The other day, while reading a decent but not great SF novel written more than a decade ago, I got to thinking about plotting and plots.

While there are exceptions, I tend to write “straight-line” plots, in the sense that the protagonist is attempting to get from point A to point B. Sometimes, he or she gets there. Sometimes, they get to another end that they didn’t anticipate. There are obstacles, from nature, social and government structures, and from others with conflicting or hostile objectives. Some of those obstacles the protagonist doesn’t even think about until having to confront them, but the obstacles are part of the world or worlds the protagonist must negotiate. It’s not easy, sometimes almost impossible, and the cost is never negligible.

But that’s certainly not the only way to plot. There’s the daisy chain plot, where one thing leads to another, and the protagonist is led and/or misled until he or she figures the way out. Or “the universe is against me” plot, where the protagonist has to smash everything in order to merely survive. Or “the chosen one” plot, featuring generally a less obstacle-ridden version of the hero’s journey.

Whatever the basic plot structure, an accomplished writer can generally make it work out in a believable fashion, but the more elaborate the underlying plot structure, the greater the possibility that a less accomplished author will undermine the believability of the story and the world. But then, in certain types of books or movies, particularly those featuring “massive” superheroes, the plot isn’t the point at all – displaying the powers and skills of the hero is the primary goal of the movie/book.

One thing I have noticed in real life is that there’s almost always someone smarter, stronger, faster, and more capable – and when there’s not, people band together to keep powerful people in line… or become their slaves.

For every George Washington or Cincinnatus, who gave up power willingly, there are scores of would-be dictators who can’t or won’t – and that’s another plot.

After more than fifty years of writing professionally, I find it interesting and amusing to read reviews of my books and others, especially when I see readers and reviewers disputing how good or how “realistic” a novel is.

Part of the sense of reality perceived by readers lies in the ability of the writer to convey actions, images, allusions, illusions, and facts in a way that effectively creates a believable world and narrative, but part lies in the knowledge and perceptions of the individual reader.

We all have our bête noires, those factual errors or internal irreconcilable inconsistencies perpetrated by an author that degrade or destroy our enjoyment of the work. Years ago, I wrote a review of a moderately successful SF novel, set in the then-present in the Washington, D.C., area. I wrote that the book was decent and moderately entertaining, but that the numerous factual errors kept it from being better, and I gave examples. The editor begged to differ and said he wouldn’t publish the review unless I removed the examples. I demurred, and the review was never published. The book was a moderate bestseller and was adapted into a movie, which received mixed reviews.

I wasn’t wrong about the errors, but readers unfamiliar with the Washington, D.C., area and culture wouldn’t have known the difference, although some other errors were factual. For some readers, those kinds of errors can destroy the enjoyment of a novel. For others, the errors don’t even register. My father was an attorney and an avid reader, but he couldn’t stand most legal representations in movies, television, or novels, which he found not only unrealistic, but totally unbelievable.

As a writer, I do my best to avoid such errors and inconsistencies, but some authors dismiss any “reality” that gets in the way of the action or blood and gore, and they’re likely correct that too much “reality” can kill the story for those who don’t know the facts or don’t care.

In 2015, Tor published my very hard SF novel, Solar Express, which, as a “semi-joint” project with NASA, was read by several NASA scientists who agreed that I handled the science accurately. There were quite a number of one star reader reviews, with comments about it being too technical and dull, as well as five-star reviews from readers citing the accuracy, with a lot of reviews in the middle saying that they liked my other work better.

The bottom line, from what I’ve seen, is that every reader has his or her view of what’s realistic in fiction, and fiction that’s “excessively” realistic appeals to comparatively few readers, and that’s been true as far back as Jane Austen, few of whose female protagonists would have snared their male in any truly accurate portrayal of the reality of that time in history.

Where the U.S. government and some state governments are concerned, too many things take too long and cost too much.

Court proceedings, both civil and criminal, take too long, with the practical results that those with financial resources are far more likely to escape the consequences of their actions and those without such resources will spend more time behind bars, either by accepting disadvantageous plea bargains or awaiting trial, while prisons become more and more crowded.

Dealing with the legal and regulatory actions for construction or federal contracts often consumes more time than it actually takes to build something, partly because Americans argue too much, partly because the courts are understaffed, and partly because too often the regulations and the laws are used as tools of obstruction.

The immigration process is so clogged up and procedure-hampered that we’re not effectively dealing with illegal immigrants while turning away highly trained and talented immigrants.

Military procurement takes longer and longer and costs more and more.

Almost everywhere you look in the United States, things are bogged down and not working as well as they should. People know this, and they’re angry – which is why so many voted for Trump.

The problem is that the methods Trump and Musk are using won’t work, because they don’t address the heart of the problem.

We’re in this pickle because no government can regulate everything to be perfectly safe… or perfectly fair… or perfectly equal. When you try that, you get California, where it can take years to get permission to install solar power, where you can’t build enough homes because it’s too costly and too many are homeless.

There’s no effective and perfect way to IMMEDIATIATELY reduce global warming without destroying current societies and cultures, but replacing coal-burning power plants with natural gas would reduce emissions and pollution and make great steps, even though it’s not ideal. So would building more nuclear plants in the right locales.

It’s been said more than once that seeking perfection is the enemy of accomplishment, and that’s too often true because perfection is exceedingly expensive and often unobtainable, and those who seek perfection too often oppose anything less.

In short, we need a compromise which results in more good, and less insistence on perfection.

Earlier this week Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and National Security advisor Mike Waltz conducted a group chat with eighteen people on the Signal platform about a military operation involving the Houthi. There was nothing inherently wrong with having a chat.

What was wrong – and stupid – was: (1) revealing in advance classified operational military plans; (2) using the Signal system, which is not rated for classified information; (3) including, if inadvertently, a reporter from The Atlantic; and (4) subsequently lying about the contents of the meeting, which led to The Atlantic releasing some of that classified information to prove the lies made by Hegseth and others.

Subsequently, Trump declared that nothing of import was released and that no one reads The Atlantic anyway, while Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s Director of National Intelligence, initially claimed that “no classified information” had been revealed before later saying that she didn’t recall what had been discussed.

Senator John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, said of the leak, “I don’t think most Americans care one way or another.”

Although the Trump administration is looking stupider by the week, other Republicans offered support and voiced sentiments along the lines that the administration would fix the problem.

From what I’ve observed over the years, you can sometimes remedy honest ignorance, but stupidity usually occurs in those who cannot or will not learn – and for that reason, as an old saying goes, “You can’t fix stupid.”

As far as Trump appointees go…we’ll see.

Both Elon Musk and Donald Trump have taken Mark Zuckerberg’s early mantra – “Move fast and break things” – to heart in their efforts to reshape and downsize the federal bureaucracy.

This is already presenting at least three major problems. First, like Humpty Dumpty, some of those things they’re breaking shouldn’t have been broken in the first place and may not be easily repaired or replaced.

Second, one of the things they’re trying to break is the concept that the United States is a land of laws, and that the laws are superior to the desires of those who lead government. Trump, of course, has nothing but contempt for any law that thwarts or restricts anything he wants to accomplish, regardless of either existing law or the future consequences of his acts.

Third, they really don’t know what they’re doing, beginning with firing the federal employees in charge with the nuclear weapons stockpile and reducing the number of FAA and IRS employees at a time when both agencies are understaffed. Firing the Forest Service and National Parks employees will only increase the severity of fire damage and turn the parks into trash heaps, especially now, given the backlog of infrastructure maintenance at the parks and the increasing number of visitors.

Blaming Canada for the fentanyl epidemic is also absurd, since less than one percent comes from Canada, and imposing tariffs on Canada will hurt the U.S. far more than it will impact Canada, particularly U.S. auto manufacturing. It also won’t do anything to reduce drug trafficking.

Trump and Musk also haven’t targeted the most obvious sources of waste, especially the U.S. military/industrial complex. There are so many U.S. military bases/facilities both in the U.S. and worldwide that there’s not even a consensus on how many there are. Reputable estimates range from 800 to 1,200, and the military has been trying to consolidate and close a number of those installations for years, but for some reason, Congress doesn’t like the idea when it comes to reducing bases in the districts of individual members.

Regardless of critics, moving fast will continue, at least for a while, and civil liberties will be further eroded; prices will increase; productive federal employees will be fired, while unproductive ones will be retained; and Trump will proclaim how wonderful everything is.