Which would be more interesting to you personally? I have this idea, but I don't know if I'm telling the right story, like if I'm starting in the right place. I wanna know what other people think of the situation. So would the fall of a country be more interesting or the reconstruction of that fallen country? Background: My story is about an American Junta taking control during a third world war. I start my story forty years later when the Junta collapses and some rival "factions" if you will, fight over how the new government will work and who will run it. But I'm wondering if more people would find it interesting to either follow the rise of the Junta and fall of America or the fall of the Junta rather than what comes after it. So tell me what you guys think please.
It really could go either way. So, what interests you more? The excitement of the fall, or the drama of a slow rise? If you're asking my opinion, I'd go for the rising up, and maybe show other stuff in flashback, because apocalypse stuff is pretty common. That, however, is mere personal preference.
I feel like countries falling has been seen so much so I'd like to see a country try and re-build from the moment of the fall to it rising again.
Another one for rising up. It's more unusual, and IMO it's more interesting and offers more possibilities for development.
To be really honest, it could go either way. It depends entirely on the story you want to tell. Given just those two options, I'd go for a rebuild because I am really sick and tired of dystopian collapses. It's been absurdly overdone. Try for some positivity.
I think we would ALL like to see something about rebuilding... especially after this year haha! But seriously, rebuilding is something that hasn't been done to death and you can do a lot with it!
Perhaps both. The first book The Fall with hints to the second. I don’t recall offhand very many about the fall of a government or the rise either. Just a few dry old history schoolbooks.
There is a movie I recall about a similar situation - The Postman starring Kevin Costner. Not too bad.
Post-apocalyptic settings are overdone, apocalyptic settings are very, very rare. I am definitely sided with the latter; it's after all a major theme in my current project. In Metro 2033, the protagonist wakes up and explores an already devastated world. In the fallout universe, the protagonist (usually) emerges from a vault to explore the wasteland. In Malevil, the protagonists are huddled in a wine cellar while apocalypse rages. I was inspired by a specific dialogue in the game Fallout 3 to deviate from the above tropes and set my world /during/ the apocalypse, and not after. The above examples show authors "excusing" themselves from describing the apocalypse and instead "remove people" from the world, shelter them, then "re-insert" them. I very much prefer stories where "survival" is not due to some magical shelter and detachment from the world, but through endurance and strength in face of the chaos brought upon by the apocalypse. And I also prefer worlds where the apocalypse isn't a snap of the finger, but a prolonged and predictable downfall. Obvious clues, doomsayers, logical consequences and a "can't get worse than this but wait for it" spiral. Contrast the above examples of post-apocalyptic stories with real world examples of apocalypses. Emperor Aurelian isn't revered because he conquered some lands; it's because the people who followed him had lived through the darkest days of the Roman Empire and saw light in him (and named him "restorer of the world"). Similarly, the stories of post-war writers are hollow and meaningless without the full context of WW2, the atrocities and the events leading up to it. As an author seeking to portray a similar event, you are bound to provide this context. A very good example is the Kaiserreich universe and its worldbuilding.
Given the political climate these days, a story about people rising up against an oppressive upper class and corrupted businessmen would be quite a bit more eye catching in general that a story about the clean-up after a change of power/policy.
