"All manner of inhibition imposed upon the state is often intended to provide wise deliberation at the expense of expediency and executive authority, to varying degrees, with an expensive, lumbering bureaucracy being slow, though very much deliberated, though not usually wise it seems, while an absolute monarch may or may not be wise, but ultimately, the civilization is at their prerogative in very broad sense of public discourse. All government itself exists as a orderly means of imposing a moral imperative of some kind, whether order, human rights, public trust, or otherwise. Of course, the masses are frightful, egotistical, and skittish, as evident that even most communal of peoples are at the behest of leadership, such as anarchist Catalonia, the Hadza tribe, and historical steppe peoples with their khans and khagans. All revolutions begin with the few commanding dull peoples, and it was known, which is why the Bolsheviks were not with peasant consciousness, rather, with the Red Army, because people are not hive minds, but readily confused, enchanted, and unintelligent, with chaos ensuing without rulers. History is a clash of ideas of sovereign heads, as evident by every historical conflict, both informal warfare and formal lawfare both reflecting the ideals of leaders imposing ideas they believe to be virtuous. Man is the rational animal of course, and with his nature, it is known."
This leads into the beginning of this idea of "space & spectacle". Why would anyone care about such pitiful conflicts in these dramas? In these tragedies? What is the point, ultimately. The only thing that truly matters at all is indeed the motions of civilization. If fiction to aspire for realism, then the logical conclusion is that fiction exclusively documents the history of worlds, or of events of impact upon civilizations, wars and politics, and with detailed religions, philosophies, and ideas. Though even the sovereign's interiority should not be upheld, in which the quote "...the sovereign, or hero, should only be known by his actions, and his incumbency, as these biographics are mere context to rise, and authority, generally superfluous beyond a psychology class, and so it is better to record history by the command and consequence of the commands and edicts of sovereigns..." is readily applicable. Why care about the little lives of man? Relatability? As if one could relate to an entirely alien scenario. The fixation must uphold fidelity to the expansive, to the larger-than-life, such as the greatest decisions drafted by kings, and the mass movements of armies, explosions, and assassinations, and great cavalry charges. This is why space is so perfect for fiction, for it is the ultimate expanse. Space should be what it is, a vast distance, and should be treated this way, as a vast distance, every planet lightyears in separation. Fiction should reflet this megalophilia, with great spectacles embedded within, such as marching armies or great explosions, which all compliment the world-building. World-building is ultimately virtuous, and a world must be documented nicely while writing, every line must pertain to the world in some regard, for interiority is ultimately frivolous. Instead, the world must be documented, and the plot must revolve around events such as wars or politics, whether of civilizations, religions, or otherwise, and ought to reflect this grandeur, with spectacle as a means of inducing awe and bombast to the great worlds constructed. The character is merely the face of decision and ideas, which are imposed via this character. Any meaning or messages to the story entirely obfuscate the notion that a world must exist unto itself, that it is sovereign from our reality, and thus, just as our world is resolute in meaninglessness beyond what is endowed by divinity, as is the world within a fiction, a story, in which the world must exist autonomously. Meaning, messages, or any prescription merely ruin the world-building. Of course, there is room for moral expressedness, but in a more obvious manner within the story, in philosophy, in dialogue. Perhaps there is beauty in a world which exists exclusively to tell a wonderful and intricate story, and not to speak of any message, and delegating such liabilities to the essays and to the scriptures. Space truly is wonderful, and space ought to be written as the primary setting, with planets, stars, and moons being places to bounce around throughout the story, from capital planets, to irradiated wastelands. Space should not be purely aesthetic, but functional in the setting, such as creating vast distances, or hostile environments not replicable on an earthbound setting. Frequent repetition and addition of ideas is also beneficial, as it entails that a world is confirmed and understood, with events occuring as objectivity. Of course, new elements should be introduced frequently, and repeated as well, becoming cemented, and able to be read in fully understanding a world.