Livia J. Elliot ~ Author & Podcaster
@liviajelliot.com
Literary speculative fiction author, fusing political theory, psychological depth, and philosophical horror. I write for readers who read to solve.
https://liviajelliot.com/links/
https://liviajelliot.com/links/
The result is a book bursting with implications that it rarely follows to non-physical conclusions.
Science is all there is, even when the setting was the perfect backdrop to explore culture, society, and humanity's tendency to survive. (3/3)
My review: www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
Science is all there is, even when the setting was the perfect backdrop to explore culture, society, and humanity's tendency to survive. (3/3)
My review: www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
Livia Elliot's review of Raft (Xeelee Sequence, #1)
3/5: Raft is a work of pure imagination. A hard sci-fi that imagined a completely different universe—one that defies our laws of physics—with brilliant plausibility… then faltered, in my opinion, to r...
www.goodreads.com
December 12, 2025 at 1:42 AM
The result is a book bursting with implications that it rarely follows to non-physical conclusions.
Science is all there is, even when the setting was the perfect backdrop to explore culture, society, and humanity's tendency to survive. (3/3)
My review: www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
Science is all there is, even when the setting was the perfect backdrop to explore culture, society, and humanity's tendency to survive. (3/3)
My review: www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
Don't get me wrong: there <i>are</i> outlines of a brilliant piece of social SF because all these events could have served as the foundation for a truly rich social SF novel… but Baxter only focused on this new universe's physical laws. (2/3)
December 12, 2025 at 1:42 AM
Don't get me wrong: there <i>are</i> outlines of a brilliant piece of social SF because all these events could have served as the foundation for a truly rich social SF novel… but Baxter only focused on this new universe's physical laws. (2/3)
My book, THE OMENS OF WAR, is a genre-blender: a military setting, Thucydidean politics, eldritch intellects in a philosophical quest, and human characters whose minds become the playground of the unknown.
Why did I write a literary book in a fantasy world? 👇🏻 (1/2)
Why did I write a literary book in a fantasy world? 👇🏻 (1/2)
December 11, 2025 at 6:45 PM
My book, THE OMENS OF WAR, is a genre-blender: a military setting, Thucydidean politics, eldritch intellects in a philosophical quest, and human characters whose minds become the playground of the unknown.
Why did I write a literary book in a fantasy world? 👇🏻 (1/2)
Why did I write a literary book in a fantasy world? 👇🏻 (1/2)
If you're curious how this equilibrium finally collapses—and what rises from the ruins—you can preorder THE OMENS OF WAR on Amazon: www.amazon.com/dp/B0DNN94R17
December 7, 2025 at 7:01 PM
If you're curious how this equilibrium finally collapses—and what rises from the ruins—you can preorder THE OMENS OF WAR on Amazon: www.amazon.com/dp/B0DNN94R17
But no equilibrium lasts forever.
The tiniest perturbation can shatter it: one event, one miscalculation, one small break in the status quo.
As Lady Calya says: "War is the rule. Peace is only the interval between." (7/8)
The tiniest perturbation can shatter it: one event, one miscalculation, one small break in the status quo.
As Lady Calya says: "War is the rule. Peace is only the interval between." (7/8)
December 7, 2025 at 7:01 PM
But no equilibrium lasts forever.
The tiniest perturbation can shatter it: one event, one miscalculation, one small break in the status quo.
As Lady Calya says: "War is the rule. Peace is only the interval between." (7/8)
The tiniest perturbation can shatter it: one event, one miscalculation, one small break in the status quo.
As Lady Calya says: "War is the rule. Peace is only the interval between." (7/8)
To maintain such an equilibrium, each nation must constantly increase its power—not out of ambition, but both to avoid falling behind and to signal strength.
Firard and Sestel have done this for generations. (6/8)
Firard and Sestel have done this for generations. (6/8)
December 7, 2025 at 7:01 PM
To maintain such an equilibrium, each nation must constantly increase its power—not out of ambition, but both to avoid falling behind and to signal strength.
Firard and Sestel have done this for generations. (6/8)
Firard and Sestel have done this for generations. (6/8)
That's a Nash equilibrium: a quiet tension masquerading as stability. A peace sustained by mutual intimidation.
And as Kagan wrote: "A repeated error [...] has been the failure to understand that the preservation of peace requires active effort." (5/8)
And as Kagan wrote: "A repeated error [...] has been the failure to understand that the preservation of peace requires active effort." (5/8)
December 7, 2025 at 7:01 PM
That's a Nash equilibrium: a quiet tension masquerading as stability. A peace sustained by mutual intimidation.
And as Kagan wrote: "A repeated error [...] has been the failure to understand that the preservation of peace requires active effort." (5/8)
And as Kagan wrote: "A repeated error [...] has been the failure to understand that the preservation of peace requires active effort." (5/8)
Two great nations, Firard and Sestel, each allied to half the world. They've stagnated in a delicate balance for centuries.
Not peace from goodwill.
But a stalemate where both powers remain locked in mutual deterrence. (4/8)
Not peace from goodwill.
But a stalemate where both powers remain locked in mutual deterrence. (4/8)
December 7, 2025 at 7:01 PM
Two great nations, Firard and Sestel, each allied to half the world. They've stagnated in a delicate balance for centuries.
Not peace from goodwill.
But a stalemate where both powers remain locked in mutual deterrence. (4/8)
Not peace from goodwill.
But a stalemate where both powers remain locked in mutual deterrence. (4/8)
A Nash equilibrium in war is a strategic state where neither side has an incentive to change its stance—not to strike first, not to disarm—because the other side's choices make any unilateral change too risky.
That's the world my book begins with. (3/8)
That's the world my book begins with. (3/8)
December 7, 2025 at 7:01 PM
A Nash equilibrium in war is a strategic state where neither side has an incentive to change its stance—not to strike first, not to disarm—because the other side's choices make any unilateral change too risky.
That's the world my book begins with. (3/8)
That's the world my book begins with. (3/8)
You may remember Nash from 'A Beautiful Mind'.
The Equilibrium is part of game theory: a framework for studying strategic decisions when every player's outcome depends on everyone else's actions.
It applies to politics. And yes, to war. (2/8)
The Equilibrium is part of game theory: a framework for studying strategic decisions when every player's outcome depends on everyone else's actions.
It applies to politics. And yes, to war. (2/8)
December 7, 2025 at 7:01 PM
You may remember Nash from 'A Beautiful Mind'.
The Equilibrium is part of game theory: a framework for studying strategic decisions when every player's outcome depends on everyone else's actions.
It applies to politics. And yes, to war. (2/8)
The Equilibrium is part of game theory: a framework for studying strategic decisions when every player's outcome depends on everyone else's actions.
It applies to politics. And yes, to war. (2/8)
Oh, I'll check that one. I don't mind, actually. Death Stranding has such an incredible story!
December 6, 2025 at 10:38 PM
Oh, I'll check that one. I don't mind, actually. Death Stranding has such an incredible story!
That's actually quite an accurate description--and precisely what I love about it too. The story is top notch.
December 6, 2025 at 10:37 PM
That's actually quite an accurate description--and precisely what I love about it too. The story is top notch.
Not only I knew, this is a replay 😅 I even read the novelisations and did a podcast episode on it! I was replaying to prep for DS2 PC release!
December 6, 2025 at 10:37 PM
Not only I knew, this is a replay 😅 I even read the novelisations and did a podcast episode on it! I was replaying to prep for DS2 PC release!
It's very early in the game, so there are several introductory moments. Death Stranding can be like that, sometimes! 😅 Incredible story, though.
December 6, 2025 at 8:37 AM
It's very early in the game, so there are several introductory moments. Death Stranding can be like that, sometimes! 😅 Incredible story, though.
It was such an incredibly talk, with great points on the table as well. Thank you for the recommendation, and for coming to the podcast! Always enjoy talking books with you!
December 3, 2025 at 8:17 PM
It was such an incredibly talk, with great points on the table as well. Thank you for the recommendation, and for coming to the podcast! Always enjoy talking books with you!
If you love stories that interrogate ethics rather than answer them, this is one of my richest episodes.
Listen on any platform where podcasts are, or watch the full discussion on YouTube (4/4)
Episode ➡️ youtu.be/078Xz_KFv30
Listen on any platform where podcasts are, or watch the full discussion on YouTube (4/4)
Episode ➡️ youtu.be/078Xz_KFv30
youtu.be
December 3, 2025 at 12:03 PM
If you love stories that interrogate ethics rather than answer them, this is one of my richest episodes.
Listen on any platform where podcasts are, or watch the full discussion on YouTube (4/4)
Episode ➡️ youtu.be/078Xz_KFv30
Listen on any platform where podcasts are, or watch the full discussion on YouTube (4/4)
Episode ➡️ youtu.be/078Xz_KFv30
In this week's episode, I invited @someokiedude.bsky.social and Jarrod (The Fantasy Thinker) to unpack:
✔️ Rorschach: principled, terrifying, unbreakable.
✔️ Ozymandias: the hero… and the villain.
✔️ Dr Manhattan: his nonlinear perception.
The debate was intense. (3/4)
✔️ Rorschach: principled, terrifying, unbreakable.
✔️ Ozymandias: the hero… and the villain.
✔️ Dr Manhattan: his nonlinear perception.
The debate was intense. (3/4)
December 3, 2025 at 12:03 PM
In this week's episode, I invited @someokiedude.bsky.social and Jarrod (The Fantasy Thinker) to unpack:
✔️ Rorschach: principled, terrifying, unbreakable.
✔️ Ozymandias: the hero… and the villain.
✔️ Dr Manhattan: his nonlinear perception.
The debate was intense. (3/4)
✔️ Rorschach: principled, terrifying, unbreakable.
✔️ Ozymandias: the hero… and the villain.
✔️ Dr Manhattan: his nonlinear perception.
The debate was intense. (3/4)
Watchmen never gives you moral certainty.
Instead, it weaponises a fractured POV, moral greyness, and a nonlinear structure.
The plot isn’t the challenge.
Your *interpretation* is. (2/4)
Instead, it weaponises a fractured POV, moral greyness, and a nonlinear structure.
The plot isn’t the challenge.
Your *interpretation* is. (2/4)
December 3, 2025 at 12:02 PM
Watchmen never gives you moral certainty.
Instead, it weaponises a fractured POV, moral greyness, and a nonlinear structure.
The plot isn’t the challenge.
Your *interpretation* is. (2/4)
Instead, it weaponises a fractured POV, moral greyness, and a nonlinear structure.
The plot isn’t the challenge.
Your *interpretation* is. (2/4)