Minimalism in Science Fiction

Minimalism is when the scale of the setting is underestimated (often horribly) by the authors.

Some cases in Star Wars:

-Three million clone troopers for a galactic-scale war. For Pete’s sake, the American army in World War II could field twelve million men and its one part of a single planet!
-Twenty-five thousand Star Destroyers. Even if we underestimate and say that in the Galactic Empire there are sixty-nine million (canon) inhabited systems it still means a single Star Destroyer protects roughly two thousand eight hundred systems.
I understand that most people (including myself) would have trouble grasping the idea of a galactic-scale civilization, but at least try!

I thought minimalism was something different, like where the genre is stripped down to it’s most basic aspects, like made more realistic and so forth.

Wouldn’t this just be huge underestimations by authors?

Well there are two terms for minimalism: one is basically in the sense of minimal prose while the other is this.

I thought this was minimalism in Science Fiction:

Can’t you just hear it set to music by Philip Glass?

Wait, really? 69 million systems? That’s canon?

The Senate chambers we saw had nowhere near 69m seats, and I seriously doubt that many individual systems would actually be governable under a single body politic, even if they were all of one species. A multi-species empire would collapse long before they got to 1 million systems, much less 69 million - there would be way too many differences, attitudes, belief systems to be integrated.

As Curtis has already brought up Traviss’s one-woman crusade to manufacture The Jedi-Palpatine Conspiracy, I don’t really have anything to add.

Thankfully not.

Its a Galactic government and that’s the way its in Star Wars! Plus the Senate seats are by sectors not systems any more than our Senate seats are by states not by counties or cities.

From Wookiepedia:

Looks like you had all sorts in the senate, more than enough to fill 69m seats.

Anyway, this is an example of what you started this thread about (I guess) - a “Republic” with 69million+ senators is unworkable. A “Republic” with 69,000 senators is unworkable, especially given the speciation of the SW universe.

I think the problem is the opposite - what I’d call “biggism”, in which science fiction writers throw HUUUUGE numbers at the readers in order to distract them from their storytelling deficiencies. For instance, a few years ago I started reading “Consider Phlebas” by Iain M. Banks. Within the first 100 pages, we had a spaceship being attacked by 100,000 missiles, a collection of millions of superintelligent AIs, a casual genocide of 57 million innocent people, a ringworld, and a fucking Dyson sphere. And at the same time, the writing was terrible. I gave up almost immeidately.

Some wirters think that throwing big numbers (69 million systems? Really?) at readers is somehow impressive. It isn’t. What we want is depth and complexity - that every system be fleshed out and provided some distinction. Anyone can write numbers. For instance: 138 million inhabited systems! My universe is TWICE as awesome as Star Wars!

NM

Pay attention some time to the numbers they use for populations in s.f. and notice how often it is roughly equivalent (or a multiple of) to the population of the United States or the Earth at the time of writing. It’s amusing.

The real failure of imagination here is not the number of troopers, but that they are using tactics from the Civil War, more or less.

I noticed this a lot in Star Trek Next Generation. The kind of numbers they threw out there seemed rather small.

God, yeah. Everyone keeps recommending the Culture books but I can never get through them because of the writing.

TV Tropes (naturally) has a page for this: Sci Fi Writers Have No Sense Of Scale.

Most of the examples are due to people using million/billion/trillion more-or-less interchangably to mean “lots and lots and lots”.

No it isn’t.

If you really want to play fast and loose with language, misunderestimate may be the work you’re looking for.

Minimalism in science fiction is this.

NM.

Back in the sixties, there was a book about the original Star Trek series. The show’s staff had worked with the author so it was considered “canon”. In addition to information about the show, it had a section of information on the show’s setting - stuff about the Enterprise and star fleet and the Federation.

One of the things in the book was a map of the Federation and the Klingon and Romulan Empires. It showed that the Federation encompassed a significant portion of the galaxy - approximately a sixth of the entire galaxy.

Another thing the book mentioned was how many Enterprise-class starships there were - thirteen.

No way. The galaxy is huge. This would be like the United States trying to fight World War II with only thirteen airplanes.

If the book you’re thinking of was the Star Fleet Technical Manual, you’ve got some holes in your argument.

If you have a cite to back up your claim that it was canon, I’ll be happy to concede that point, but as it was first published in 1975, 6 years after TOS went off the air and the a year after the animated series stopped airing new episodes, I don’t see how it could possibly be relevant. Star Trek was dead at that point. A ham sandwich could have been canon and it wouldn’t have mattered.

Also, it did not list 13 starships. It listed, by rough count:

14 Constitution-class Heavy Cruisers (like USS Enterprise)
16 Bonhomme Richard-class Heavy Cruisers
4 replacements for Constitution-class vessels lost in the line of duty
111 Archernar-class Heavy Cruisers

20 Saladin-class Destroyers
10 Siva-class Destroyers
26 Cochise-class Destroyers

15 Hermes-class Scouts
16 Monoceros-class Scouts
9 Cygnus-class Scouts

20 Federation-class Dreadnoughts

That’s 261 ships. And a shitload of Tugs I don’t feel like counting at the moment.

While I agree with your ultimate point, I took Little Nemo to mean that there were only a baker’s dozen Constitution class ships in all of Starfleet, not that Starfleet consisted of only those thirteen vessels.