A thousand pardons, ma'am! Been on this site a long time and should know better. Chalk it up to a senior moment as it never occurred to me to consider the rules. Well, I hardly ever consider the rules but I did not intend to make things embarassing for you.You know I can't talk about my own work here, except maybe some technical bits on writing.
Now, if I was writing that summarization I'd probably go with "a soldier's story, one where the soldier discovers something worth dying for."
Yes, I know there is a hell of a lot more to it than that but, me being me, I tend to interpret things in terms of myn own experience. The point for me is that the very best stuff you can read treat with issues, real issues. If you're gonna do a book on soldiers, then tell me something about what it means to be soldier. Forever War wasn't good because it served as a critique for Vietnam; it is good because it treats with what it means to be a soldier lost in time. Not real? Consider U.S. soldiers on their third and fourth tour.
Chronicles of Thomas Covenent was good because it made me think about a life where every move I make must be considered in terms of potential lethality. Life is like that, anway, but living through leprosy intensifies the reality. Covenant is believeable because he's so damned scared of an accident, a moment of indiscretion killing him. I had no contact with leprosy save through Michener's Hawaii and Wallace's Ben Hur; Donaldson gave me something to think about.
So, you say 'high concept' to me and I react with 'what the hell is the story trying to tell me?"
And, yeah, I know: that's not what you were getting at. Don't you just hate these posters who insist on dealing with the question in their own frame of reference?