The Darth Vader/Dr. Doom Builder Book List

[Czcibor]

I would say that most wars are fought in pursuit of self interest. Whether that is good or evil I will leave up to you.

According to Albert Einstein, Germans were largely motivated to fight World War I in pursuit of wealth. The previous war with France had enriched many Germans, and the new generation wanted to do the same.

I'm not fully convinced about this explanation, I'm more think in line of mixture of overconfidence, game of chicken bad luck (yes, the same kind of secret diplomacy and power play helped to diffuse Fashoda incident, who nowadays remembers about it?). In case of Germans they joined from the same reason as most of players - because of following their alliance obligation.

GTOM:

To make everything a bit more sinister beneath... Make everything fully scientific... show some small sample of population different propaganda to asses their impression... Make clear that those in power take care about wellbeing of population and are serious about it... Secret opinion polls, focus groups, medical documentation concerning mental health... Make clear that someone analyses that and adjust policy accordingly... Show a discussion what to show in official media... Making list what extra can be expressed by licensed opposition...

To avoid cheap conspiracy story:
-not almighty;
-instead of mysterious accidents, a few trouble makers are going to be reprimanded, if that fails - sacked;
-not all big lie, but plenty of manipulations here and there;
-no one needs to convince all, actually quite a few people read independent news... but they can't do much;
-the biggest problem is not the truth, but more lies spread by hostile corps.

 

[Khatti]

In my setting, masses won't stop a scientist from pursuiting even an unethical project.
Killer AIs, go to technocratic regime. Hard drug pushers/biotech megacorp would support him creating crops that deliberately destroys other crops. (Then after a new superpest destroys monoculture, they have to buy the new breed.)

I got to thinking this morning about the classic mad scientist; Frankenstein. It occurred to me that a better label for Frankenstein is Obsessed Technologist. Frankenstein came across a technique rather than a body of data. I can't imagine Frankenstein posting hourly reports on an experiment under way any more than I can imagine Einstein retreating to his lab at the top of his keep and trying to build a time machine or create a black hole(cackling madly the whole time of course.). Frankenstein is like guy who can't stop thinking about spanking his nubile secretary; the guy who is staring up at the forbidden fruit and is, sooner or later, going to grab one and take a bite. Like Mary Shelley, the public is terrified what is going to happen if the guy gives into his obsessions. The public is also--irrationally--concerned that all scientists are Frankenstein, and any moment now they are going to give into their deadly obsessions and ruin everything.

What you seem to have going on is the pissed-off scientist. This guy is more likely to become a workplace shooter than the guy who gives in and spanks his secretary. I don't know if this gives you any helpful perspective, but I thought I would add it to the discussion.

 

[Stephen Tashi]

An author can create a specific model for the interior mental attitudes of a character, but I think characters created in this fashion tend to be unrealistic. When we encounter people in real life, we often find ourselves at a loss when it comes to understanding what is going on in their minds.

Of course, it is possible to write fiction from an "omniscient" point of view where the author specifies what a character thinks - e.g. "Murland thought to himself , "if I pick up that paper, he will know I am interested in this".

If we write only from the viewpoint a single character or an "outsider" who is merely observing the behavior of characters then we don't need to create characters by forming them out of the clay of psychological states; we only need to describe their behaviors. For example, the experience of dealing with real people involves observing how they eat meals. A person with iconoclastic views may follow very conventional rules of etiquitte.

 

[Khatti]

An author can create a specific model for the interior mental attitudes of a character, but I think characters created in this fashion tend to be unrealistic. When we encounter people in real life, we often find ourselves at a loss when it comes to understanding what is going on in their minds.

Of course, it is possible to write fiction from an "omniscient" point of view where the author specifies what a character thinks - e.g. "Murland thought to himself , "if I pick up that paper, he will know I am interested in this".

If we write only from the viewpoint a single character or an "outsider" who is merely observing the behavior of characters then we don't need to create characters by forming them out of the clay of psychological states; we only need to describe their behaviors. For example, the experience of dealing with real people involves observing how they eat meals. A person with iconoclastic views may follow very conventional rules of etiquitte.

The two main, must-read fiction writers outside of science fiction I always advise science fiction writers to read are John D. MacDonald and Georges Simenon. MacDonald's, Travis McGee series is the classic series for the suspenseful, first-person private eye books. They surpass even Chandler. Far more important to an aspiring writer are the stand alone books he wrote in the Fifties. Even thought they are obviously dated now they are still perfect studies of how characters are created and delineated. To name three titles that I go back to again and again: The Crossroads, Contrary Pleasures, and Cry Hard, Cry Fast. In the Travis McGee series I'm particularly fond of The Turquoise Lament, Bright Orange for the Shroud, Pale Gray for Guilt, and The Girl in the Plain Brown Wrapper. If you want to see how to portray bad people effectively, read these. I'm reading Salmon Rushdie's latest book at the moment, and Rushdie still hasn't done anything in it that MacDonald does better.

In Simenon's case too I would stay away from the Maigret series, which has never really done anything for me, and go with Simenon's non-Maigret books: The Widow, and The Truth About Bebe Donge come immediately to mind. Simenon (in the English translations I have) learned to convey a lot of information in just a few words. And, again, if you want to learn how to portray complicated badness you cannot go wrong with Simenon.