Forgot your password?

I'd prefer military fiction books that are ...

Displaying poll results.
Set in the ancient past
  970 votes / 8%
Set in the distant but not ancient past
  610 votes / 5%
Set in the recent past
  635 votes / 5%
Set in the present day or near future
  1970 votes / 17%
Set in the far future
  4231 votes / 36%
Who cares, as long as it's not set on Earth!
  3066 votes / 26%
11482 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

I'd prefer military fiction books that are ...

Comments Filter:
  • This poll is lame. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17, 2014 @04:10AM (#46265175)

    Where is the I DONT CARE button? We should at least have one to prove the point of how lame this poll is.

    • I picked the "Who cares, as long as it's not set on earth?" option simply because the first two words hit the nail squarely on the head. Would've been better without the subsequent eight though.

    • by mythosaz (572040)

      It's located on the top of your browser, the icon looks like an arrow pointing to the left.

    • You'll find it on the Slashdot Beta version of the poll.

      Which is why no one clicked on it.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Set on fire.

  • Well written (Score:5, Insightful)

    by boylinux (775361) on Monday February 17, 2014 @08:10AM (#46265887) Homepage
    I don't care when it happens as long as it is not poorly written.
  • One, two and five (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Shavano (2541114) on Monday February 17, 2014 @08:40AM (#46266055)

    Radio buttons are not the right entry method for some polls.

  • All of the above (Score:5, Insightful)

    by berryjw (1071694) on Monday February 17, 2014 @08:49AM (#46266109)
    They forgot an option...
  • by schlachter (862210) on Monday February 17, 2014 @10:31AM (#46266921)

    there's a big difference here...I would like stories that are 50 yrs out...very different than today.

  • ... original works (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EvilRemix (1036334) <evilremix@gmail.com> on Monday February 17, 2014 @11:12AM (#46267341) Homepage
    Especially those not influenced by the blatant marketing research being done by Dice using the most recent polls. Polls used to be a fun way to show your geek credibility, see how you fit or didnt fit with the slashdot crowd, find fun ways to make fun of CowboyNeal, or simply just fun. Now they are blatant marketing research on our "demographic" without any originality. I am counting the days until they start asking us about our political beliefs, religion, income or whatever else they are getting paid for. What happened to CowboyNeal?! AltSlashdot aka http://soylentnews.org/ [soylentnews.org] is the new Slashdot not run by greedy overlords.
  • by antdude (79039)

    What's that? :P

  • comprises military fiction. Especially Dan Simmons' "Hyperion" space opera. I read that one at least 6 times, all four books, and still couldn't get enough.
  • All of the above. Because, you know, people like variety.

    • by CastrTroy (595695)
      Another missing option: Set in the past, with characters from the future. One example is 1632, by Eric Flint [baenebooks.com]. I like a variety of books too. They can be set in the past, in current times, or in the future provided they have a good story. I think least favourite however is the future, because it's so hard to get right. To speculate about what might be available in the future, without getting the science wrong, and without going on for chapters to tiny details that set up the whole book seems to be somethi
      • by cbhacking (979169)

        The characters in 1632 are from modern day (actually a bit outdated by now) not from the future (except to the perspective of the downtimers). Still, it *is* good.

  • by hackertourist (2202674) <hackertourist@xmRASPsnet.nl minus berry> on Monday February 17, 2014 @02:32PM (#46269531)

    I enjoyed the Cold War thrillers (both military and espionage) that were popular in the '80s and '90s. Military fiction these days seems to be mostly focused on terrorism, which makes for boring adversaries (rabid dogs that need to be put down versus an intelligent, wily, and rational enemy).

  • In particular, I like ones like Harry Turtledove's oeuvre [wikipedia.org], S.M. Stirling's Nantucket series [wikipedia.org] and various other works, the 1632niverse [wikipedia.org], and to go way back, L. Sprague de Camp's Lest Darkness Fall [wikipedia.org]. (I realize some of these are more military than others, but you know what I mean here.)

    • by Hartree (191324)

      I put ancient partly because of Turtledove's Videssos Cycle. Taking history and tweaking it a bit can be fascinating if done well.

    • by rossdee (243626)

      I like Alternative history, I prefered the Nantucket series over the 163X series, but I haven't read all of the 163X series yet.

      However I also like future military combat SF, especially Weber & White's Stars at War, and the 2 sequels by Steve White

      Anyway it can be all summed up in one word

      Baen (www.baenebooks.com)

      • by cbhacking (979169)

        http://baencd.thefifthimerium.... [thefifthimerium.com]

        Bigger than Baen's free library at any given point in time, and while it doesn't have the newer books, it's a great (and by great I mean I-hope-you-didn't-have-anything-planned-for-a-few-weeks) way to read some excellent sci-fi, much of it military in nature.

  • by mnmlst (599134) on Monday February 17, 2014 @05:30PM (#46271053) Homepage Journal
    The narrative we learn about World War One (1914-1918) in English-speaking countries is a distorted product of the victors that is cartoonish and incomplete. Everyone knows about "All Quiet on the Western Front" but few English-speakers have read "The Storm of Steel," also written by a German soldier. (Spoiler alert: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]) John Mosier is a revisionist historian who is asking some penetrating questions that have made many historians uncomfortable as they poke holes in his details while being unable to refute his central thesis - British and French casualties were roughly double those of the German army they faced along the Western Front. Mosier makes a strong case that if the USA had never entered the war, Germany likely would have taken over France in 1918. The American "arsenal of democracy" and the successes of the American Expeditionary Force under Pershing doomed Germany. They also got Britain and France's irons out of the fire. Keep in mind that "invading Russia is suicide" did not apply in World War One as Germany gobbled up Russia practically to the gates of Moscow by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org] . Here are my personal questions based on having been fed the World War One story primarily by British authors: 1) Why did Britain go to war with Royal Navy battlecruisers doomed by thin armor and extremely vulnerable gunpowder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... [wikipedia.org] ? 2) Why did the Royal Flying Corps refuse to issue parachutes to their pilots for the entire war while their balloonists used them for years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... [wikipedia.org] ? 3) Why were the British still launching suicidal human wave attacks AFTER TWO YEARS OF TRENCH WARFARE (July 1, 2016 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org] )? One can only reasonably conclude the British leadership from the level of general/admiral and above had almost no regard for the human lives with which they had been entrusted.
    • by AK Marc (707885)
      The US "almost" entered on the side of Germany. What would the world have looked like if the US had entered on Germany's side? Would the Tzars have been oused in Russia? Would the punished Germany have come back to start WWII?

      I don't want fiction, I want alternate reality non-fiction. Lets go back in time and enter WWI on Germany's side and see what happens. WWII would have not been a world war, but a Japan-China war, and without Russia having gone Communist, the democratic China (democratic monarch
      • by mnmlst (599134)
        It's hard to imagine the United States joining the Central Powers, particularly when one "follows the money." Courtesy of the Royal Navy blockade, Britain and France were huge, vigorous markets for all manner of American goods throughout World War One. Like the British considering whether to enter the American Civil War on the side of the Confederacy, the overseas power found itself mostly shut out from a market by a blockade. However, the loss of one trading partner was more than compensated for by the ga
        • by AK Marc (707885)
          There was a large German presence in the USA at the time. Since WWII, they have tried to "fit in" better, but there were a number of communities in PA and central TX where German was the local language.

          But, as you say, following the money is often most important.
        • Interestingly, around the turn of the century the Germans considered a series of plans to attack the U.S. directly [wikipedia.org]. And as an alternative history buff you may be interested in a novelization of those plans by Robert Conroy called 1901 [amazon.com], and also the H.G. Wells classic The War in the Air [amazon.com], which if written today would be considered steampunk alternative history but is cooler than that for having been written in 1907.

          • by mnmlst (599134)
            The German "Great General Staff" considered a huge number of plans, conducting "staff rides" for the ones that might be applicable to a future conflict. I read the summary of "1901" on Amazon's website and have to dismiss it out of hand for a complete lack of basis in reality. I am willing to bet the Great General Staff did not conduct a staff ride regarding this plan to tackle the USA. Note that Alfred Thayer Mahan published his treatise on sea power around 1900 and pointed out how critical naval bases wer
    • by srmalloy (263556)

      The 'no parachutes' directive was a simple piece of high-level idiocy; it was felt that aviators would not press home their attacks with sufficient determination if they were given an avenue of escape from their plane, so that they might choose to bail out of only lightly-damaged aircraft. Early in the war, aircraft were at a premium, and the cachet of air service was such that they had all the volunteers they could ask for -- and early parachutes were bulky and heavy, hard to fit in the cramped cockpits of

      • by mnmlst (599134)
        The 'no parachutes' directive is another reflection of the British approach: lots of aggression, show the flag, and casualties be damned. The Royal Flying Corps compounded this problem in a similar fashion to the British infantry on the ground. In the air, the RFC was "the aggressor," pushing a lot of patrols past "no man's land" to overfly German positions. This would result in more British than German exposure to anti-aircraft fire, resulting in more planes and pilots hit. To compound the issue and the ca
    • Mosier makes a strong case that if the USA had never entered the war, Germany likely would have taken over France in 1918.

      I don't know what's being taught in schools today, but back when I studied that part of history in the mid-1960s, that's what we learned. France and England were running low on cannon-fodder by then (Partly because the generals treated their soldiers as exactly that.) and would have been forced to give up simply because they ran out of men who were both willing and able to man the tr
      • by k6mfw (1182893)

        Pershing wasn't committed to repeating the same failed strategy over and over, and had some fresh, imaginative ideas that actually worked didn't hurt.

        I read someplace (I think Parachuting's Unforgettable Jumps Howard Gregory, http://www.amazon.com/Parachut... [amazon.com] ) where Billy Mitchell had an idea of flying aircraft and landing troops by parachute inside enemy lines to attack from the rear. Because at that time only way to advance troops is directly into front lines. But the war ended before an Airborne Div could be formed.

        Getting back to failed strategy, how many of you think this kind of thinking still goes on today?

    • by k6mfw (1182893)
      Documentary showed a clip of history class at West Point, instructor says, "Who was the strongest military in 1915? And if you say Germany, you answered wrong. It was Great Britain." Yep, and 25 years later GB was fighting for their very existence but the US came to their rescue. Instructor went on and said US is most powerful military but what were to happen if we get into same situation. Who will save us? This was shown in 2001, and it seems to stick in my mind there's 12 more years to go.
    • by Nimey (114278)

      Don't forget the pursuit of Goeben and Breslau: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      Germany's field marshal believed that if the Royal Navy had sunk these before they reached Constantinople, the Turks would have stayed out of the war and Germany would have been defeated by 1916. This would also imply that the USA would have remained neutral and the Bolshevik Revolution might not have happened. The world today would look very different indeed.

  • ... isn't everything about the military "fiction"?
  • by PPH (736903) on Tuesday February 18, 2014 @11:58AM (#46276747)

    ...with axes, swords and horses. Like Einstein said about WWIII: He didn't know what weapons would be used, but the war after that, everyone would be using sticks.

    • "Far future with axes, swords, and horses"

      I was looking for an excuse to mention The Forever War by Joe Haldeman.

  • My favorite series are 1632 and Honor Harrington. Also, the Harry Dresden series - but that's not science fiction.

  • I prefer the alternate present. Though many of those are set in the near future to avoid confusing the reader. Why can't I take alternate timelines?
  • I can't stand "military fiction"? WTF is it anyway?

  • I just re-read The Forever War this past week. As the quote on the cover says -

    "To say that The Forever War is the best science fiction war novel ever written is to damn it with faint praise."

  • Guess I'm in the minority, though it depends on how you define "distant" or "recent" past. I have read multiple times the Aubrey/Maturin (Master and Commander) series by Patrick O'Brien; the Horatio Hornblower series by C.S. Forester, and the Sharpe's series by Bernard Cornwell. All of these take place during the Napoleonic Wars. It's a period of history not covered well in American schools (except for the little side-show we call the War of 1812). All three authors did a great deal of research to bring

  • Cowboy Neal

  • I haven't the gotten into the sharpe series, but the grail quest series was fantastic. Right now I'm reading The Last Kingdom about the viking invasions of england.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein

 



Forgot your password?
Working...