# fantasy: worlds / settings without humans!



## ice.monkey (Feb 4, 2007)

These seem to be pretty rare unless you're playing video games. I really can't think of many settings to books or films where there are no humans.

So, would you be put off by a book or film that had no humans in it? Or wouldn't you be bothered? Or would it pique your interest?


----------



## Lenny (Feb 4, 2007)

One series that instantly springs to mind is Brian Jacques *Redwall* series. And I think it's safe to say that, with it's following, having no humans in it puts of very few people.

Walter Moers, too, seems to write books without "humans". Sure, there's the odd [hackonian] dwarf, or human adventurer still roaming the land, but that's about it. His newer books (*Rumo*, *Captain Bluebear*, *City of Dreaming Books*) are set on the continent of Zamonia, on our earth - a continent inhabited more or less exclusively by creatures of fantasy, who banished the humans thousands of years beforehand. And let me tell you, the books are amazing! Who cares if the main character is a Wolperting, Blue bear, or a Lindworm _(dirty great lizard cum dinosaur)_?

With writing, it doesn't matter what shape, species, race the main character is - if it's developed in a way that we can understand (ie we read their thoughts, their emotions, see them change through the book as they go into situations, leaving them as a different 'person'), then the main character can be a Cthulu, and no-one should care in the slightest.

The body of the main character is but a shell. Maybe the bodies of other characters that the main character sees are important (the character might have been brought up harbouring racial hatred for those who are, say, pink kittens), but that of the main character is nothing, especially if the book is written in first person.

In answer to your question, I just wouldn't be bothered about a book with no humans in. All that really matters in a story, is if the plot is good enough to keep you reading, to provoke thought, to make you feel as if you're there in the characters shoes.


----------



## ice.monkey (Feb 4, 2007)

Lenny, your thoughts match my sentiments exactly. I'll check out those books you've mentioned as I haven't encountered them previously.

I asked the question as I came across a site that was advocating including humans in any fantasy that you write! Personally, I couldn't see why, but got me wondering how people react to humanless settings.


----------



## kythe (Feb 4, 2007)

The first book that came to my mind is "Dragon's Egg" by Robert L. Forward.  Technically it has humans in it, so I don't know if that counts, but it is almost entirely about the development of a non-humanoid race.  I found it one of the most fascinating sci-fi stories I've ever read.

I would be interested in a story with no humans at all.  It shows great imagination and excellent writing skills to compose an interesting story in a setting and with characters we are completely unfamiliar with.


----------



## Pyan (Feb 4, 2007)

*C.J.Cherryh's* *Chanur *series includes seven or eight entire species, inhabiting dozens of planets and systems, but has, for all intents and purposes, only one human - is that close enough?

The Chanur novels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ice.monkey (Feb 4, 2007)

pyanfaruk, close but possibly no cigar! The novels are based in a portion of the galaxy that borders human space, and as you say there is a human involved in the plot. But it's getting close and demonstrates that a setting doesn't have to be dominated by humans.


----------



## Ice fyre (Feb 4, 2007)

Hi there

I know it's not totally devoid of Humans but I remmeber Robert Silverberg (I think but I have been known to be wrong) wrote about a world which was dominated by a mountain called Kosa Saag?

The young "men" of the village had to climb the mountain to ask the god's something. Any help?


----------



## Ice fyre (Feb 4, 2007)

Awww hang

Forgot, The Dark Crystal by Jim Henson has no humans at all.

I rate it as one of my all time fave films!


----------



## Lenny (Feb 4, 2007)

Can I ask, was Robert Silverberg the same one who wrote the Majipoor series?


----------



## Ice fyre (Feb 4, 2007)

Aye indeed

Think He's a rather good author but havnt really read much of his work. 

Have you?


----------



## Lenny (Feb 4, 2007)

Only *Lord Valentine's Castle*. I'd like to read that again, as well as the rest of that series.


----------



## Ice fyre (Feb 4, 2007)

How many are there?

I think no human's in books and films is so rare, I've only heard of a few.

I see you are quite new too, hope you're having fun.


----------



## Lenny (Feb 4, 2007)

At least 3. Maybe more.

Watership Down, and the Disnye/Pixar animations are the only films that come to mind with no humans in - but they're animated.

And yes, I'm new. This place is great! Impossible to leave, but hey, who cares?  Very friendly, and the members are knowledgeable about everything.


----------



## Ice fyre (Feb 4, 2007)

I noticed you up at the cafe.

I'm going to me bed night night all!

I never thought of watership down, the author wrote a few similarrly themed books as well.

Anyway off I go.

(Fades away)

see you aroun....


----------



## j d worthington (Feb 5, 2007)

Basically, any "beast fable" type tales are of this sort (though the beasts stand in for humans and have human motivations and reactions); this would include numerous stories in fairy-tale collections, The Wind in the Willows, Watership Down (as noted)...

Donald Wandrei did a small set of stories without any humans whatsoever; and sf, of course, has several such possibilities, from Hal Clement on. It all depends on what you're aiming at. The problem with having some other form of life behave exactly like humans is precisely that: They're behaving exactly like humans. That's an extremely unlikely thing. How many species that have evolved on this planet of ours behave like we do? And we're a lot closer to spiders than we'd be to something that evolved on another planet (or, most likely, in another dimension). There may be some similarities, but they would be limited to fairly basic things connected to survival; once you get into the complex emotional stuff they're likely to be vastly different.

If, on the other hand, you're using creatures from known myth-patterns and such, then you have more cause to give them such motivations, as they've been assigned such since they were created. There's an element of the other to them, but by and large they're extremely close to us in emotion and reaction.

So I'd base it on whether or not you're wanting the prototypical fantasy creatures, or something of your own. Either way, you can have them react in understandable human terms, but it tends to be more successful with those we've learned through the millennia to accept in that way; a new creation would need much more of the difference to make it believable -- and that opens up other story possibilities, as the reader gets to understand the psychology of this species enough to feel comfortable in their skin.


----------



## iansales (Feb 5, 2007)

*Courtship Rite*, Donald Kingsbury


----------



## ice.monkey (Feb 5, 2007)

> And we're a lot closer to spiders than we'd be to something that evolved on another planet (or, most likely, in another dimension). There may be some similarities, but they would be limited to fairly basic things connected to survival; once you get into the complex emotional stuff they're likely to be vastly different.



Now as we've yet to encounter life from or on another planet, this is a huge assumption to make. It could be just as likely that they'd resemble us as not. And why would they be vastly different emotionally? Although some would like us to believe that our emotions separate us from animals, more recent research shows that animals can and do feel many emotions as we do. Why would that be a quirk unique to this planet?

Why would they be limited to fairly basic things connected to survival? You could argue that that is also true of us!

Having no humans in a setting would allow you to explore motivations, emotions and themes in a way that you couldn't necessarily do if humans were there. But, they could still be close to humans. As Lenny noted above:



> The body of the main character is but a shell. With writing, it doesn't matter what shape, species, race the main character is - if it's developed in a way that we can understand (ie we read their thoughts, their emotions, see them change through the book as they go into situations, leaving them as a different 'person'), then the main character can be a Cthulu, and no-one should care in the slightest.


----------



## iansales (Feb 5, 2007)

I think it's in John Brunner's *The Whole Man* that he proposes (jokingly) that spiders could be alien since they cause an almost universal fear and horror among people.


----------



## iansales (Feb 5, 2007)

Which reminds me... I don't think Colin Wilson's Spider World novels feature any humans. But I may be wrong. I read one years ago, and it was pretty forgettable...


----------



## j d worthington (Feb 5, 2007)

ice.monkey said:


> Now as we've yet to encounter life from or on another planet, this is a huge assumption to make. It could be just as likely that they'd resemble us as not. And why would they be vastly different emotionally? Although some would like us to believe that our emotions separate us from animals, more recent research shows that animals can and do feel many emotions as we do. Why would that be a quirk unique to this planet?
> 
> Why would they be limited to fairly basic things connected to survival? You could argue that that is also true of us!


 
No, it really isn't a huge assumption at all. It's simply the outcome of a different environment, something which is more likely to be the case than not. The chances of having a) an earth-like environment; b) the various events that produced life here coming together in exactly the same way there; c) the various events that led to the dominant life-forms developing the same emotional associations, thought-patterns, and reaction-response patterns as we have ... not to mention the different biochemical and genetic patterns, all of which play a part in psychology ... the probability of all these and other factors coming together to produce something like human emotions, as complex as they are, is basically nil. Animals have analogous, but not identical, feelings. They are close enough for us to see similarities, but they are NOT the same. They do not have the complex overlay of the higher brain functions that modifies them the way our emotions do, for one thing. I've long been a proponent of the fact that animals do have emotions, feel pain, etc., and should be treated with respect accordingly... but they really are not the _same_ emotions. And where they are closest to us tend to be areas which are very basic, coming out of either survival or pleasure/pain responses. Yet they evolved here on this planet, exposed to many of the same influences and pressures as we were. A lifeform evolving under circumstances even slightly different will have a vastly different set of experiences and pressures than us; the emotions would differ accordingly. Who and what we -- and the other lifeforms that share our planet -- are, is the result of very specific and local causes, including the makeup of our planet itself, its distance from the sun, the type of sun we have, the amount of atmosphere, etc., etc., etc. All of which influence the development of brain-and-gland functions such as thought and emotion. (And, on a physical level, this is one of the major flaws with fantasy set on different worlds: horses, cows, etc. The likelihood of humanoids, or of any of the creatures we know from our little planet, evolving elsewhere to exactly such forms, is so vanishingly small as to be ludicrous. But various writers have set them there, nonetheless.)

This is one of the problems with presenting realistic alien life-forms: getting inside the head of something that _is_ alien. We (quite naturally) anthropomorphize, as human reasoning and human emotions, human motivations, are what we understand most easily, and in fact all we can really understand (on any more than a very vague abstract level) emotionally. When it comes to emotional responses, any reading we give to other creatures is filtered through our own emotional coloring; our own bias, if you will. Presenting a truly alien creature, as was long since proven, would be impossible; we are simply not capable of imagining something we haven't encountered in some form. All our imagining is a distortion of some experience we've had; our minds simply aren't capable of anything more than that; which is why nearly all fictional aliens are so easily understood. They really are only humans with a few tweaks emotionally, no matter how alien their appearance -- and even there it is something that relates to things we know. Try imagining a genuinely alien appearance... something that has nothing whatsoever to do with anything you've ever encountered. It can't be done. We combine, we transpose, we alter... but at base, it's something we _know_. The genuinely _other_ is beyond our abilities to imagine. But life, if it exists out there, is as likely as not going to be of such an alien sort... so much so that we very well might not realize it was life at all -- yet that would not in the least mean that it isn't; just that we're too limited to see it.

Now, that's why I made the statements I did about the problems with having non-human characters. If you want to know the advantages and drawbacks, then this is one of the drawbacks. It's one that's popular, as the majority of readers do anthropomorphize; it's more comfortable. As for Lenny's statements... they really reinforce my statements: we tend to "humanize" non-human charaters. His choice of Cthulhu is a particularly infelicitous one, as Lovecraft's (_not_ his imitators') creations are seldom human in motivation. There is so little common ground that we don't understand their motivations, their emotions (if they even have such, which is debatable), their psychology, any of it. Since we see them through the filters of other characters' emotions, the narrators often assign motives to them, but even there this is done quite shakily, and -- like the mythologizing of his alien beings -- done to show how we can't reach beyond our own experiences to truly grasp the alien. This is why Lovecraft's creations are never characters -- they are phenomena that the human characters encounter, but they remain removed from us emotionally and psychologically at all times.

This is not, however (as I indicated) to say you can't do fantasy with non-humans. You can people the stories with any form of life you like, whether it be animal, vegetable, or mineral; you can make some accommodations for the difference in form so that their responses aren't quite what most people would have to any given situation; but at base the reactions will still be human. That's a long-accepted convention of both sf and f. Exotic such lifeforms may be... alien they really are not. And, if you want your work to be successful, that's almost certainly better so. As I said above:



> So I'd base it on whether or not you're wanting the prototypical fantasy creatures, or something of your own. Either way, you can have them react in understandable human terms, but it tends to be more successful with those we've learned through the millennia to accept in that way; a new creation would need much more of the difference to make it believable -- and that opens up other story possibilities, as the reader gets to understand the psychology of this species enough to feel comfortable in their skin.


 
It really depends on what you want to achieve -- the more traditional type of fantasy, or something a bit different. Either way, the motivations and emotions will be humanocentric; but I think it's wiser, if you're going to avoid using elves, dwarfs, trolls, giants, gods, etc., to attempt to have something a bit different emotionally where you can, to set them off from the stereotype. It also opens up, as I say, more storytelling possibilities, as your readers become aware of these new creatures, and learn to live inside their skin -- one of the attractions of sf and fantasy (think of the way White did with the lad's training in *The Sword in the Stone*, where he became different creatures; or the Moties in *The Mote in God's Eye*, etc.). This also makes them more memorable (if done well) because they _are_ exotic, they don't blur into the thousands of other creatures peopling fantasy, but stand out on their own. So base it on what your story needs, and go from there. But as for your argument about life elsewhere likely resembling us... no. _Possibility?_ Yes. _Probability?_ Zero.


----------



## ice.monkey (Feb 5, 2007)

j.d.

I want to start off by stating that I really don’t want this thread to become a debate on science vs. religion, or on the validity of psychology, etc. I just want to expand the outlook a bit; broaden the horizon![FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]





> The chances of having a) an earth-like environment; b) the various events that produced life here coming together in exactly the same way there; c) the various events that led to the dominant life-forms developing the same emotional associations, thought-patterns, and reaction-response patterns as we have ... not to mention the different biochemical and genetic patterns, all of which play a part in psychology ... the probability of all these and other factors coming together to produce something like human emotions, as complex as they are, is basically nil


What you say above is all well and good if you’ve bought into the current ‘think’ on where emotions, etc. come from. However, it has yet to be proved categorically that this is the case, so you’re then making assumptions about life on other planets based on the theories noted above. There are other theories as where emotions come from; one being that you are more than just a body and are, in fact, a spirit. This is you and this is where emotions come from. Others believe in a higher being that has had a hand in the manufacture of this universe. Therefore, it’s composition isn’t as random as science would have you believe and the likelihood of ‘aliens’ being similar to us increases.[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]  So you can’t categorically state that the chances are nil. Heck the psychologists, etc. can’t even categorically state for you exactly what causes emotion. Not long ago it was all due to chemicals in the brain, but recently a lot of that has moved over to genetics! Who can say they've got it right this time?



> Animals have analogous, but not identical, feelings. They are close enough for us to see similarities, but they are NOT the same.


[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]Again, actually an assumption with no hard evidence. If you knew my two dogs you’d be hard pushed to prove that their emotions aren’t the same as our. Fear? Looks the same to me!



> Presenting a truly alien creature, as was long since proven, would be impossible


[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]Nowhere has it ever been _proven_! For one, no one can say what a truly alien creature is!



> But as for your argument about life elsewhere likely resembling us... no. Possibility? Yes. Probability? Zero.


[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]Again, you’ve based your conclusion on the current theories presented by contemporary science, but these are incomplete. Based on the information you have, I can see why you came to that conclusion. However, science has a good history of proving itself wrong and a lot of the current ‘think’ on our origins, etc. may well be overturned in the future. My point is not that they don’t make a good case, but that it isn’t absolute; it hasn’t been proven fully. So if you factor in the possibility that they might be wrong, it changes the whole outlook. Plus SF and F is the greatest medium for exploring the unknown and possibilities! And we may have to agree to disagree here.

 As for your comments in your final paragraph (last sentence excepted!), you’ve given me food for thought – thanks!


----------



## Lenny (Feb 5, 2007)

JD said:
			
		

> [Lenny's] choice of Cthulhu is a particularly infelicitous one


 
I just picked a creature out of nowhere, to be honest. I've never read anything by Lovecraft.

So, of course, I have to pick one of the creatures that has very little in common with humans. 

I'm sure you know what I meant, it's just that my example of a creature was way off.


----------



## j d worthington (Feb 6, 2007)

Yes, Lenny, I rather thought that was the case; I picked up on it because it is a good example of the other. No offense intended. 

ice.monkey -- I hadn't intended to pull the thread off-topic so badly. That second post was addressing your comments, rather than the original thrust of the thread. While I'd love to debate the issue, it really isn't all that germane to your original question. Again, my apologies for pulling things 'way off the beam!

And, as I said, it really depends on what you want to do with your story as to what sort of creatures you use. My main point in bringing this whole aspect into the discussion was to point out possible pitfalls and also some options on how to go with non-human creatures as characters; ways that may help make them more memorable because they are rather different in their reactions, while still being understandable and empathetic. Just be careful not to make them "second-class humans", as it were; give them their own individuality apart from, and I think it would make a lot more sense and also be more in tune with such an environment and story ... otherwise, you may as well be using humans. (I don't think that you were going that far with it from your other comments; this is just a general observation.)

At any rate, I don't think it's a bad thing to not have human beings as characters, or not to have any humans involved... for telling a story, it can and has been done countless times in sf, and no few in fantasy. Best of luck with it, however you proceed!


----------



## Pyan (Feb 6, 2007)

Lenny said:


> I just picked a creature out of nowhere, to be honest. I've never read anything by Lovecraft.
> 
> So, of course, I have to pick one of the creatures that has very little in common with humans.
> 
> I'm sure you know what I meant, it's just that my example of a creature was way off.



To coin a phrase, yer can say _that_ again!
And if you're having *Redwall,* I suggest *The Tale of Jemima Puddleduck!
*
ice.monkey: the Chanur books, which are basically a telling of the reaction of an alien culture to the discovery of the existence of humans, are possibly closer to what I perceived as the original thrust of your thread than some of the other suggestions made, which can tend to the substitution of "aliens" into human roles, rather than being alien in themselves: certainly the *k'nnn* and the *t'ca* in them truly think in a way completely different to humankind.


----------



## ice.monkey (Feb 7, 2007)

j.d.



> ice.monkey -- I hadn't intended to pull the thread off-topic so badly.


You actually hadn't pulled it off 'so badly'. However, the route that our discussion was taking could've! So I just wanted us to say our piece and return to the main thread, so thanks for abiding by that request!

I got the main thrust of your posts and they've given me something to think about, so thanks for the replies.

And thanks to everyone else for their input. It would appear that having a lack of humans in a setting is no bad thing - you've just got to take care in how you're going to present your non-humans and how they're going to 'think'!


----------



## chrispenycate (Feb 7, 2007)

Ah, if I'm allowed science fiction; I thought I was restricted to "fantasy" in the traditional sense. Off the top of my head , there's a Sawyer series starring dinosaurs, and a Brunner (the tides of time?) with inflatable lifeforms, neither of which have any contact with humans whatsoever. Simac's City (post human) implies the past existence of humanity, and I've read a fantasy where dragons debate the nature of a long extinct human race, but all that requires a potentiality of humanity at some point.
And which Hal Clement has no humans? Thinking through the "case of gravity","cycle of fire" etc list (yes, I could have looked them up, but was feeling lazy) they all have their token human, the contrast.

But fantasy is less into stretching our minds far enough that we can tie them in a bow round our necks, and more into consequences of actions, so, on average, it's non-human characters are symbols of either humans or (like Johnathan Livingstone Seagull) particular human aspirations or characteristics; a long and honorable tradition going back to the dawn of the very humanity you're trying to exclude from the stories.


----------



## High Eight (Mar 16, 2007)

I don't think there are any humans in Brian Aldiss' Heliconia trilogy.


----------



## GrownUp (Mar 19, 2007)

There are a few fantasy books, for both children and adults, that are set in a world of cats. There are humans about, in the periphery,  you know, the same whay there might be trees in the distance.

Like Tad Williams' 'Tailchasers Song'.

I keep bringing that book up in different threads for different reasons. I'm going to have to think of more examples.


----------



## Steffi (Mar 31, 2007)

The Edge Chronicles don't have any humans in them.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Mar 31, 2007)

_Raptor Red_, by Robert T. Bakker.  All the characters are dinosaurs.

I haven't read it, but it got some good reviews, I believe.  And, as a palaeongologist, Dr. Bakker surely knows his subject.


----------

