Forum: Author Hangout

joyR, that's the kind of thing I would like to get ideas about from someone who has read up on Nixon's personality, motivations, etc. Was he as self-focused as I'm reading your comments to suggest? My memory is that he opened up interaction with China and made what had to be a tough call to abandon South Vietnam due to pressure from the press and anti-war protesters in this country. (Maybe he was being told we couldn't hold militarily, but I don't think that was the case. However, not an area where I am deeply knowledgeable.)

So, how would he have addressed a situation where two small but growing groups of people are gaining magical abilities, are hostile to each other to the point of fighting to death, likely cannot be controlled by normal governmental force, and both groups engage in forms of magical slavery (although arguably far more benign one side (my heroes and heroines :))? How does he react if the good side comes to him, convinces him they are working for the best, and that magic is inevitable? What if he doesn't have proof, only evidence that something is happening and recommendations from federal people that a "hidden" task force is needed to investigate and react if necessary? I guess what I'm looking for is an expert who could help set the scene, suggest participants, offer up language, inside jokes, etc. I think it might be a fun scene, but I'd like for it to ring true if I decide to go that direction.

So, no possibility that South Vietnam could have ended up like South Korea?

South Vietnam wasn't quite as united as South Korea, the politicians were a little more corrupt, and the situation was different - the UN backed South Korea.

That's because Ho Chi Minh had been recruited by and worked with the early Green Berets, fighting against Japan.

Ok.

Whilst my comment was somewhat flippant, it is not entirely groundless. A close friend has a relative who was in the diplomatic service and had some interaction with Nixon, not I might add, anything 'close', just the contact one might expect.

I can't comment except to say that whilst flippant, what I posted earlier was on point. As others have stated, Nixon was 'complicated', most people in government are, especially the higher levels.

I would add that your reference to 'federal people' opens a whole new area to consider. Which department knows about 'magic'? How would they react? How far would they go to gain control or at least deny both knowledge of it and access to it, from other departments, let alone other governments?

Manny stories that involve magic also address the way government reacts to it. Outcomes vary but very few don't end in conflict or a cluster-fuck, occasionally of epic proportions.

So, whilst how Nixon might have responded might seem important, you need to spend a lot more time considering how a government department might act. Given past actions, not well, not intelligently, and most certainly with utterly no regard to the feelings or welfare of any magic users.

I've got various federal agencies involved already, though they don't know it. They investigating a spate of killings and few other matters, but with no awareness of magic. In general, I project a few good people, a few self-interested glory hogs, some incompetents and, oh yeah, some who are attracted to one or the other sides.

As for the agencies themselves, that's easy. Stamp out all other claimants to power. That's the fundamental priority of government, maintain control over power. All legal functions ultimately are supported by the resort to the legal use of force, up to and including deadly force. So, as magical power becomes more widespread and evident, I would expect governmental efforts to eliminate it if possible, control it if not. Many "emergence of super powers" stories use this plot line, mostly because it makes sense.

The break-in was supposedly done on his orders. That's supposedly why he tried to cover it up.

Well, he wanted people to find out who the Democrats were really planning to run in the next election, since the idea of them actually nominating a clown like Carter was laughable. He wasn't totally specific about how the information should be acquired, and... well, the rest was history.

And my thought had been approval and support for a "hidden" federal agency to monitor and respond to developments. It's possible that his Watergate experience would make this unlikely. On the other hand, he may have been independent enough and enough of an abstract, analytical thinker to separate the two.

Thanks, Mushroom. That's helpful. Skepticism is a good point. Lawyers average the 90th percentile - they doubt everything and everyone.