An illustration of our place in the observable universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgo_Supercluster#/media/File:Location_of_Earth_(9x1-English_Annot-small).png
Here's another thing to consider: With all of the Earth's diverse biomes and cultures, the largest empire in history, that of Great Britain &c, only controlled 25% of the landmass of the Earth: From Wikipedia: Any time you get a large empire you get fractious (literally) vassals and competition from other aspiring Great Powers. A multi-galactic empire is going to be very tough to keep together.
Yeah, just the two big boys with us and Andromeda. Lots of stupid piddly shit irregular galaxies stumbling through the universe around them. Still though... how many galaxies and worlds are enough? Once you get past 10 to the 12th, you're just padding the stats.
I would argue that scale ultimately does not matter that much (except for those who aren't willing to suspend their disbelief, however many people that may be). It is how you write the story set in whatever scale you have that matters. A lot can be made feasible, and if not, fantasy knows no bounds. You could write a story about factions controlling several quintillion universes each, waging a multiverse war against each other on some super-scale. The story would still just be about a couple of characters in different scenes (if you are a mortal human writing with limited time). The same goes for a story set in New York, though more may be able to relate to such a story, and that is where the problem with scale is. You just have to be convincing if you managed to pull the reader into your scale. In the end you still have to write a really good story, regardless of its scale.
This is precisely why I appreciate the Warhammer 40k universe. It puts "size" into such a different perspective compared to the Star Wars or Mass Effect universes. For Star Wars, you have the galaxy divided into some regions, and the universe has 10-15 "famous" or "prominent" planets for each. Hutt space got Tattooine, Nar-Shadda, Nal Hutta, so on. Now consider that our own lil' Galaxy supposedly contains 10ish billion planets in the habitable range. Is that not huge? Now back to Warhammer 40k I just love the /consequences/ of an Imperium with an /actual/ galaxy-spanning size. The Imperium of Man is said to have more than a million settled planets decentralized to the point that certain planets have never even interacted with the central government, only with the military conquerors. Multiple languages exist that deviate from the main core language. And technology trickles away the further one goes to the edges of the Imperium, where nobody really has any idea how things function, except for the occasional tech-priest sent from Mars/Earth. It creates a whole perspective on galactic strategy: with 1m+ planets under the Imperium, exterminatus (the blowing up of a planet to prevent the spread of corruption) is an actual, logical measure and so are the various planet-conscriptions (when the whole planet population is conscripted into an army).
Yeah, so has tech, but there is still at least 30,000 years before we decide AI might not be the way to go.
I prefer to keep things small. I started my space epic with an empire that spanned only 41 systems. Seven books later it had only 63. I have at least one planet in each system named, with details about its geography, atmosphere, population level, and economics (imports and exports). I couldn't do that with a galactic empire.
I disagree. Yes, there are 'universes' (in this case im using the term to define a particular creation, so the star wars universe, the warhammer universe etc) that are vast, have ben established over decades and have multiple writers, as well as movies, tv shows, even fans, contributing to them, but there are also examples of single authors doing this well. Dune has already been pointed out as one example, I would put Jack Campbells lost fleet as another example. James Coery's the Expanse series, Mag Force 7 (Margaret Weiss/Don Perin). They are all galaxy spanning works, that work. In some cases you get a back story as to how they are able to galaxy span. The Lost Fleet series does this. However, in most cases the universe 'Just Is' and the authors dont feel the need to explain how it came to be, and it works. The stories dont focus on issues such as travel, or colonisation, and doesnt make outrages claims about them that leads us to ask why and how. Video games are another excellent source of examples of how galaxy spanning worlds can be bought to life without indepth analysis of how they managed it. Mass Effect and Halo, two good examples, that have since gone on to have a much larger base of lore, but worked from the start when we were first introduced to them and again, I think they work because they 'just are'. You might get a little insight in to things, but its not done in a way that leaves you asking how and why. Star wars does this. It gives you hyperspace, but doesnt try to explain what hyperspace is, you just accept that, it is. However, star trek has tried many times to explain 'warp speed' and it always fails. Warhammer does well in that it gives you a reason, but its not a 'technical' reason and therefore cant get pulled apart by fans. So I think thats the key. Dont give the reader the opportunity to ask the how or why. Just get them to accept that 'is is'.
@Count_Spatula What a horrible question to pose. The reaction by many of the posts are all good, insightful yet somewhat predictable of any realistic sci-fi story. Your idea I’ve pondered on at length. Something that feels and looks believable in a futuristic setting... In fact, Star Wars and the like fail horribly. Look backwards instead. History tells of many expanding empires and why they did for differing reasons. Caesar and the Gallic wars were for political pull at Home. In the 1800s the British expansion using trade to dominate European countries. In each case they both suffered from huge time dilation between giving orders and receiving feedback. Senior staff had somewhat an auto minus brief on how best to execute their standing orders... This is key to any story... make it real. Why are humans so far from Earth? Materials no, a second solar system for survival maybe? Or maybe its more to do with expansionism and control. Like the wild west? In the case of the Romans, they had superior technology over the inhabitants of the new lands. Yet it wasn’t assets they craved but kudos back home in the senate. This is missed in many sci-fi world building scenarios. Why do we want to expand? MartinM
I noticed that the Foundation Trilogy wasn't mentioned, and it is a pretty large scale thing. Yes I know it has more than just the Trilogy, so that only makes it a bit bigger than the already pretty big scale. Just not as exciting as the more action packed mythos' that have already been brought up.
I lost sight of what the post was about. It sounds like the OP is indicating that one writer could not keep track of a galaxy wide setting, is that right? One early writer had a galaxy wide setting when most sci fi writers of his time settled for single solar systems - E E “Doc” Smith. Check the Lensman series.
I read one of those books, It was far too vast for me. I felt tiny and lost, an insignificant flyspeck.
Stephen Baxter's Xeelee Sequence goes far outside of the bounds of the galaxy. Man, those are some badass aliens! Reading those books is strange. To describe it . . . imagine that you're in the Liberal Arts--a double major in Fashion Design and Anthropology--and you meet the guy/gal of your dreams. They're totally available. It turns out they are in a super-advanced Physics course which you then sign up for to sit near them. You want to be there. (More than anything!) Everyday you feel like you have a better chance. But you're carrying a solid F average and the final is tomorrow and you're cramming nonstop. That's how it feels reading these books. Just overwhelming, but you can't walk away.
