his pay.

And then we get to the straw which breaks the camels back. She's sent on another mission to the USSR and assigned to kill a pair of targets. The first is the asset, due to the CIA wishing to punish him. The second is the father of her child who is still working at the GRU and was marked for death due to concerns about her loyalty.

Understandably, this causes her to take stock of the Cold War and what she's fighting. And the conclusion she comes to is that there's a mindset that her fellow Cold Warriors in Washington and Moscow are suffering from.

The belief that there's an absolute enemy which the world will always be fighting. Deciding that such an idea has led to pointless conflicts around the world and sent her into battles that didn't need to happen, she hatches a plan to end it all.

In the fictional universe the video game is set in, the world is controlled by an organization called the Philosophers. Unlike the Illuminati, the membership is a bit more narrow.

The most powerful men in the USA, USSR and China (PRC later takes over membership from the ROC). Initially, that organization established a huge black ops budget intending to shape geopolitical events in such a way that humanity would be steered away from conflicts like the Great War. Granted, they failed, with the three leadership factions fighting over the deniable slush fund pie.

As the daughter of one of the founders of the organization, the target wishes to acquire the account numbers which are currently in the hands of one of the USSR member's children. So she attempts to conduct a sting operation, successfully infiltrating the man's entourage. However, she's forced to make it seem that she's turned traitor, despite not having the actual intent to do so.

The ruse, while successful also leaves her trapped. On one side, she's forced to play a long con against a homicidal Russian intelligence officer. On the other side is the CIA who have sent the agent she trained to murder her for alleged treason. As you would guess, she doesn't expect to be going home again. .

When the man who is going to kill her finally catches up to her, the target shatters his world view and takes a brick to any black and white morality notions he had been entertaining throughout the game, spelling out her motivations and making the cutting observation that if he thought she was one of those absolute enemies who deserved to die, he's dead wrong.


(I confess this is a rather rambling example and I apologize for anyone who gets confused by it or believes it doesn't make sense)