So the World War III 1987 blog just posted “The Squishy Problem Facing World War III Writers“. And come on, there’s no way I can not write a post in response to that. Here goes. The original blog is in Italics. I’ll start with the opening.

World War III novels, movies and even blogs are as diverse and imaginative as their authors choose to make them. Even in instances where multiple works of fiction examine the same hypothetical theater or overall conflict there will not be many similarities throughout the bulk of the novels. Different writing styles, plots and points of view are guaranteed to keep the reader fixed on a uniquely original WWIII scenario brought to life in novels.

I would somewhat disagree with this. Yes, on a micro-scale they can be different on paper (ie, it turns out very few involve invading Iceland!). But even by the standards of cheap thrillers, it’s a very small and very narrow genre. This is not an insult. It’s just how it is and how a “normal” reader will look at them.

But when the final chapters and plot conclusions roll around, it’s a totally different ballgame altogether.  And so emerges the root of a squishy problem.

You see, the majority of popular NATO-Warsaw Pact, Cold War World War III novels, movies and other types of fiction end in either nuclear war or the overthrow of the Soviet general secretary and politburo just moments before the Kremlin decides to launch an all-out nuclear strike on the US and Europe. Other novels and fiction incorporate aspects of both options in their concluding chapters, creating an ending that is somewhat different from those above, but lacks the creativity to be considered entirely new and exclusive.

Ok. I’m going to argue that this is the most realistic and sensible part. Because the loser is likely to go nuclear. And if not, some plot contrivance is necessary to stop that. I guess you could have some kind of negotiated surrender, but I can understand why readers wouldn’t find that very satisfying. The alternative is either a Red Army-style clean OPFOR win or just making a horrible squash, the latter of which is not exactly appealing.

The squishy problem facing writers of the World War III genre is similar to what Zombie genre has found itself confronting in recent years: How to make an age old topic fresh and appealing when a good part of the audience or readership already has a good idea of how it is all going to end?

Good question and one that I will definitely come back to.