One of the biggest complaints by experts in their respective field when it comes to portraying certain organisation in fiction was writers have a tendency to over-simplify things.

Especially when it comes to depicting an military organisation, many works of fiction often simplify such organisation in order to make it "less boring" for their audience.

Take for example, the Star Trek 2009 movie. Kirk was immediately promoted to a Captain of one of the best Federation starship just because he saved the day, and was allowed to appoint his XO on the spot without any sort of paperwork.

This is just one of the many bad examples of oversimplifying the bureaucracy of an extremely complex organisation. So, in response to this, can we find any example where the author manage to depict the complexity of an organisation while not adding unnecessary burden to the story?

 

Jack Campbell's The Lost Fleet gives a good sense of the logistical and leadership difficulties of coordinating a large fleet of spacecraft during military operations (analogous to large naval operations in general). Whether it is perceived as "burden(ing) the story," it forms the essential conflict.

 

The most immediate example of a story that was overburdened by author describing how complex his orgainsation is one Battlestar Galactica fanfic.

http://www.fanfiction.net/s/3194894/1/The-Consequences-Of-Not-Being-Polite

The author spend more time developing the orgainsation of the Human Empire than he spend on the actual plot.

 

And yet even then, it didn't feel all that complex.

Top down descriptions of the structure of an entire organisation never feel like they properly capture how complex large organisations are.

The much better method, I think, is to zoom in on one or two tiny details of an organisation, and spend time on them. Make them important for the story. Unfurl it layer by layer. And then the reader will "fill in" the rest of the organisation, assuming it to be similarly complex.

 

What Taure said.

I feel like William Gibson does an excellent job in this across both the Bridge and Sprawl trilogies. Although his prose is highly specific (to the point of rendering the reader flabbergasted) he never directly explains the structure of the corporations that Case, Rydell et al end up involved with.

 

It really comes down to showing, not telling imo. If you simply outline your perception of organisation x in the narrative, it'll be at best mildly interesting, more likely very boring. If, instead, you have your character encounter aspects of the organisation in the course of the plot, run into the layers of bureaucracy or have to deal with ascending layers of rank, whatever works to demonstrate the complexity of the organisation in question, then it'll be much more interesting.

Doing it that way also allows the reader to develop an understanding of how the character interacts with the organisation, is perceived by the organisation etc, which is good for expanding their character.

 

It would be problematic if you are writing your story from the POV of a general conducting a campaign as opposed to the POV of a renegade.

Won't you have a greater need to outline the organisation to your audience if you are telling the story of a general? You could attempt to showcase how complex running an army is by showing the General being overburdened with paperwork, but this might result in some of your non-military inclined readers viewing your story as boring.

Alternatively, not showcasing a general having an issue with paperwork might result in readers who are more military-inclined to argue that your story is not realistic enough.

How do you draw the fine line in such a scenario?

 

You don't need to outline the organization even then. In highly stratified organs such as the military, with not a few layers of rank, any one on the ladder isn't going to be interacting with every level, but only with the closest levels. Let's say your general is a Brigadier in the U. S. Army (what your average American is going to call a "one-star general". Your Brigadier is going to be dealing most often with his Colonels and the Majors below them somewhat less often. He'll be taking his orders from the Major General (commonly known as a two-star general) above him and much less often deal with the Lieutenant General (a. k. a. a three-star general). If he's lucky, he might get to sit in on a meeting with the General (a. k. a. a four-star general). Going back down the Officer chain, he's probably not going to deign to speak to anyone lower than a Lieutenant Colonel, though he might occasionally shake the hand of a Major and give a brief greeting. Maybe. Probably not.

Now, I might have gotten the details wrong above (our DLP military guys can clear it up), but the point still stands. Anyone in the organization isn't going to be dealing with everyone on the chain, just those in the positions close to them above and below.

Thus, I have to agree with Mordecai on this one. If your story is about a Brigadier (*) running a campaign, then you're going to have a lot of passing mentions of Battalions and Companies. You can have him moving little models on a map that represent either full Battalions or maybe even more models representing companies. He won't be worrying about anything more specific than that. He's commanding a Brigade (hence the name, Brigadier--3,000–5,000 troops), and two or more Brigades form a Division (10,000–15,000 troops), which his immediate superior officer, the Major General (**) commands. This means that not just our Brigadier, but up to three more Brigadiers are moving their Brigades into roughly the same large area. Two or more Divisions forms a Corps (20,000–45,000 troops), commanded by a Lieutenant General (***) so you're going to be seeing even more troops moving in an even larger area. Finally, you're going to have an Army (2-4 Corps; 80,000–200,000 troops) commanded by a General (****). When they talk about Patton's "third Army" that's what they're talking about: the unit, not the whole of the U. S. Army.

Another way to show complication is that these units aren't fixed, and sometimes one lower or one higher commands them. Patton was only a 3-star general (Lieutenant General), but he commanded an entire Army, and Wikipedia points out that your average Brigade is commanded by a Colonel, these days, so your Brigadier is regularly interacting with Colonels who command Brigades just like he does. In fact, you could make it a point of personal consternation on his part: He deals with four Colonels and one Lieutenant Colonel immediately under him who each command one of the five Battalions he's fielding, but he has to deal with some up-start brand new Colonel in the Officer's mess who likes to rub it in that, despite being a Colonel, he fields his own Brigade. Perhaps it eventually boils over and results in an altercation, ultimately resulting in our Brigadier pulling rank and Court's Martialing this upstart Colonel. However, that puts him on the General's shit list because the General was the one promoted the Colonel to Brigade commander.

Now, let's look at it from the perspective of our hypothetical Renegade. He's just going to see this massive army he has to fight. Perhaps if he's captured, he'll be personally interviewed by our Brigadier, but more than likely, never the twain shall meet. If our Renegade is recognized as "General" himself (perhaps this renegade army is part of some sort of massive civil war and it's got a proper structure), then he might also discuss movements of large troop units. He might also discuss the enemy in terms of "Watch out for [our Brigadier]'s brigade. We've got to fortify that area as best we can, otherwise He. Will. Punch. Through. On the other hand, take the reinforcements you need from the guys fighting [Colonel Up-Start]'s brigade. He's a political appointee, and doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground."

I would recommend that any author doing such a military-themed story peruse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_organization and acquaint themselves with the various levels of a military organization, and how various countries handle them. You don't have to pick any one of them, but when you make your own, keep in mind that these various divisions and strata evolved over a few thousand years.

Are you using a medieval setting, then you shouldn't have this level of complexity. You'll have a column of knights commanded by Colonel (the word "Colonel" means "Column leader," essentially), and a few such columns will be commanded by a general, so your whole structure will be Knight<Colonel<General<King. You may have lieutenants for the Colonel and General who deliver their commands to the rank below: The general might be fielding multiple armies (each consisting of several Columns) in a campaign, so his Lieutenant Generals will be left with the individual command of each army.

As your organization grows in size, you're going to see an increase in complexity. You just show that increase with increased interaction and interplay.

At no point in a story should the whole thing grind to a halt so that the author can TL;DR an organization's structure like I just did above.

You can also do a lot of showing by consistently using the titles I mentioned above. Don't' just talk about "the general". Have the Brigadier openly disagree with Colonel Up-Start in front of the Major General. Have the Brigadier successfully convince the Lieutenant General, in a room full of Major Generals, that he should field his Corps in a certain way--perhaps in a very risky move that wins his Major General some favor. Have our Brigadier be very honored by the opportunity to have a personal lunch with the General who wants to congratulate him on his Brigade's exemplary performance, but wants to tell him to back-off from causing any more friction with Colonel-Upstart, his personal appointee.

That's five layers of complexity you can show without explaining one iota of it. The reader can get the gist from the interactions that someone called "Major General" is the Brigadier's boss, but sucks up to someone called the "Lieutenant General" and that they all suck up to "the General"--but they're all called General (you don't address a Brigadier as "Brigadier General Montgomery," you just call him "General Montgomery." Even with that level of confusion, none of it needs explaining, just showing.

 

Depicting the chain of command is something many authors seems to struggle with. How often did we see in a movie or read in a novel whereby "the General" archtype suddenly become a military figure of an entire nation, commanding every available forces to bear.

This "general" figure suddenly become some one who is in charge of every minor operation to chase down the protagonist, being in charge of every major operation as well as being a final showdown figure that engage in a fistfight with the hero of the story. Take for example, the evil chancellor in Total Recall.

Many stories became so character centric that different role an responsibilities are merged into a single position for plot connivance.

Won't that still depend on whether the army in this medieval setting was a professional army? The Roman army, despite being in the classical age, was quite complex as an organisation.

Regarding the issue of lieutenants, it is quite difficult to portray them in any setting. Give them too little command responsibility, and they will look like mere muscle man for the commander. Give them too much command, and you will leave your audience wondering how much power this lieutenant have.

Star Trek is perhaps one of the biggest sinner when it comes to depicting junior officers in fiction. The junior officers are shown to be so used to be ordered around by senior officers that you being to forget that they are still officers, and are commissioned because of their leadership qualities.

A science officer (or a scientist) will end up as nothing more than a walking wikipedia with feelings, neglecting that he have people working under him when it comes down to solving scientific questions and problems.

A technical officer often end up as a walking fix-it-all, never instructing people under him to fix stuff that he cannot fix by himself.

 

There are different problems:

1. Authors are stupid and ignorant.

2. Cast size.

3. A typical viewer's ability to handle cast size.

An example of the third problem is the very accurate Apollo 13 movie: they combined several real characters into a single one, not because they didn't know the truth or because they wanted to use a single actor for those roles but because they decided the viewers would be too confused by too many characters.

The Star Trek thing where we rarely see the underlings of the warship's department heads is an example of the second problem. ST:ToS was done like a theater with a small troupe.

The thing where they promote a cadet/midshipman to Captain (the ranks are: Cadet, Ensign, Sub-Lieutenant, Lieutenant, Lieutenant-Commander, Commander, Captain), which usually takes over 20 years of exceptional service and over the heads of all but a few officers in the entire service (who all applaud the decision), is an example of the first problem. For illustration, let's look at the career of Michael Mullen, the previous Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States Armed Forces. He graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1968, commanded an old destroyer 1985-1987 as a Commander and commanded his first cruiser as a full Captain beginning in 1992. He might have been made Captain earlier, if he didn't do a second postgraduate degree, but maybe it was required to get the edge over the competition for the promotion.

 

I think it comes down to the development of the plot and the development of the character as being seen more important than the development of the setting. Ideally, you'd wanna see a good focus on all three- well-developed characters that you can relate to, an interesting and unique storyline, and a complex, engaging world. But, really, I personally do think that character and plot development probably is more important- because if you have good characters and an interesting plot, you could have the setting be anywhere, and it would still work.

Still, nobody likes a little Miss Exposition. Mordecai said it best- develop your setting by showing it, and let the reader develop their own understanding of it. Probably the best- and the easiest- way to go about it.

 

I agree than the development of the character should always preceed everything else.

However, the lack of attention towards the setting can make the story rather cliche and bland. Your audience might feel your setting to be rather artificial if they think poorly of your world building skills.

The good setting is the anchor of any story, as it allows the audience to better identify your characters as real human being living in a actual world. One particular reason why so many people enjoy Harry Potter is you can buy into the fact that Rowling's characters are in a living and breathing world.

The audience can identify with the magical world because we all understand how complex our world is.

A story where you have excellent character development but poor world building can easily make us feel like the entire world is center around a single person. Jim Carrey's "The Truman show" is one excellent depiction of how artificial the world will feel if everything revolves around your protagonist.

You can have an excellent story where the setting is given more weight than character development. The Lord of the Rings is one excellent example. There was a much greater focus on what was going on around middle earth than how Fordo grew as a person.

This make the entire story feels as if it does not revolve around the action of one person, and it takes a collective effort from everyone to defeat Sauron.

 

On the other hand, though, you can take a series like The Wheel of Time and use it as an example as a story where the setting took precedence over characters- and suffered for it. That's where wolfe makes a good point- the cast size has to be manageable, and I really think there should be no more than 10 reoccurring characters- less, even.

 

Yeah, when I see this sort of thing, it irks me. No General should ever even be thinking of groups less than 5,000 men, and even then, if an author's going to conflate all four levels of "general" into The General, then that number needs to go up an order of magnitude.