Daybreak Diary #4: On Chapter Release Time

The belated update to Daybreak is here. I do apologize for the delay -- mostly caused because I started the chapter late, as I was too busy roleplaying a giant, spacefaring mushroom on a bid to unite the universe... no seriously.

The good news is, I've already started the next chapter to make up for the delay. With any luck, it'll be out much faster this time -- hopefully around two weeks.

Also, since marksy.arc90 seems to be dead, I'm currently looking for another easy-to-use WikiCode to HTML converter to use for Daybreak. Yet to find a satisfactory one so recommendations welcomed.

Many of you have wondered and complained: why do Daybreak updates take so long? Well, let me break the work down. Here's a rough list of 'steps' in the Daybreak chapter release process:

  • Research: Daybreak is not like most web novels. To write a work of this scale and detail requires a serious amount of research to fact-check and back details up. This step varies greatly from chapter to chapter: some of the slice-of-life chapters require almost none; while the more serious chapters need metric tons. For example, to write v3ch8-9, I read through dozens of articles and personal accounts on bipolar disorder: the clinical symptoms, the emotions patients go through, the impact to those around them, etc. To write v3ch10, I dug into wikiislam, askislam, and wikiquotes to read up on their stories, folklore, and teachings -- so I'm actually portraying a realistic culture and not just a convenient stereotype. The major battle chapters are probably the most consuming to write; formulating strategy on my part involves digging through lists of historical battles for both inspiration and confirmation -- making sure the tactics employed will result in depicted results and not simply wishful thinking by an amateur (I can pick apart most military fiction out there for lacking in this xD). On average, I'd say this takes about 5-9 hours per chapter.
  • Writing: I'm by no means a fast writer. The average chapter length of Daybreak has more than doubled since 1st volume. Now, each chapter composes of around 4 scenes or sections, and each of these scenes will take me between 3-4 hours, depending on my familiarity with the style and topic. That comes out anywhere between 12 to 16 hours. This does not even include the occasion where I completely toss out a finished scene because I decided it's plot/character/world development value does not warrant its wordcount (which happened once over the weekend). I do not tolerate the useless word spam that most fanfiction authors are guilty of (million plus words? I could re-read all of World War II in less <_<)
  • Alpha Editing: Most chapters go through two stages of alpha editing, taking 2-3 hours each. By the end of this I can finally deem the chapter of sufficient quality by my own standards.
  • Beta Editing: After alpha, I pass it to the beta-reader/editors -- each of whom have their specialties. As a general rule, I wait for feedback and recommendations from at least 3 betas. Usually each of these discussions will trigger another editing round of 2-3 hours each.

Sum these estimates up and that's an expenditure of 27-40 hours per chapter. This is why it takes me a long time! How much could you have done with an extra 30+ hours per month or so? I left out other tasks too: like map-making, or long-term planning sessions, or my 'general edits' -- where every 4-5 chapters, I run another edit on all the chapters to make sure the story is moving consistently. The list goes on.

Many a commenters have praised Daybreak's writing quality as professional and this is why. There's no secret other than the sheer time spent polishing it.

Nothing worth having comes without diligence and painstaking effort.


 

(Removed my Brexit thoughts; since some British were clearly taking offense... sorry about that...)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

62 thoughts on “Daybreak Diary #4: On Chapter Release Time

Open Message Board
  1. DefaultMelody

    I should get around Daybreak one day, I feel like I'm missing on something.

    Btw, krytyk, Antimagic Another Mission 2 to be released on 8/20. Time for more fanservice.

    Reply
        1. krytykkrytyk

          Nah, that's not it. I don't follow the magazines so I didn't know, but apparently mini-story series in Doramaga continued. They just bundled them up, added something more and bam, there's another mission 2.

          Reply
  2. Truffle

    Just got caught up again, thanks for the update looking forward to reading the next chapter and seeing the artwork if your artist ever comes through for you

    Reply
  3. zog11

    Hold on why do the Scots and Irish get off the hook (forgetting Welsh)?
    In all seriousness I want to make a few points which you may or may not find interesting.

    1.I am English and I have yet to meet or hear a pro imperialist British or English person. I hope their all dead and buried to be honest. (There are always a few madmen and lunatics in any country more in the USA (Trump) but that not really the point) (Newspapers are not a good source of news in the UK they are essentially bias in the UK and some should be banned/fined for being racist and untrue. I could go on about newspaper press in the UK all day but that's a whole other debate but point is that they are about political platforms and positions rather than news)

    2. The EU referendum is result is in part a protest vote against austerity and recession in parts of the UK that were already in economic decline prior to the 2008 crash. In those conditions it clear that racism and xenophobia is going to rise, even if it is completely unacceptable. (what really irritates me is those who pander to them rather than dealing with the economic problems, because they think its easier to win support politically maybe it should be a criminal offence to do so I don't know)

    3,On the British empire the UK has to some extent moved passed the empire in public debate, (except perhaps in the case of India) just as other countries move on from the worst parts of their histories, while still remembering them. (Germany, Japan, USA, China, Russia, France, Spain to name a few) The British Empire is often now confused or conflated, with the benefits brought by the Commonwealth (a body promoting international aid, rule of law and cultural diversity.) (It is strange but true the empire now seen as part of celebrating culturally diversity internally in the UK, being the only positive thing that the UK gained long term from the empire)

    4.Moving on the English or rather British history hasn't been whitewashed at least in the last 40 years but the empire has a place in a wider context, a lot has happened in the last century, that doesn’t diminish the suffering and death of people but it has been over taken by other events, which are more relevant when looking at the issues in conflicts. Honestly academically how can any British historian write objectively about one the worst period of UK history? (Particularly when much of the documentary evidence of this period is missing and destroyed in the UK after the London blitz.) It’s like asking a German to write objectively about the rise of Nazi Germany or a Russian to write about the USSR proxy wars with USA .

    5.The final point is perhaps it is more useful to judge the current UK on its actions in the last 50 years, in trying to make the world a better place, on climate change, international development aid, charitable giving, landmine bans etc.. It is not all good (Iraq?) I grant you, but the UK has substantially changed since the British empire maybe not enough In my opinion but it is almost unrecognisable politically and culturally.
    That's my impression anyway perhaps you disagree and that's fine but maybe someone might find it interesting?

    Reply
    1. AoriiAorii Post author

      The Welsh and the Irish were conquered by England; the Scots lost their sovereignty ever since the union of kingdoms, as England can easily overrule Scotland by populace, political influence, etc -- it's why the Scottish parliament was founded in 1999, but analysts believe even that won't keep Scotland from being pulled out with Brexit against their will. Furthermore all three nations have historically kept to themselves and suffered repeatedly at the hands of English aggression.

      1. The number of times I've heard British people talking about the 'gifts' they bestowed upon the world through empire is ridiculous, as though it somehow lessens the fact those 'gifts' were only used to extract resources from their colonies through oppression, cruelty, and slaughter.

      3. Yes, many other countries were just as brutal in their imperial days. But that does not excuse Britain for their sins. Worse yet, unlike countries like Germany or Japan, Britain has never apologized for their genocidal days. Even the USA -- known for their sense of exceptionalism -- has apologized for decimating the Native Americans and pays billions of dollars in recompense. Has Britain done the same for decimating the Indian economy? or ravaging Chinese society through forced opium trade? or wiping out so many native cultures in the Americas, Africa, and Australia?
      (btw, the French believed in cooperating with the natives as much as possible [although exceptions like Haiti were terrible], hence why the American natives actually considered the French as allies during wars. The Chinese, meanwhile, rarely care for anyone outside their cultural sphere since their economy was internally self-sufficient, which means they rarely launched invasive wars)

      4. But the Germans have examined their nazi past in seriousness, and the USSR had to face their own atrocities, including publicly admitted and apologizing for them. 'Guilt is hard to admit' is no excuse for whitewashing history.

      5. For the most part, I agree that Britain has been a positive force since decolonization. But the UK has a long way before they balance their karma checkbook.

      Reply
      1. zog11

        Ok fair warning this contains a lot of history

        1. Someone actually said that? In the last 20years?

        I was trying to make the point is that the British Empire wasn't just an English thing, the Scottish in particular were involved and active participants. I accept Ireland, as a whole was largely uninvolved mainly due to poverty, although it did benefit indirectly. (Potato’s, steel, shipbuilding etc.) The Welsh were invaded back in the 15th century and were even monarchs under the Tudors, who were directly related to the former welsh crown and who used that claim to integrate Wales in to Britain under Henry VIII in the 16th century. (Technically the beginning of the Empire was under the Tudors) The point is Wales became seen as part of Britain in a way that the Scots and Irish didn't. (The clue is in the name of the country " The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" Great was added when Scotland joined in the Act of Union.)
        Scotland has always been divided on union with the rest of the UK as ultimately the Scottish nobility and monarchy committed them to an act that diluted their sovereignty. (Often seen as a betrayal by nationalists but they did buy peace and prosperity. I am summarising for brevity its more complex) Devolution ultimately was designed to help Scotland have more democracy (paving the way for a federal state) and I agree the Scots should have another referendum on the union, they may not leave under a 'Norway style' deal which is ultimately likely to be the most favoured approach and least damaging. (To the World rather than the UK) But ultimately it is for the Scots to decide, I wouldn't be sure of the result under those conditions. (Oil price lower, currency issues and the rest of the UK is its largest market) The main point is that the whole of the UK was complicit in supporting the empire, not just the English remember much of colonisation was from the people of Scotland, Ireland and Wales.

        1. I agree but the empire did force stability and technology for maximum economic extraction and dependence. (To horrible results) if some British or English person has seriously said that I am ashamed and appalled.
        The only explanation is that often a gut response to a guilty conscience, is to try and find some benefit to justify what happened. (Human psychology) I understand and apologise if it comes off as insensitive, or insincere but people often don't think before speaking. If you honestly debate the issue most British will admit the empire was terrible and horrible. (We are generally very critical of our governments, politics and history)

        The Internet in general isn’t a good platform for sensible debate. So I hope that is understood as being regretful and apologetic rather than defensive. (Also Internet = trolls!) (They also maybe an expiates (British person living aboard) some of which are really strange people, others who have left because they are genuinely racist idiots and are not representative of the UK)
        Either way nobody with 2-brain cells should have said that.
        (If they did I think its because it is so horrible psychologically, that our ancestors did this to other people. Peoples who cultures, values and history we admire, respect and celebrate.) Or just out of general humanity (The other part is genuinely ignorance. we may have studied parts of the empire history it but it screwed (enslaved, killed, brutalised) so many people, nations and countries its hard to know even a fraction of what the empire is responsible for.) (Also people over 70 now may have been taught differently initially but they should know better by now honestly I am sorry and surprised and appalled)

        3. The UK current and out going prime minister did apologises to Indian government and people when he visited the country. (Overdue and muted I know but he did try) The UK did contribute millions in international aid to India and still provides technical support and charitable donations particularly in healthcare. It is one of the reason why the UK does meet its international aid contributions and provides huge amounts of charitable donations, including matched funding. (Every charitable donation by a UK citizen can be doubled by the UK treasury if a form is filled In) the point is the UK is still paying despite our budget deficit.
        -China although not officially apologised does receive a lot of intelligence to help in catch drug dealers. It is usually financial information and police support in the UK. (We also don't complain often about them executing drug dealers) (We are against capital punishment in general)
        -The USA hasn't done enough for Native American population not compared to Canada (we treated them far better and returned land ownership) The USA was largely responsible for it own abuses since the 17th century. (Independent country only 13 costal colonies under Britain) I was referring to the USA neo-colonialism in Latin America in the cold war, protecting corporate interests, supplying conflicts with weapons and arguably contributing to the death of tens of thousands in the effort to protect exploitive trade deals and American companies profits. (In the cloak of defending democracy, when in practice its support brutal dictatorships)
        -Australia however that's fair they still need to do more (maybe we should too) but it is really now an internal affair. (Australian government has apologised officially but not much else)
        -I am not an African expert by any means honestly I know only slavery, its abolition, the Boer war, Apartheid and a bit about the concentration camps. (I know there’s more but it really isn’t my area of study there are some really good African history and politics experts at UK and European universities.) (We still give a lot of aid to Africa and debt forgiveness)
        -In China I was referring mainly to internal repression and censorship, (the agricultural plans and the one child policy) events that are only just starting to be debated publicly by their government. (Censorship is still an issue but there has been some movement)
        It wasn’t intended to be excuses for the UK sins I just wanted to point out it is difficult for countries and nations to own up to them. Germany is the exception rather than the rule.(but there are still some in Germans neo Nazi group in particular that don’t accept it I worry that the migration pressures may cause some backlash)
        4. Germany was forced as part of Nurnberg to confront it. (They have made a lot of progress) The Russians have still not apologised to Eastern Europe for everything, including the Russian nationals still living in those countries and the damage it did to their economies. (It could do much more if it was serious; it’s partly why it still has such bad and frosty relationship in Eastern Europe)
        I am still not sure if we can look at it objectively yet! The main point when their are far more independent academics (particularly in the USA) when it comes to British imperialism, its hard to justify writing about it academically. (Maybe we can do more politically or socially or culturally that’s a fair debate) (We do more for slavery and the black Afro-Caribbean Community in recent years I know for a fact)
        5. I agree we have a long way to go yet.

        I am sorry if that was long winded. I just want to promote some understanding and history and politics from an English/British perspective. I genuinely agree with most of what Aorii said I just wanted to correct a few misunderstanding. I am also appalled about British people talk about the gifts of the British Empire seriously!! Anyway that enough out of me.

        Reply
        1. AoriiAorii Post author

          It's nice to talk to someone who can offer details ^^

          1. I know the history of Britain. Yes the Irish and Scottish have benefited from British Imperialism. But (1) I do not believed they had any choice in the matter, since they lacked the political power to oppose it and therefore it's hardly their fault (2) based on their past, I don't think their cultures were the 'imperialistic' type anyway.

          If you read more online forums and comment threads, you'll see tons of remarks by britons on how their imperialism 'benefited' the rest of the world. Heck, if you look down this page, you'll see Evil Twin2146 making such a justification with honest belief (he didn't sound like any troll). Sure, it's "the Internet"... but internet comments are a good way of measuring how the average person feels, not just those in academia or politics. It goes to show how little British schools actually teach about the impact of their imperialism.

          3. I can't say it's a topic I paid close attention to. All I can say is that I know of no 'official government apology' (and Google seems to agree), only individual politicians apologizing in their own name and with a certain degree of informality. UK does contribute a lot to international aid (like all wealthy nations), but that's not the same as repayment -- which again, is a sign of the government 'owning up' to their faults.

          Canada does deserve praise for its modern attitude towards the natives (like actively trying to suppress racism against 'aboriginal peoples')... but, they're not the UK =P

          In general, I find Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders to be friendlier, kinder, better educated, and more ethical/trustworthy than the English. Yes, I don't consider them English; their cultures/societies have long branched off. Also I always found English willingness to sacrifice Canadian/Australian troops instead of British units in the worst battles of WW1/WW2 to be... disturbing.

          4. I actually feel bad for the Germans post-Nurmberg; they took a lot of blame for things they shouldn't have. All of Europe was to blame for the Holocaust because anti-semitism was popular at the time regardless of what nation you're in -- best shown by the Evian Conference (during which Hitler literally went 'please take these jews off my hands; I'll even help you!' and got rejected); centuries of Christian hate speech is ultimately the responsible party, not just a few individuals who pulled the final trigger.

          As for the Russians... well no need to highlight. Everybody in the world knows their faults thank to western media dominance.

          Reply
          1. zog11

            @ Aorii 1.On Ireland I agree I am willing to let them off mainly but Google Scotland and the British Empire. This one is a government web site by Scottish government. http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandshistory/makingindustrialurban/empire/
            http://www.historytoday.com/blog/2012/06/scotland-and-british-empire this one is a book review on an oxford university reference book. Remember in the 18th and early 19th century money could buy political power and the Scots were wealthy and respected. Politically they usually controlled around 1/6 of seats in the House of Commons and usually more in the House of Lords. (It has changed varied over time)

            Imperial culture I would argue is pervasive but that a different debate. I don’t think any country or culture is immune from imperialism, given enough time. Hopefully there will never be another empire in the world but it may happen if we don’t learn the lessons of history.

            Schools can and do teach this at primary level (3-11) mainly slavery is required but also the USA and Latin America colonisation is an option. We also do ancient civilisations Greeks, Romans, Aztecs and Egyptians all empires) At Secondary level (11-16) it’s required to take history but at (16-18) its optional. (Not everybody needs or likes history despite its importance.) The Tudors are usually required (as is the first second world wars) then there is a choice of the industrial revolution, fascism in Italy and Germany, the rise of communism in Russia or China and the American civil rights movement. The British Empire is a theme that runs through most of these subjects. Honestly you would struggle to avoid it if you paid any attention in school. It usually debated as part of the syllabus. (Some of this might have changed since I looked at it a few years ago) (But most of should be the same) Also understanding the British Empire is a basic requirement for any humanities course, particularly any politics or history university course. (You wont get very far without it honestly; it shaped history, international relations and even archaeology)

            -My view is the Internet often gives extreme voices more power there is nothing stopping me for example in this forum (under different internet IP and email addresses) from posting the same thing 100 times a 100 different ways if I want to.
            (Just an example not going to) You can’t use the Internet except under specific conditions to measure anything accurately (honestly measuring public opinion on anything is complex if you want a debate on social research methods I can do it although I will have to consult my text book on the issues)
            Is Evil Twin2146 even British I can’t tell? (He may have been playing devils advocate or is an advocate of old school cultural liberalism (cultural union of humanity and common development uplifting societies in form of cultural uniformity otherwise known as cultural imperialism (modified with western human rights and all the good things etc)) (Also could be confusing commonwealth help post-decolonisation with the empire? stupid I know) he doesn’t give enough detail but he is making over generalisations anyway! (I think he is wrong anyway on empires in general as well)

            3. - I was wrong partly he “expressed regret” google “David Cameron India apology” read an article not just headline. Guardian newspaper and Washington post are decent articles. (Maybe legal issues played a part in that I am not sure)
            -I should have clarified “disproportion aid” for the size of it population and wealth. -Honestly could the UK even afford reparations it has got to be in the hundreds of billions (in today’s money) (would India even want it?)? (Politically feasible?) I am generally against reparations economically between countries particularly after Germany post WWI. (Maybe there are some exceptions) (Political cultural and social reparations are more effective in the long term.)

            I like Canadians honestly lovely people. 1846 I think was the main date for Canada internal self rule still descendants of British and French. (Still supported the empire until 1900’s.)
            I would be careful generalising some right wing Australian people are very passionate supporters of the British Empire. (They have a very different experience of empire in Canada, Australia and New Zealand domestically) I think your referring to trench warfare? Rather than D-Day (Canada and Australia chose those landing sites.) Generals in trench warfare were desperate for fresh troops often throwing them into active zones before they became combat ineffective. (Also in general they were less well equipped (including for the weather) = higher casualties) seriously anyone who died or survived the fighting those conflicts is honoured on all sides in those conflicts and remembered. I would honestly be interested in where you got that impression.

            On friendlier, kinder, better educated, and more ethical/trustworthy than the English. I agree on the surface but they do have a smaller population and less population pressures. With more resources, wealth and more public spending on education systems. (Lower spending elsewhere defense, etc) they are generally happier healthier people is the point. (Brits grumpier, unhappier?)
            On the English our public persona historically and generally tends to be reserved and formal with new people even between us Brits. It often comes off as cold and distant. (Between friends and family we are more informal and open) it is a common complaint that we hear all the time. It is not our worse flaw (can be arrogant) we are mostly polite when not drunk. (Also another flaw) we also tend to be slow to trust others. (And we like to moan). (I am only half serious on this)
            Our politician’s dishonesty is at a high at the moment, but some are genuinely honest and we come down hard on those that mislead the public at elections.

            But we are both making generalizations, which honestly we shouldn’t do, we should judge people as individuals on the views they hold and actions, rather than where they come from.

            4. I would only add there was an economic and social element generally European Jews were richer more likely to be in professions (banking, loans,) and were likely to ghettoise together which didn’t help matters. Honestly by 1938 the British and French were already preparing for war with Germany. (Evian conference may even have been buying time. A US president’s final attempt at trying hold off conflict)
            my argument would be that the final solution was a big departure in treating the Jews as sub human race. The gas chambers, state organised mass systematic killing was psychotic. (Not normal even among racists) I would not try and bring Christian hate speech into it. For the Nazi it was a group that could offer resistance that didn’t even enter their conception of the human race. It didn’t help that some were linked to the communists. (Political enemies) Google Night of long knives.

            I admit Western media is skewed and dominant in some areas but criticism is welcomed against the west and not just the Russians (who perhaps are unfairly portrayed because they have attacked or taken over their own home-grown media. editors are touchy about things like that in the west) (I should probably note that some of those taken over Russian media outlets were really biased or corrupt really it is another issue entirely)

            Anyway I hope I haven’t bored anyone to tears yet, I will try to be brief if I reply again. I just wanted to write as full an answer as possible without getting side tracked. (Which I failed at the end)
            Let me know what you think? Aorii particularly if you want to? its been interesting honestly.

            @ Glacierfairy
            I am not a china expert I agree sort of but isn’t that’s a little off topic? (Maybe future imperialism or tendencies)
            The argument I would make against china is that it doesn’t have a proper rule of law and those with power and money is not dealt with effectively when they break laws or damage others. Anyone with a conflicting or negative opinion to the communist party is silenced. (Censored or prosecuted usually now. some are internally exiled) The problem is mainly about loss of face in china, national pride is part of that. China is a challenge to work out what going on internally anyway; imperialist tendencies in my mind are the least of china problems. (Economically problems are long term. mainly due to population distribution one child policy = too many males)
            Important I could be wrong I have only studied one module on china at degree level. (It is not an area I really enjoy studying its really a complex obscured system with a lot of history and factionalism within it) (Honestly the guy teaching it put me to sleep one time, I did write 2 essays and he did understand the subject but he was just so monotone when speaking.) I hope that makes it clear what I think/believe to be the biggest problem in china. feel free to reply also see Aorii comment on china that sound right as far as I remember.

          2. AoriiAorii Post author

            1. Huh... well that certainly challenges my viewpoint on the Scots. Though many of the professions listed did actually bring good (medical and missionary work in particular); Scottish troops are also known for their loyalty, so they're not going to say no to imperial command. 1/3 of Governor-Generals being Scots does leave a political imprint though.

            I'm not doubting that the British Empire is taught in schools; I'm questioning just how much they teach the empire's long-lasting detrimental effects on their colonial subjects -- between the resource extraction, the divide-and-conquer strategy, and the rampant racism. For example, the UK's dishonesty in making the MacMahon pledges, Sykes-Picot Agreement, and Balfour Declaration ruined any chance of peace in the middle east for our century, yet their rampant racism towards Middle-Easterns tells me they know nothing of their responsibility in this.

            Well... it is true that the internet gives voice to a very vocal minority. Based on IP, Evil Twin2146 is Austrialian.

            3. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/feb/20/david-cameron-amritsar-massacre-india
            Sorry but I find Cameron's behavior abhorrent based on this article. His refusal to apologize just because it was '40 years ago' is irresponsibility of the highest order. Sure, the average Briton today has nothing to do with Armitsar; but the government still has blood on its hand and should take full responsibility. The idea that British museums don't have to return objects they looted back in the day is also despicable -- it's like saying "if I steal your things for long enough, they become mine" <_<
            Anyway, Amritsar massacre is nothing. Winston Churchill himself is responsible for the death of millions of Indians thanks to his policies during WW2 (shipping grain out of India despite the local famine/starvation). Yet Cameron keeps raising Churchill's name as if the PM was an honorable man? Despicable.

            The WW1 Gallipoli campaign gave me the most impression that the Brits didn't care for their commonwealth troops. That campaign had a very low chance of success from the start and quickly turned suicidal; the ANZAC lives were basically used to stuff Turkish gun barrels. There were other battles as well but I don't remember the names as much. In WW2 most British commanders have learned to value commonwealth troops so it's far less of an issue.

            4. There is a socioeconomic element to antisemitism sure, but antisemitism traces far, far back than the 1900s, and was widespread across Europe. Even UK's own modern media (like Downton Abbey) portrays the English's racism towards Jews during the turn of the century.

            And yeah the Russians are treated extremely unfairly by western media, so much that it's causing racism on its won (like how Russia participants in the Eurovision contest were booed out -- how was Ukraine the performers' fault?). The 2008 Georgian conflicts shows this the best as western media basically just assumed it was Russian aggression until several peacekeepers brought the real word out that it was the Georgians who launched a premeditated, coordinated attack first. Ukraine is another example; EU takes no responsibility for its own actions in building the political tension and blames the entire problem solely on Russia when pretty much all three actors are at fault (the EU for making unrealistic economic promises to pull them away from the Russians, Kiev for trying to ban Russian as a national language and sparking ethnic outrage, and the Russians themselves for fanning the flames)

          3. zog11

            Sorry this is a little more than I was planning to write. But I wanted to address all your points.
            -I am not saying you are entirely wrong! I was making the point that some Scots were fully committed to the imperialist cause. I don’t want to over state the case; but generally those with power and money at the top and upper middle of society in Britain (militarily, politically, economically and socially) supported the Empire politically, no matter their particular nationality.
            -The Social class system was very important issue. (I know we are sometimes obsessing about class in the UK but it was a factor in Imperial Britain) (Pre WWII, which was something of a social equaliser.)
            -Some individuals did bring some good to empire (the Church of England was also committed to missionary and medical work in the empire.) Just to be clear most of the so-called gifts were self-motivated, but of course there are always some people and organisations with altruistic motives. (But not an excuse for others who were out for economic gains and the political economic elite)
            -All Imperial soldiers were all very loyal if they had any survival instincts. (Military discipline seriously harsh pre WWI)
            I hope that clear up my view and why I think it’s correct at least.

            The Middle East on the other hand is not well taught! But France, the USA and the USSR have all screwed up the Middle East some more as well.
            -Racism towards people from the Middle East is mainly a response to Islamic extremism and terrorism. I also wouldn’t call it rampant we are largely very tolerant to them in the UK. (We have lost soldiers fighting in Middle Eastern wars and been subject to terrorist attacks if you’re not up on current history (living in a cave)) (We also support and recognize British Muslims are largely uninvolved) (Can we leave that one out of the debate I am trying to be brief and on topic) (I also don’t deny the UK and France has a lot to do historically and currently with the Middle East problems, which make us a target) (It’s a whole new debate in itself, which could fill pages of this forum; it is studied at university level) (If you want to talk about it let make a new thread/topic because others may want to comment)

            -On topic and on education, which was the main point, it really depends on which part is chosen by the history teacher. I think you gathered we don’t teach empire as a single subject (mainly as its too big a subject) but most of the modules at lower levels do deal with those themes or at least touch on them. I agree it could be a more central point to be discussed. (In some modules apartheid or slavery it’s central) But at degree level it should have been at least been part of topic for debate and reading. (In some form) (I accept we could do more to make it clearer at lower levels of the public education System;) (But it should be clear to all children by the time they leave education that the British Empire was largely bad for rest of the world’s people and that it caused a lot of suffering.)

            3.I thought you might find that to be honest! But he did express some regret and some sensitivity and lay flowers at the memorial (but he is entitle to his opinion as well maybe he felt it would be insincere and wrong for him to apologies considering he doesn’t feel responsible.)(Personally I still think he could have done more. my opinion!) I am generally in favour of shared international ownership for all historically disputed items with rotating international exhibits. (Maybe under the UN) So I am perhaps the wrong British person to talk about that point. (I am probably a minority opinion generally on that point.)
            -Winston Churchill (I really don’t want go off topic but he is kind of central to this debate.) (Aorii I am sure you know most of this already and want to see what I say) He was an imperialist and a political opponent of Indian independence and nationalist movements, honestly I don’t want to defend him on that, but in his mind I think he saw Indian independence as a betrayal. (He was from the most upper parts of British society, (see above) as a young military officer in India; he spent some time in India it shaped his views, when became interested in politics at that time. Later his views on India got him in to problems politically at home on more than one occasion. (Opposition to home rule) He was a complex flawed man with a whole set of problems. (Depression, drunkenness as well as political views) But he was an able military political commander who learnt the right lessons of the First World War and Gallipoli campaign, which he supported and helped plan. (He then helped rally a nation against the nazi’s and organised the preparation for war and military decisions) He was a military leader in Britain with unparallel and unchecked power in the war, (a demagogy) but he did win and get the USA to help with lend lease and commitment of soldiers on the western front. He was a fervent imperialist but he was the main military, political leader against the Nazi’s in Britain. (For that at least he can be respected if not well liked) (I really don’t want to defend him but he generally is honoured for his role against the nazi’s maybe the early cold war aftermath, but nothing else really in the UK) The point was that Churchill was deeply unhappy and shocked by the Amritsar massacre in 1919 it was his belief that India should want to remain in the empire. (Man of his time understandable) This was only driving them in to the arms of his political enemies. (He didn’t cause the famine it struck after Japan invaded Burma in 1938 at the height of battle of the Atlantic. He just refused in very horrible way to do any thing about it. He probably saw it as aiding a personal political enemy honestly I think his personal political hated was so deep that it stopped him but also he really didn’t have much too spare in terms of food or shipping) (this is just a summary and some thoughts I’ve gathered from some quick research)

            -You shouldn’t have picked the Gallipoli campaign it’s a source of military and independent pride for the ANZAC nations. It was a complete tactical disaster and ended as a stalemate/defeat with withdrawal but the only commander involved not demoted (in fact promoted) was the Australian commander of ANZAC cove as its now known out of respect. (By the Turks) He and those troops held that position and even advanced against the odds, they were also the first withdrawn. (Did a lot with few resources in a military difficult position) (I am sure all hostile landing are suicidal gamble) It was a controversial deployment even for the time but arguably if they were not respected before after that campaign ANZAC forces were highly regarded in the UK afterwards. (Seriously you couldn’t have picked a worse example) (I really think you may have got that completely wrong you would probably have to look earlier in the First World War?)

            4-If you’re looking long term at European Jewish hated and discrimination then yes bring Christian hate speech in since the crusades as a factor back into it. (The whole of Europe had a Jewish hate problem for a long time)
            I think it wasn’t really a nazi issue, I would argue they hated them for other reasons; more importantly for them at least publicly they were the enemy. Jewish people were Communist spies, political agitators and all sorts of other mistruths. In general they were made scapegoats for all the problems in Germany. (Debt, sabotage of food rations etc) The problem is they started to believe their own propaganda, which when under pressure of defeat or failure on both fronts, a mass psychosis and delusions on a national scale set in. The SS in particular were an elite, indoctrinated as children as part of the Nazi youth and fully socialized on their own brand of propaganda. (As trainee child soldiers) which caused some of the most terrible abuses to the Jewish people.

            -I agree but on Ukraine I would add I think all sides know how badly they messed up, publicly and privately between themselves. Just for a little balance (Russia may have prolonged the conflict with military support now its broken state) (Also the referendum in Crimea when the rest of country is killing each other was not really a fair choice, when it’s the Russian troops defending them (not suggesting fraud, just taking advantage of favorable conditions and media sympathy)) other than that I agree with you. (I know history of Crimea as well so it not like they don’t have a claim) (If you want to go over Ukrainian conflict I can offer some thoughts and insights)

            I think that everything. Anyway nice discussing this with you Aorii I largely agree with you it just the details really. I think you understand the important things anyway; I just wanted to clarify some misunderstanding and something’s I think are more important or relevant or challenge your views.(now limiting my self to 2 sentence reply’s unless you ask otherwise seriously its consuming my evening)(I want to replay Abe’s odyssey (steam sale) and I am probably slowing down a daybreak release sorry everyone else) but on whole I don’t mind if you want to talk about it some more or make some points =) just expect a much shorter reply unless you ask otherwise.

          4. AoriiAorii Post author

            This has been a nice discussion and I've learned a few new things, so thanks. On most of the above points I'd either agree or I think we can already agree to disagree (I'll always consider Churchill as a great wartime leader, but a terrible, racist, warmongering person =P)

            I do know that Gallipolli is a source of ANZAC pride. In fact, some historians believe it is the birthplace of ANZAC's national identities. But that does not change British intentions. I've listened to two in-depth WW1 audiobook series thus far, both of which agreed that Gallipolli was considered by most of the British high command as a 'distraction' that was never seriously expected to succeed. In other words, the troops were expected to serve as 'cannon fodder' from the start. So no, I do not believe I picked the wrong example.

          5. Glacierfairy

            Funny that Burma is mentioned, because that happens to be one of the largest Allied screw-up in the entire World War 2 that the world hardly knows about today. Suffice to say, the British refused Chinese assistance to reinforce Burma until the Japanese were right at Burma's doorsteps. And then even when the Chinese finally arrived, the British did not bother to listen to Chinese advice on how to fight the Japanese despite a) the Chinese have already been fighting the Japanese for over 4 years by then (1942) and b) the Japanese only just steamrolled through Malaya and captured the so-called impregnable Singapore within 14 days. And then the American representative Joseph Stilwell, in his infinite wisdom, treated the Chinese troops under his nominal command as if they were as well-trained and well-equipped as American troops and sent them off to face the Japanese on an offensive. The result was, needless to say, disastrous. The loss of Burma not only exposed India to Japan (indirectly leading to all those tragedies), but also meant that China could no longer effectively receive foreign aid. That is why we hear about so many unparalleled feats of heroism in that theatre - flying over the Hump is truly amazing, but also totally avoidable if a more sensible Burma defence strategy was enacted in the first place.

            PS: Anyone who frequents the Hearts of Iron IV forum would know who I am referencing, but for the benefit of others, here's a link: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-most-neglected-turning-point-of-the-war.901615/

            PPS: Sorry for the rant, but I want to set the record straight.

          6. AoriiAorii Post author

            Burma's fault lay with the American General Stilwell. The man is so incompetent in both tactics and politics it's a wonder he ever became general. He launched an attack against Rangoon through unfamiliar jungle terrain against entrenched Japanese positions with only a single dirt road for supply (aka the troops couldn't even receive enough ammo).

          7. Hakurei06Hakurei06

            I'm no historian, certainly not a military one, but I gotta say, my impression on Stilwell can be summed up roughly:

            Alright, time's up. Let's do this! LEEEEEEROOOOOOOOOOOYYYYYYY JENNNNNNKIIIIIINNNNNS!!!!!

          8. zog11

            Oh Churchill was a racist imperialist, warmonger, don't get me wrong, I was trying to show its more complex. (That why I don't want to defend him) we basically agree. (Did I give a different impression?) If you learnt something or reconsidered any point or views that great! If everyone agreed with me it would be boring =P. Seriously a debate is about understanding and reconsidering not winning. (When will politicians learn this!!)

            On Gallipolli: It was part of a debate within military high command that they had to at least, make an attempt to target the German allies. (A strategic move (distraction) rather than tactical or military success) (All troops were expendable (cannon fodder) I think, but they didn't want to hand enemies a morale victory) (Arguably the ANZAC forces were given the easier job under the initial invasion plans)(The reality was different bad Intel) They were not making progress on the western front; it was action for political reasons for many. Some honestly believed the distraction would draw troops away from western front and the allies would advance. It was such a failure honestly that support collapsed. (Some never believed it would work) (I think the plan was to withdraw after a troop commitment or open up a second front if it had been more successful they just didn’t plan anything in the middle and the initial plans were flawed) The British high command could have withdrawn the troops within a month; it took them from April until August. The fact is political and military command completely failed and descended in to recriminations and debate leaving ANZAC and British troops without support or strategic leadership, leaving time for the Turks to recover. (Honestly had they kept up the navel blockade campaign arguably it could have caused real problems for the Axis powers) I hope that's interesting? Could you link me the audio books series it might be worth a listen/buy assuming its English?

            Anyway have a nice weekend! :=)

        2. Glacierfairy

          I'll add my two cents on China. Yes, it has internal repression and it has censorship, but it is a functional and stable country (and soon-to-be-rich, no matter what the pessimists might claim) today. Could the CPC be more gentler and nicer when it took over in 1949? That is a possibility, but as far as I can see it they don't have much of a choice ever since the British busted open their doors with the Opium Wars. It was a do-or-die situation for them; their erstwhile allies unreliable and potentially a threat (Stalin was known to be more keen on maintaining a friendly relationship with the KMT until they became a lost cause, and the Americans simply abandoned the KMT later on but also embargoed China as a result of the Korean War). To the Chinese, the "century of humiliation" was very real to them; regarding the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, one Republican-era diplomat lamented in his recollections that "weak countries receive no justice, nor diplomacy". Therefore, it is the aspiration for any Chinese government after the Qing dynasty was overthrown to restore the strength and vitality of China, both spiritually and materially. The CPC are well on their way to succeed in the latter, methods be damned, and the people largely agree with them. And besides, their methods aren't exactly original: for better or for worse, the CPC are just merely following the path forged by the Russians, the British, the Americans, the Germans and the Japanese, and in time, will learn of their costs and determine how much is worth it.

          Reply
          1. AoriiAorii Post author

            China generally shouldn't be measured against western nations in its internal policies. Many western values that promote Democracy simply does not apply to Chinese culture. For example, the Chinese are very Collectivist, which means they value society and social stability as a whole far more than individuality and choice. They believe it is perfectly reasonable to sacrifice the individual as long as it benefits the mainstream. Now sometimes they go too far -- almost all Chinese recognize that programs like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution were unmitigated disasters that cost not only millions of lives, but more importantly in their eyes -- years of socio-economic development time. This attitude should tell you just how much the individual human life is actually worth in Chinese perspective, that lost time >> lost lives.

            Hopefully China won't turn into an imperialistic state like the western nations though. Because at the moment, the Chinese are a little drunk on their newfound power... and for the first time in history (no thanks to the Communist party), it lacks the deeply ingrained Confucian ethics to counterbalance it.

          2. Glacierfairy

            I agree with you Aorii, and I'm also concerned about China at the moment and I can only hope their leadership is wise enough to avoid the pitfalls of irrational exuberance. It is interesting though that the CPC is now trying to revive Confucianism (in its own terms though), which to me is a mark of maturity(?) where the Chinese elite finally grew out of their self-hating tendencies of anything Chinese perpetuated ever since the late Qing dynasty and aggravated after the May Fourth Movement (and the Communists were very much a product of that era). Of course, there is a fine line between national pride and arrogance....

            @zog11
            Sorry if I went a little off-tangent. I was just trying to provide some background of why China is as it is today. And yeah, Aorii's reply is much more succinct and sums up what I feel very well. =)

          3. zog11

            Don't worry about it :=) I cant say anything about being succinct . (see above) I understand why you wanted to clarify.

  4. Hakurei06Hakurei06

    It is my understanding that the UK has not yet formally left the EU, that the result of the vote is advisory and not legally binding, that the government may well choose to ignore it without legal repercussion, and the next head of government, when elected, may well do so despite political backlash. Have I been misinformed?

    Reply
    1. AoriiAorii Post author

      They hosted a plebiscite and they're a representative republic. If they don't follow the voters' wishes, they'll get a constitution crisis on their hands. What they probably should of done is set a higher threshold for 'changing the status quo', i.e. a 60% or 2/3rd LEAVE vote to pass -- which the US sets for reacting major laws.
      But then, the entire episode was an attempt by Cameron to earn government legitimacy to show that it does 'work for the people' despite growing discontent. Well, that backfired HARD.

      Reply
      1. Hakurei06Hakurei06

        The Uk's government works under the principal of parliamentary sovereignty. Acts of parliament effectively amend the constitution, and again, the referendum is advisory. Nothing compels the government to follow the vote and actually leave and any backlash would be purely political. Short of a revolution, there's little the public could do about it until the next general election.

        Reply
        1. AoriiAorii Post author

          All backlash is political.
          A government that chooses to undermine its own legitimacy is a government headed for collapse.

          Reply
  5. Evil Twin2146

    I might as well chime in with my 2 bob.

    I can understand why Great Britain left the EU. They originally joined to prevent another war, you don't shoot your trade partners because you have to much to lose. However the threat of war is becoming less and less and should a country declare war upon them they have other countries that can assist them. Additionally when your trade partners are become less partners and more dependents, Greece, and refuse to fix their economy by tightening their belt and just asking for hand outs, as one of the countries having to give a hand out, that can be rather aggravating.

    On to the point where you talk about a lot of problems being caused by British colonisation and invasion. Many of the countries that they invaded/colonised were technologically challenged, to use a subtle term. Yes they pillaged and abused natives but can you honestly say that so many years after it that the countries are now worse off for being introduced to medicine and later electricity because their governing power, Britain, brought it over to them. In a tropical island, which the name escapes me at the time, when the Brits colonised it, the natives believed that you became pregnant by sleeping under a tree, not having sex under the tree, just sleeping under it. Was this island really negatively affected. The Indigenous people of Australia who had settled there for 80,000 years, hunted the mega beasts such as giant wombats and giant kangaroos to extinction, lived semi nomadic lives and hadn't invented the wheel, are the people now, white or black or anyone else, any worse off?

    In the course of history sometimes a great empire is needed to stimulate and unify parts of the world. The Great Roman Empire colonised a large portion of Europe bringing roads, agriculture, aqueducts, other things listed in The Life of Brian. The Mongolian Empire, whilst devastating to enemies created the silk road allowing goods to be traded from as far as China to Middle and West Europe.

    On to the Syrian refugee crisis, and most refugees, why do you say that the crisis is because of Britain? I have to say that dictatorships are rampant in the culture of many middle eastern countries. Even when they elect a new government to get rid of a cruel ruler, the party that they elect afterwards becomes even more corrupt. Also much of the eastern conflicts can be derived from American intervention. Prior to 9/11 America supported Osama Bin Laden and his group because it suited there interests. And if you say that America Only exists now because of England than really all conflict is derived from whatever happened to be the first group of people to colonise land.

    What surprises me the most is how you have shown in your work that you see that the world is multifaceted and yet you can only see most of Britain's actions as scornful.

    Reply
    1. AoriiAorii Post author

      Britain has contributed to the world sure. The Industrial Revolution began there and brought us great things. But that does not mean their sins should be overlooked as a result.

      "Many of the countries that they invaded/colonised were technologically challenged, to use a subtle term."
      Have you considered the fact that maybe they were perfectly happy with the level of technology they had? That they would have been introduced to electricity and such even if they weren't conquered due to the natural spread of technology through trade? The whole idea of "I brought civilization to these barbs" is basically a way for empires to justify their sins.

      By "bringing civilization", do you mean the smallpox blankets that the British gave out to natives in Americas and Australia? What about the railroads built in India solely to ship out resources, resulting in HIGHER famine death in districts with railroads than those without?

      Many of the current issues in the Middle East (and Africa) is because the national borders are cut along colonial lines with zero regard for cultural and religion divids. Aka they are putting people who don't belong together into one nation. Guess who drew those colonial lines in the first place? Britain did after the Arab Revolt in WW1, where the British government reneged upon their promise to allow self-determination for the Arabs and instead cut most of the Middle East into British and French colonies.

      To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace.

      -- Tacticus, one of the greatest Roman historians when describing Rome itself.
      One could make the argument that they committed genocide and called it 'civilization' as well, as they wiped out multiple cultures across Gaul and Hispania during their conquest.

      The Mongol invasion of the Islamic world and its completely destruction of the Islamic cultural center at Baghdad brought an end to what is considered the "Golden Age of Islam", and put back Islamic cultural development back by several centuries (thus contributing to why the Middle East is so 'backwards' in thinking these days. They depopulated China/Persia to such a degree that it took several centuries to recover the population, commerce, and infrastructure they torched. The land-going Silk Road was established by the Han dynasty over a thousand years prior, and by the mongol's time it was already becoming obsolete thanks to the 'Maritime Silk Road' across the Indian Ocean (ships have the natural advantage of being faster and carrying more).

      Reply
      1. krytykkrytyk

        Oh british and their contribution to the world, I guess it's worth mentioning opium wars.

        Reply
        1. AoriiAorii Post author

          Don't get me started.
          Britons shall always be remembered as the greatest drug dealers in world history.

          Reply
  6. krytykkrytyk

    Oh, speaking of marksy, yeah I've been hurt by it dying as well. Well - I somehow manage by, by copying off finishing off the edits manually for now... but I'll notify you once I find something that can replace it.

    It's not the first time marksy died, so hopefully it'll be back one day. Meanwhile I'm experimenting with other methods.

    Reply
    1. krytykkrytyk

      Update: The easiest way to publish stuff (while marksy doesn't work) now, is to publish it at mediawiki (copy stuff along with mediawiki markup as text then publish), after which you copy the visible result straight to the blog's text editor (visual one).

      Reply
      1. AoriiAorii Post author

        That's what I used to do. But watch out for the problem I encountered before: the occasional space being left out and words smashed together after copypasta.

        Reply
          1. krytykkrytyk

            Update2: You can extract pure html from wiki for blog usage. Publish on wiki > go to the page source > copy html text to text editor.

  7. Sylvia Moriah Le Titania De La Waldgrave

    Umm, wow. on the matter of that footnote, as someone living in the UK, if I didn't know you better I would assume that you have quite a biassed dislike for us.

    I will just note that 48.1% of us wanted to stay in the EU, that is all of N. Ireland, Scotland and London among those who voted stay in area's that were mostly leave. I myself am also a Vote Remain person and quite pissed off by the results because of the instability it will cause.

    75% of 18-24year old voted remain, we are the most affected and angered by the vote because of the nostalgic BS that those over 55yrs seem to have for the country. They won't even live long enough to really experience the costs of this, that the rest of us will. I also want to mention that those with higher education and degree's also wanted to stay.

    Unfortunately, the majority of the populace happen to be either poor, naive or racist. those who are without jobs, with low wage, or no higher education all don't see the benefits of the EU because they don't get any of the benefits.the naive being those who took the politicians words on the news at face value. A lot of the numbers shown on the news were complete fabrications, meant to trick people into making the wrong decision.

    as for the collapse, yes there are issues with N Ireland's open travel territory that may have to be shut for the first time in 100years, or they may leave. Scottland may also leave (may - not will -), and that will reduce GB to just Wales and England, but it will still be GB. Wales are too poor to leave and Scotland won't get a spot in the EU just for leaving the UK, which would further isolate them, many Scotts don't want to risk this, especially if you consider a lot of English banks are in Scotland and when they leave those will move south into England again.

    The EU has spoken, the UK is out and that is final. the UK still has its trade position with the USA and despite what many think, the EU exports more to the UK than they export to the EU and for what it is worth, the UK was the 5th strongest economic country. A doomsday prediction of collapse is much too unfeasible. We only lack stability, not credibility or value. trades will go on and deals made. EU-based companies will reassess their position while local companies will adjust to account for any future tariffs.

    The only reason for other Europeans to feel any distress or involvement in this is that 4 other countries have a majority of their populace thinking of doing the same including Netherlands, France, Italy and Denmark.

    The people who will suffer most as we will see in the following years is the British themselves, nobody else. I feel hurt as your footnotes made it sound on a personal level. The pro-EU message sounds like the exact kind of racism I should expect from UKIP or the BNP in reverse, the 2 parties that most British hate the strongest. The UK remains part of Europe, that hasn't changed at all. We are just now like Switzerland who are also not in the EU.

    The EU isn't some sort of utopia either, with many of its biggest problems caused by is own hand. The UK joined back when there were only 6 member states and that was 40years ago, a lot has changed and the UK no longer needs the EEC (which is what we signed up to) to avoid an economic crisis. Just like every member state we hold the right to decide when we wish to leave and we just ended up using it. We know how the EU pres. wants to rush the terms as an example to other countries to not leave. That isn't a vote of confidence in members willingness to stay but fear that there are more places who have lost faith in the system.

    Nobody genuinely expected the leave outcome and it may be down to the fact that for whatever reason 13m out of 46.5m eligible voters chose not to vote in either direction. Not even the leave campaigners held too much confidence in succeeding, their aim was to raise awareness and scepticism towards the EU system that was slowly overruling more and more of local laws.

    I honestly don't see how the fear of a population could be attributed to "British selfishness", will the same be said for the other countries who choose to leave?

    the UK made 2 attempts to join the EEC while de Gaulle was french president and were rejected each time, only getting accepted on the 3rd attempt after he stood down. You have to remember that what the UK signed up to join was the Common Market and France as one of the founders of this union has a population that feels like maybe they should no longer be a part of it either.

    ------

    I enjoy your writing, but I don't feel we will ever see eye to eye on any other matters, political or otherwise. your story gave me a very different PoV than what I saw in your comment.

    Reply
    1. zog11

      Hold on! I think that may have been slightly over the top interpretation of the comment.
      I am English and voted to remain! I am upset too! and agree with most of what your wrote. Aorii maybe you could be a little more sensitive, we all still trying to work out what this means and a lot of us are not happy with the result.
      But maybe it will be good for everyone in the EU and for the UK if we leave. Lets be honest the UK was never going to support more powers to the EU or the Eurozone integration that the EU needs. But the UK can still help and cooperate on international development, climate change and common defence even outside the EU. I also wouldn't be surprised if the UK left and later re-joins in some form.
      Lets just refrain from arguing over something that not yet happened, we may end up with some arrangement like Norway as an associate member of the EU, if Germany has any say about it. Its not the best option but far from the worst option particularly as Scotland and Northern Ireland may well accept that arrangement with the EU, without full independence.
      Just some thoughts also love your work on daybreak,take as long as you feel you need some things cant be rushed like defending space mushrooms !

      Reply
    2. Paul Scolfield

      And just to address more specifically the points Aorii makes.
      Businesses lacking investments....
      Business investment from companies based in the EU makes up for less than 15%.
      Not much of a decrease. PLUS when we actually leave the EU ruling over who we can trade with their will be opportunities for companies based in countries we don't have trade agreements with due to being part of the EU. How well their arraigned or how beneficial to the UK they will be is still yet to be seen. ALSO, just because we're not part of the EU DOESN'T mean were not part of the 'one market'. So why would companies based in EU countries stop investing in the UK?

      Our financial sector....
      London is one of the most inportant financial hubs of the WORLD markets. It always has been since the creation of the stock market. In Europe Switzerland is the 3rd biggest player in the financial market (on record, off record maybe higher) and their NOT part of the EU.
      The UK financial sector deals more with the eastern markets than with Europe, and more with the USA than with Europe. So I don't see that 23% exports going anywhere any time soon.
      As for moving to a EU country. Their is NO other city in Europe that can match London's, and it is estimated to take at least 10+ years for certain cities to even come close to it. Major players in the financial markets world wide have said openly that half of those proposed cities that could match London, they would never trade with.
      Being a leader in the financial market isn't all about what you can do or provide but quite a lot of it is the trust and faith and backing of other major players in the financial world.
      The only reason for the drop is panic of uncertainty of the future, which is rightfully placed. Everyone who knew anything about finance saw a sudden drop in the market if we left.

      Before I get accused of voting out I voted in. Though given the childish and petty comments from certain EU country leaders and tabloids I do question if we have actually made the right choice.
      The EU isn't perfect. It creates most of the problems it is praised for fixing. THOUGH what it originally stood for and preached was what I believe we should be a part of. That's why I voted in.

      Reply
      1. AoriiAorii Post author

        @Paul Scolfield

        The finance / investments remind me of one of comments made by the last major trade mission to UK -- by China's Xi Jinping -- before the referendum. He said that many of the investments China signed were made under the assumption that the UK remains part of EU, with access to the EU market.
        Well, that just went out the window.
        They're certainly not the only nation / trading partner to have such thoughts.

        As the G7 nation with the least amount of internal/domestic investment, the UK needs its financial market to be stable and foreign investments to flow in to help businesses grow. Even with all opportunities being equal, investors don't like instability. With both opportunity and stability in jeopardy, there's only one result.

        Reply
    3. AoriiAorii Post author

      @Sylvia Moriah

      I apologize for the comment being insensitive. It's not my intention to offend the average Briton.

      I've never kept my view of this a secret though:

      Yes. I believe Your Highness had asked her why she decided to marry a nobleman from across the country, and she replied that she was 'tired of Ceredigion pretending it wasn't part of the Rhin-Lotharingie Empire'.

      Kaede almost snorted. Even without being an island nation like Great Britain, the Kingdom of Ceredigion seemed to stay aloof of its obligations to the greater union; its leaders would feign detachment from the Rhin-Lotharingie collective whenever it benefited them.

      -- volume 3, chapter 6

      It is also true I harbor very little respect for Britain as a country (or its government). Why?
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IGHByjToO4&t=9m27s

      That's just a short clip of course. But much of the modern world's problems can be traced back to what the British did during their imperial days, invading 90% of all nations in the world, conquered 22% of the world's landmass (20% of its population), proceeded to extract wealth from all those nations for centuries at the expense of the locals (often resulting in mass famine and systematic genocide)... and, now they're complaining about Syrian refugees? Much of the screw-up in the Middle East is precisely because of the idiotic treaties UK arranged during WW1. Had the British government simply allowed Lawrence of Arabia to give the land back to the Arabs, with borders based on tribal divisions (instead of borders that ignore cultural/religious differences), the present mess might have never happened.

      By the way, my original words were "English selfishness", not British. Oddly, I do have a positive view of the Scottish. Unlike the English, they have a record of keeping their promises.

      I don't feel we will ever see eye to eye on any other matters, political or otherwise

      That's a bold statement, considering you hardly know me that well. Sure, a lot of my values are expressed through Daybreak, but we're just scratching the surface here.

      Reply
  8. Gurbo

    The delay is completely comprehensible. The Vulpes Stellaris Union salutes the Spacefaring Mushrooms.

    Reply
  9. Ebisu

    Thanks for the chapter. The bright side about having already spent time researching is that you won't need to do it again on those matters.
    So the next one will come out faster. :D

    I'm actually more worried about tomorrow's second general election in my country. Forcefully drafting me to help... =3=

    The difference of the result of the Brexit was too little in my opinion. They should definitely hold a second one just before permanently leaving the UE. People would already be sure of the effects of leaving; and there's the matter of Scotland who, I think, were being promised that remaining in the UK meant remaining in the UE.

    Reply
  10. SyunYuri

    with that time used you are in the middle/faster part of the spectrum of web writers out there so dont worry about it you still doing good at that

    Reply
  11. darkalter2000

    I might have to start reading Daybreak. I originally came because of Only Sense. I often find that Light /Web Novels meander about for volumes and volumes and the fact that you delete extra content that you don't think is worth a readers time is pretty reassuring.

    Reply
  12. Kemm

    Thanks for the chapter.

    I'm quote baffled that in the article you link to they haven't mentioned Gibraltar. The vote over there was over 90% remain.

    Reply
    1. AoriiAorii Post author

      Yeah but Gibraltar is TINY. In the grand scheme of things they really don't matter much (not lest the Mediterranean plunges into war again).

      Personally, the fact Gibraltar is still British territory and not Spanish is a sigh of their refusal to denounce their imperialistic sins.

      Reply
      1. Ebisu

        The main problem is for british who live outside UK . Health insurance coverage, enterprises or second homes, all kind of unnecessary troubles. People in Gibraltar have the chance of just crossing the frontier to get treated if they aren't fine with wathever their medical services offer for example; and being outside the UE in their geographical position will be troubling and they don't want to have anything to do with being integrated inside Spain, they like their present state.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/18/eu-facts-what-would-leaving-the-eu-mean-for-expats/

        Reply
      2. Paul Scolfield

        Gibraltar chose to stay British and has never pushed to stop being a British colony.
        Much like Hong Kong, they could leave at any time.

        Gibraltar being British has nothing to do with imperialistic sins. The people of Gibraltar chose and still (up until this referendum) wanted to be British. That might change now. Who knows.

        Reply
        1. Kemm

          It won't. Their options are to keep being british, to become spanish or to become independent. They have no means to the latter, and a sinking ship is always better than no ship, as you can always fing something to hold to. The central option has been traditionally seen as an insult to their pride, and being british people born on the Iberian peninsula, pride by pride, pride squared.

          Reply
        2. AoriiAorii Post author

          -- Conquer foreign land
          -- Fill foreign land with people of one's own culture and values; drive off or kill dissenters; rule for over a century
          -- Declare plebiscite
          -- Hey they totally voted to stay with us!
          #HowDemocracyWorks

          It's like "my people voted to steal your stuff (land in this case), therefore we have a right to it!"

          Reply
  13. LuPu

    I hope you continue working hard at this until the end, whenever you decide that would be, and on the note of Brexit, the Union is just quietly waiting with a great big smile on

    P.S. still waiting patiently for those glorious final illustrations, since I understood it as that's still being worked on?

    Reply
    1. AoriiAorii Post author

      It's been another two months since I've heard from the artist... =\
      Not the first time this has happened; and he's been extremely busy. But... (shrug).

      Reply
  14. Truffle

    Thank you, we are happy for any updates =). So what game is that? You have peeked my interest with the screenshot.

    Reply
      1. Truffle

        Thanks it looks like it's still one sale but ouch that's way out of my price range even on sale >_< I guess I'll have to wait and hope it goes on an even more discounted sale at some point $36 - $63 is just outside of my budget at the moment... But it does look nice definite have to keep an eye out for it I sure love my time wasters when my kids are in bed and I'm out of Stuff to read =)

        http://store.steampowered.com/app/281990/

        Reply
  15. Teo

    thank you very much for your work.
    I think after every chapter that you release that the waiting time is absolutely worth waiting.

    Reply
  16. Dragon_ANGL

    Thanks for your unceasing dedication to Daybreak! I enjoy your and David Weber's military fiction the most, easily.

    Reply