Quick Question (I hope)

[Yeoman]

Well, one idea for a book that I'm writing at the moment (not this moment exactly), is set in the future, about year 3740. It isn't typically futuristic(spaceships and what-not), but its set in a time of a war brought about by pressures from climate change/global warming (I don't know if thats plausable; in my mind it is).

Anyway, would it be considered insensitive to use 'real' countries in my book (The waring parties are made up of Germania, Frenk, Spain and Italy vs Russe, Norweg, Swedin and Finland-ia) - As you can see I predictably altered the names, although its obvious which is which.

In fact, this is my second go at the 'story' - its more that the story is part of the world, rather than the world being part of the story. Since in both new and old versions take place in similar enviroments, but are different versions of the same story.

Or should I just make up names for the countries/ alliances?


Also, whilst I'm here. I've not really considered the smaller european countries, nor Africa or America really. I want to avoid it being world war, more of a western/eastern european war which perhaps overflows into the 'Mediterranean basin'. My point is, I want the war to be a 'back-and-forth' thing; long, arduous and quite evenly matched. Although some people might argue, 'why doesn't America'(or Africa or a large asian country) step in and finish the war quickly. I can't really just pretend they don't exist, and it seems cheap to just say "Oh, well they're all indisposed with civil wars and what not'.


Edit: I just noticed the stickied thread at the top; this probably should have gone in there.

[Laerten]

Would it be safe to say that in the intervening time between now and when your story is set there have been other wars in which countries have been conquered by the bigger powers? This would mean that smaller countries have been swallowed up and no longer exist except in historical records and those areas are regions of the bigger countries. This would mean that you only have to concentrate on several superstates. The USA may become a third world country in the future, who knows?

If you look back through history country names have changed, whether just in the spelling, names merging or some change completely. So for example, if Germany were to swallow up Austria and others it may be called Germanstria.

[iansales]

That's 1700 years in the future. A lot is likely to happen during that period. After all, think where we were in 400 AD. The Romans had just left, and small kingdoms - Anglo-Saxon, Celt, Briton, etc. - were popping up all over the place.

Also, your country names are all English. Germans don't call it Germany (Deutschland); Finns don't call it Finland (Suomi).

[ctg]

Originally Posted by iansales

That's 1700 years in the future. A lot is likely to happen during that period. After all, think where we were in 400 AD. The Romans had just left, and small kingdoms - Anglo-Saxon, Celt, Briton, etc. - were popping up all over the place.

Exactly what I was thinking.

Also, your country names are all English. Germans don't call it Germany (Deutschland); Finns don't call it Finland (Suomi).

May I add on the Suomi note that the breeding rate we are populating our rather large country isn't going take us very far in next century. The last finn is estimated to die in between 2120 - 2150.

[Marky Lazer]

If you want to make it 'real' you might want to have a look as social-linguistics. What makes words change? And in that way, why would Sweden (Sverige in Swedish actually) change into 'Swedin'? It are little details like these that make your story "less fiction." Consider the way Tolkien names characters (just the easiest reference); they all mean something in his invented language(s), giving it a rather authentic feeling. So, think hard about it. Just naming Sweden 'Swedin' doesn't make an awful lot of sense if you're doing it out of the blue.

[The Pelagic Argosy]

Originally Posted by iansales

Also, your country names are all English. Germans don't call it Germany (Deutschland); Finns don't call it Finland (Suomi).

Well, if the book is written in English, I think it's fine to use the English words for these countries.

As for you question about whether it could be considered "insensitive" to use real countries: yes, I think there's a distinct possibility that you could piss someone off along the way. It's simplistic to describe a war as between two countries fighting. I'm no historian, but it seems to me that a great deal of warring has erupted over religion, ethnicity, and other socio-political hot-button issues. The question is not just, "What has happened to America and Africa?" But also, "What has become of Christianity, Judiasm, and Islam?" What role will the Pope play in this war you imagine? Etc. If you're honestly going to extrapolate a Europe of the future, you're going to have to answer all these potentially dangerous questions. Can of worms, I say. Good luck.

On the other hand, someone out there will be offended by just about anything you can come up with. *shrugs*

But, if you've chosen Europe just because you need an environment, you could avoid all these problems by inventing an alternate-world setting. An alternate world could have gone through a similar history in terms of industry and technology and, hence, still be suffering from global warming. And it could still resemble Europe in climate and terrain. Sort of like Middle Earth, but in the distant future rather than the distant past.

[Yeoman]

Thank you for responding, you have raised some interesting points.

I think for the name thing, I may combine the english and german words for a country together, or just use the german word. Since my protaganist is a german female, though that could change.

But, if you've chosen Europe just because you need an environment, you could avoid all these problems by inventing an alternate-world setting. An alternate world could have gone through a similar history in terms of industry and technology and, hence, still be suffering from global warming. And it could still resemble Europe in climate and terrain. Sort of like Middle Earth, but in the distant future rather than the distant past.

It is tempting to invent a parallel continent, if a little daunting. It seems both easier and harder than sticking with europe.

Something to sleep on I think.

[Teresa Edgerton]

It seems to me that after you had set your story so far in the future, it would be difficult for any reasonable person to find something offensive in your using real countries. We none of us know what will be happening in our own countries even a hundred years from now, much less after such a span as 1700 years.

The only way you might be offensive would be if you made references to their histories in such a way that it looked like you were saying that what they were to become later (if negative) was a natural progression from where they are now.

[Yeoman]

Thank you for your reply.

In the case of germany; 'don't mension the war' would have been one issue, but obviously so far in the future, that would presumably no longer be common knowledge. I can't remember anything within sight of accurate, that happened in britain 1700 years ago, and the same goes for a much shorter duration of time).

I'm sort of leaning more towards it not being Europe/earth , but just a similar equally progressed world/civilisation (I don't really have to say if it is or isn't earth), because I'd probably get really frustrated.
One idea I had, was that at the start of the story, a group of people take shelter in a city(just over night) that has been abandoned for a few centuries(due to CC), but now I keep shifting the 'starting point' because of questions like 'Why is that city abandoned(praque) and that one (Dresden) isn't?' But at the same time, I don't think it has gotten hot enough(in my future europe) for a city to be abandoned (how could I justify it being so hot for cities to be abandoned, yet have two armies romping across europe night and day) I know cities arn't just abandoned becaue its hot, but because of lack of water (and probably a few other less obvious reasons), but cities do ok in the desert and have done for a long time.

I was angling towards a 'climate shift' idea, in which temperatures, were sort of migrating upwards (europe getting very hot, iceland getting warmer, africa getting cooler), but obviously that couldn't happen because temperture is related to the angle/spread of the suns rays against earth.

[ctg]

If you want to know what really happens in dead cities, then study Chernobyl, and see if you can find out a torrent for a History Channel documentary called Life After People. I have to warn you that there is quite a lot of research data out there on this subject and it varies between conspiracy theories and scientific hypothesis. The truth is that nobody really knows (until we are there), before that everything is speculation ... strong speculation, but speculation still.

[ctg]

There is a great deal information that can be said from post apocalyptic states of the cities and lands around them. This new scientist article is a good example.

Nuked coral reef bounces back - earth - 14 April 2008 - New Scientist Environment

"Apart from occasional forays of illegal shark, tuna and Napoleon Wrasse fishing, the reef is almost completely undisturbed to this day," says Maria Beger of the University of Queensland in Australia. "There are very few local inhabitants and the divers who visit dive on shipwrecks, like the USS Saratoga, and not on the reef."
Beger took a Geiger counter with her on dives and says that the background levels were similar to that at any Australian city. The same could not be said of coconuts growing on the islands.
"When I put the Geiger counter near a coconut, which accumulates radioactive material from the soil, it went berserk," says Beger.