Not sure if this is the right place but what if the Halo videogame series was published as a series of novels at the height of the Vietnam war. Halo 1,2,3 and Fall of Reach would be novels while ODST would be a short story. Would the novels be anti or pro war? The Forerunner story could be seen as anti war. So what do you think? If this is the wrong place can someone move it please.
WI: "Halo" in the 60's?
- Thread starter Razors are for Fish
- Start date
Solomaxwell6
Banned
Probably pro-war. I mean, it's the glorious tale of an elite military soldier going out and kicking alien ass. The games follow Master Chief, who essentially can do no wrong and pretty much just slaughters Covenant soldiers.
It doesn't particularly depict the horrors of war. How much of the world is directly shown, except for some African cities like Mombasa that, let's face it, the American audience wouldn't give a shit about?
If you try to force Halo to take a stance on war (which I don't think the games really do), it would definitely be pro-. I think 60s novelizations of Halo would be very similar to Heinlein books like Starship Troopers.
It doesn't particularly depict the horrors of war. How much of the world is directly shown, except for some African cities like Mombasa that, let's face it, the American audience wouldn't give a shit about?
If you try to force Halo to take a stance on war (which I don't think the games really do), it would definitely be pro-. I think 60s novelizations of Halo would be very similar to Heinlein books like Starship Troopers.
On the other hand , a 1960's Halo might come across more like Joe Halderman's "Forever War" , a Vietnam inspired creation that if it were made into a Game would have quite a bit a combat , but the overall theme is about Dysfunctional-ness of the Society and in the end a "this war was All a mistake" lesson.
Honestly, it would depend on the author--it's not like anti-war sentiment didn't exist at the time, what with the hippie movements and all. Nevertheless, I can imagine a few things being different: the battle of Earth would likely be centered on the United States, or at least Europe; the Covenant are less likely to have so many castes, which were pretty much invented to give the game variety, and the Master Chief or his equavilent thereof would probably be quite toned down. As nobody wants to read page after page of 'and he shot X amount of aliens, and then he drove on a vehicle for a bit, and then he shot more aliens..."
I actually had an idea of a time traveler stealing the basic idea of the Halo series and writing it as science fiction in the past as well as a few other video games.
anyway, if it was a series of novels the first three would be pro war if they had been written early in the war. and then Reach being published in the height of the war and end up being anti war. if they were written at the height of the war if they were pro war they might not be very popular.
anyway, if it was a series of novels the first three would be pro war if they had been written early in the war. and then Reach being published in the height of the war and end up being anti war. if they were written at the height of the war if they were pro war they might not be very popular.
Well I'll be damned. Someone brought video games to AltHist. Well, Halo's a hobby of mine, and philosophy's a specialty of mine, so I'll see what I can come up with.
The books' leaning would depend primarily on the author's views, because the series' main character, Master Chief Petty Officer John, SPARTAN-117, can be seen in two very different lights. Also, the author would most likely use it as a metaphor for Vietnam, and write it accordingly.
First is the the image the gaming community sees of him: an invincible, alien-slaughtering badass (as one Marine put it in Halo: Evolutions, "An honest-to-Buddha one-man death squad") who is the only thing standing between Mankind and complete annihilation at the hands of marauding aliens. If the books took this viewpoint, the oh-so-subtle message would be that the US military is the paladin of the free world, beating back the evil scourge of those goddam communist North Vietnamese and their Russky allies to save the helpless people of South Vietnam. In this scenario, Reach is the Alamo, the Ark is the Charge of the Light Brigade, and the Chief continues to be a badass with no second thoughts, unwavering in his drive to protect humanity. He most likely ends up nuking the fuckers out of existence and coming home to Earth to get married (to Samus Aran, according to the scuttlebutt) and have insanely badass kids, because that's what happens to triumphant Good Guys.
The alternate image isn't as pretty. If the author's anti-Vietnam, at some point in the series, John is going to realize that Mankind is wrong to fight the Covenant, and instead should try to talk to the San'Shyuum and negotiate for peace. He will also be massively disillusioned when he finds out that he was essentially kidnapped to be a lab rat for experimental augmentation to turn people into emotionless, augmented killers for the same government he's now defending, and was never expected to survive. He will find some kind and understanding (and definitely not xenocidal) Covenant female, who will take him, despite odrers from their respective commanders, to High Charity. The Hierarchs will listen to him, but the USMC won't. So, John will march back into the Sol system at the head of a Covenant armada to overthrow the corrupt, entrenched government and set up a system where both Human and Covenant can live in peace.
Ready, Set, CRITIQUE!!!
The books' leaning would depend primarily on the author's views, because the series' main character, Master Chief Petty Officer John, SPARTAN-117, can be seen in two very different lights. Also, the author would most likely use it as a metaphor for Vietnam, and write it accordingly.
First is the the image the gaming community sees of him: an invincible, alien-slaughtering badass (as one Marine put it in Halo: Evolutions, "An honest-to-Buddha one-man death squad") who is the only thing standing between Mankind and complete annihilation at the hands of marauding aliens. If the books took this viewpoint, the oh-so-subtle message would be that the US military is the paladin of the free world, beating back the evil scourge of those goddam communist North Vietnamese and their Russky allies to save the helpless people of South Vietnam. In this scenario, Reach is the Alamo, the Ark is the Charge of the Light Brigade, and the Chief continues to be a badass with no second thoughts, unwavering in his drive to protect humanity. He most likely ends up nuking the fuckers out of existence and coming home to Earth to get married (to Samus Aran, according to the scuttlebutt) and have insanely badass kids, because that's what happens to triumphant Good Guys.
The alternate image isn't as pretty. If the author's anti-Vietnam, at some point in the series, John is going to realize that Mankind is wrong to fight the Covenant, and instead should try to talk to the San'Shyuum and negotiate for peace. He will also be massively disillusioned when he finds out that he was essentially kidnapped to be a lab rat for experimental augmentation to turn people into emotionless, augmented killers for the same government he's now defending, and was never expected to survive. He will find some kind and understanding (and definitely not xenocidal) Covenant female, who will take him, despite odrers from their respective commanders, to High Charity. The Hierarchs will listen to him, but the USMC won't. So, John will march back into the Sol system at the head of a Covenant armada to overthrow the corrupt, entrenched government and set up a system where both Human and Covenant can live in peace.
Ready, Set, CRITIQUE!!!
Last edited:
I really don't know about the second one--if it's done by an anti-war writer, it's most likely just going to show both sides as in the grey, or at least just depict the enemy as a nebulous entity just painted by the government as an excuse to keep the war running. I don't think any anti-'Nam writers had their heroes defect to the Vietcong and march on DC.
Only 'cuz they knew damn well they'd be arrested if they did. If you look at what some of the more vocal protestors said back then, it gets pretty scary.
And, yeah, maybe the second bit's a little unrealistic if you think of is as a 'Nam story, but remember: this guy's not writing a 'Nam story, he's writing scifi, and back then this sort of thing wasn't that uncommon in the genre.
Sounds pretty good. Actually, it sound similar to Halo mixed with The Forever War, which I'm pretty certain what Vietnam War-era Halo would be.
Wouldn't the Viet-Cong be in the position of Humanity, technologically and population wise they are outmatched, but through determination, and attacking key points (including in the Capital City of their enemy) they are able to sow discord amongst the general populace, allowing them to emerge, prehaps not victorious, but at least alive and intact.
The Human-Covenant War is a losing war for humanity. A really- really badly losing war. A grinding, genocidal war. The Covenant don't accept surrender, they don't take prisoners, they've never given humanity a chance to give in and join up, like other races have. If we keep true to that part of the premise, writing against the human side is going to be hard.
Realize, though, that the writer would be trying to guilt-trip his/her readers into protesting against the war; this viewpoint kind of defeats that particular point.
However, interesting point. Love it. You actually made me think about it for a bit, and I had to take about five minutes to figure out why it wouldn't work. Good Job!
Sachyriel
Banned
So, why not have Robert Heinlein edit and delay Starship Troopers to fit more of the Halo story?
Instead of a bunch of bug castes it's a bunch of alien races trying to exterminate humanity. Instead of melee-only enemies humanity has to fight against an enemy with superior weapons. They've got better light-speed, but worse Artificial Intelligence (in the Halo novels I think Cortana takes on a covie AI and kicks its virtual ass right?) and there are other parallels as well.
Humanity has a interstellar government, The Terran Federation or the UNSC, which produces the things needed for war: Super-soldier powered armour (Mobile Infantry or ODSTs) that can come in handy when taking on the bugs but there isn't enough of it.
Our Hero, Rico or 117, wears this armour, uses an assault rifle (or whatever else happens to be handy) and is really really lucky all the freakin' time.
We just need a way to give Heinlein the idea for a Forerunner race who built a series of giant installations such as Halo; maybe he meets Larry Riven (who wrote Ringworld in 1970s) and they exchange some ideas in 1965, giving it a frame of release around 1966-67?
Instead of a bunch of bug castes it's a bunch of alien races trying to exterminate humanity. Instead of melee-only enemies humanity has to fight against an enemy with superior weapons. They've got better light-speed, but worse Artificial Intelligence (in the Halo novels I think Cortana takes on a covie AI and kicks its virtual ass right?) and there are other parallels as well.
Humanity has a interstellar government, The Terran Federation or the UNSC, which produces the things needed for war: Super-soldier powered armour (Mobile Infantry or ODSTs) that can come in handy when taking on the bugs but there isn't enough of it.
Our Hero, Rico or 117, wears this armour, uses an assault rifle (or whatever else happens to be handy) and is really really lucky all the freakin' time.
We just need a way to give Heinlein the idea for a Forerunner race who built a series of giant installations such as Halo; maybe he meets Larry Riven (who wrote Ringworld in 1970s) and they exchange some ideas in 1965, giving it a frame of release around 1966-67?
Heinlein's novel is pro-war?
I haven't read it, but I was under the impression that it doesn't glorify war, and instead fits into the Hemingwayesque tradition of simple-men-enduring-the-unendurable-and-in-the-process-discovering-their-true-selves in modern combat literature, with added social engineering theory craziness.
Halo novels written as good genre fiction would work, either today or in the sixties. Halo novels written as 'Ballad of the Green Berets' style hokum, not so much. Particularly not in the Vietnam era.
Solomaxwell6
Banned
Oh god no! The movie is a parody of of jingoism. The original book is very jingoistic. Hell, he throws in a teacher character with the explicit intent of having a conversation with the main character about how awesome the military is.
Listen up, you lot!
Hate to interrupt this beautiful (and it is beautiful) debate, but we're becoming increasingly off-topic.
The general consensus seems to be that Halo, written in the '60s, would most likely be antiwar. I'm not willing to throw the possibility of a pro-war version completely out the window yet, but for the time being, let's assume anti-war.
How, then, does that look? We have to consider several major elements.
1. Which side is which. Are the Humans America and the Covenant the North Vietnamese, or the other way around? In Contact Harvest, the first of the Human-Covenant War books, one of Harvest's militiamen got a little twitchy, shot one of the Jiralhanae, and thus caused the already strained first-contact meeting to devolve into a firefight. Basically, Humanity shot first, but under duress. Unless something ASB happens, it's gonna be hard to paint the Covies as America when Humanity started it.
2. The progress of the war. How did the H-C War go, considering it's now a Vietnam metaphor? If we leave Humanity as America, then it has to turn the whole series ass-over-teakettle: Humanity is kicking serious Covie ass, but is getting bogged down on a few worlds. Eventually, the Covenant will launch a final, desperate offensive, forcing Humanity to break off, eventually resulting in an uneasy cease-fire. However, if the Covenant is America, then we can leave the series' plot mostly intact, just ending with more SPARTANs alive.
Have at!
Hate to interrupt this beautiful (and it is beautiful) debate, but we're becoming increasingly off-topic.
The general consensus seems to be that Halo, written in the '60s, would most likely be antiwar. I'm not willing to throw the possibility of a pro-war version completely out the window yet, but for the time being, let's assume anti-war.
How, then, does that look? We have to consider several major elements.
1. Which side is which. Are the Humans America and the Covenant the North Vietnamese, or the other way around? In Contact Harvest, the first of the Human-Covenant War books, one of Harvest's militiamen got a little twitchy, shot one of the Jiralhanae, and thus caused the already strained first-contact meeting to devolve into a firefight. Basically, Humanity shot first, but under duress. Unless something ASB happens, it's gonna be hard to paint the Covies as America when Humanity started it.
2. The progress of the war. How did the H-C War go, considering it's now a Vietnam metaphor? If we leave Humanity as America, then it has to turn the whole series ass-over-teakettle: Humanity is kicking serious Covie ass, but is getting bogged down on a few worlds. Eventually, the Covenant will launch a final, desperate offensive, forcing Humanity to break off, eventually resulting in an uneasy cease-fire. However, if the Covenant is America, then we can leave the series' plot mostly intact, just ending with more SPARTANs alive.
Have at!
Sachyriel
Banned
This works, and the resulting collapse of the USSR is like the Covies civil war, Communist China being the diminished Covenant while the Russkies and Eastern Europeans are now the good-Elites and Grunts.