# History in Fantasy



## Brian G Turner (Feb 23, 2003)

Here's a curious question - the nature of Fantasy writing in itself is escapism, so realism can easily become discarded. But how real should be the worlds that are constructed?

For example, I remember well reading the Dragonlance novels in my teens, and consciously noting that the world being fought for had absolutely no culture of it's own - it lacked any form of identity that you may find in the real world - there was no history, no art, no religion or philosophy - no general sense of culture whatsoever. And Terry Brooks has published a handful of letters on the internet where he applauds himself for not bothering with world building.

Now, there are other writers out there who make an attempt to give their worlds an identity - time is taken with the world-building. But the question is, how much should be revealed to the reader?

In other words, how much of a novel should mention anything about a history or culture of the world being explored? Especially when the direct application of such knowledge may not be immediately apparent to the more immediate plot?

Just asking...


----------



## dwndrgn (Apr 28, 2003)

Well, in a word, enough.
In order to understand who, what, why and where you have to have the background.  Of course, there are those authors that go overboard and lose sight of the story for the background (ie: Robert Jordan)


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 17, 2003)

Personally, I'd love to be able to go overboard and include lots of my own world history for my writing. 

History, properly told, is more incredible, more stimulating, more exciting than any novel. Truth really is stranger than fiction.


----------



## nightwalker (May 22, 2003)

History is boring. Its male politics and war and fame. That doesn't interest me as reading material. Real history would be about normal people.


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 26, 2003)

LOL! My girlfriend says similar things - says that's what set her against caring about the subject in school. I only really developed an interest in the subject when tracking down historical realism for my own writing. I agree, though, that there's too much emphasis on political history. 

Humans are more complicated than that - I lvoe seeing and reading about daily life. There's also cultural history, such as the arts and society and religion - all of that is what I try to put into "Chronicles of Empire". Even still, I've probably over done it a little. No doubt a lot will be snipped. Hopefully not too much.


----------



## teddyrux (Jun 23, 2003)

History and background and detail in a story is great, if it's done right.  It has to be necessary in most cases.  I know there are exceptions and let's agree not to discuss them.  There are history books by fantasy authors: "The Silmarillion" and David Eddings has one.  They read like history books.

What needs to be in the story, is enough to make it seem real.  I don't care who the third king on the Soo Dynasty was, unless it's important to the story.  However, it doesn't mean that you don't have to know it.  It might be important.

Everyone does world-building of some sort.  You don't have to draw a map or have detailed notes about the history, but you do have to know that Town X is the capital of Country Y and is located on the Eastern shore of Continent Z.  Your can't rename your towns in the middle of the story without a good reason.  Even this little detail is world-building and Terry Brooks does it.  He just doesn't consider it world building.  He does an outline and probably keeps all his milieu information in the outline.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jun 25, 2003)

Personally, I love seeing history ni a book. But then again, I like reading non-fiction history.  Not the dry essays (though I have, inadvertently, read some) - no, I like the sort of history that makes another world come alive. Anything on daily life, culture, politics, art, theology, etc.


----------



## Arch (Jun 27, 2003)

I've with Teddyrux on the need for a balance. History can feed a plot line -- or kill it. I prefer the feed.


----------



## Pluvious (Aug 11, 2003)

[quote author=nightwalker link=board=2;threadid=145;start=0#msg2050 date=1053634728]
History is boring. Its male politics and war and fame. That doesn't interest me as reading material. Real history would be about normal people.
[/quote]

I agree!  I think we should learn about people who sat around all day and didn't even try to be famous.  Ambition is wrong.      Actually, there is quite a bit of recent emphasis in learning about famous women.

I would prefer an author have a very detailed idea of the world created, including any history that may be pertinent to the plot or characters.  Adding a little snippet of the past here and there can also add to the realism of the world.  This is very important to many readers, even if they aren't aware of it.  I know if I see a writer "add in" details about the past I have more faith in his/her ability to produce a truly complex world and story.  

Besides this a fantasy book often deals with "world" events.  If you are reading an epic it only makes sense that the past be taken into account in some way.  Epics and fantasy are fairly common, and if the characters are to change the world the reader should (logically) know something about what came before this change.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 11, 2003)

Hi there, *pluvious* - and welcome to the chronicles-network!

My personal theory is that, for realism, details are everything. By that I don't mean info dumps - just the common everyday little snippets of information that we take so much for granted. That's one of the hardest things to do in world-building - weaving the construction into the everyday reality of the story, IMO.


----------



## dwndrgn (Aug 11, 2003)

I agree, to be realistic you have to understand how the characters are reacting to their particular culture.  I also enjoy a good 'alternative history' that takes portions of our 'real' (I've quoted that because we don't know completely what the world was really like in the past - we can only make educated guesses) history and makes a major change.  These what-if stories are fun to follow.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 13, 2003)

Personally, I actually love reading history in real life - Xenophon, Thucydides, and Suetonious, are great reads. However, I can appreciate that not everybody wants to read such material.


----------



## dwndrgn (Aug 13, 2003)

Reading usually keeps me awake - unless I pick up somthing that was written to inform.  I don't know why it is.  Maybe some sort of defense mechanism.  All I know is that if I've got insomnia all I have to do is pick up any informative, non-fiction and the snoring begins...the only exception is art history.  I can read art history until the alarm goes off.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 18, 2003)

Btw - does anyone here read around the background material for a particular world? For example, with Tolkien - anyone actually read the Silmarillion, and other words, after LOTR??

Is the story enough, or do people thirst for more information about the world after? Or after the last page is turned the world closes with the book?


----------



## Twelve (Aug 18, 2003)

I try my best to limit myself from becoming too absorbed by a book. It's dangerous for me to do so. I don't like letting myself get too much into the pure imagination of other people...it's not reality.

HOWEVER...

But I do find myself looking at the appendix, maps, and character histories of the characters in George R.R. Martin's A CLASH OF KINGS. That hasn't happened in a long time.


12


----------



## littlemissattitude (Aug 21, 2003)

> History is boring. Its male politics and war and fame. That doesn't interest me as reading material. Real history would be about normal people.



In my view, history is the ultimate soap opera.  It all has to do with who did what to whom and why.  I think it would be interesting to know (if we had the records) just how many pivotal events in history happened the way they did because someone was feeling spurned by a lover, or because someone had a headache when he or she had to make a decision, or because someone did something out of spite or just to show that they would do it.

And, the thing is, all those people who made history (the famous, the infamous, and the anonymous) were real, normal people.  They all put their shirts or dresses on one arm at a time, they all had to go to the loo (or the outhouse) a certain number of times a day (sorry, but it's the truth   ), they all loved and hated just like you and I all do.  Okay, so some of them had the power of life and death over many others.  Some of them had more material possessions than you or I could even begin to imagine.

The problem is that history classes, and many history books, have a hard time communicating this well.  It is partly a problem of available time and space.  Especially in survey classes, the instructor has to cover certain names and dates and concepts in an hour's time a few times a week for a semester or a term.  And no author can cover everything within the pages of a particular book.  But part of it is just the difficulty of imagining people who lived long ago and cultures that were in some cases very different from the ones we live in as being real.  Get over that hurdle, and history becomes much more interesting very quickly.

Edit: for clarity.


----------



## kiwimac (Aug 31, 2003)

History is fun!

We live in a world defined by history. Yesterday's politics informs tomorrows world and we ignore that history at our own peril, ISTM, 

After all we can only learn from history if we take the time to be informed about it, eh?

Kiwimac


----------



## dwndrgn (Sep 4, 2003)

I agree that history is a wonderful tool for learning, unfortunately quite a bit of history is interpreted by people differently and that makes it difficult to tell what actually happened, what actually caused it to happen and so on.  We can only assume so much.  And furthermore, our ideas and thoughts about history keep changing as new information is found.

As far as using history in novels, the reader (at least this one) only needs enough to understand the motivations of the characters.  Too much more and you feel as if you are sitting in a classroom listening to a lecture.  Some authors get this and others don't.

Surprisingly, for being such a verbose author, Robert Jordan does the history bit well (IMO) in the Wheel of Time series.  He should take a lesson from himself for the rest of his story...


----------



## Brian G Turner (Sep 4, 2003)

Something I need as well isn't simply the history behind character motivations, as much as an actual world history that explains why so-and-so events are actually occuring.

and rarely does any history have a single immediate cause. Which is the precise conundrum for an author plotting a proper history - to what degree do you reveal the overall picture?


----------



## littlemissattitude (Sep 5, 2003)

To the degree, I think, that it leaves the reader informed but still asking a few questions.  Yeah, I know, it is hard to know quite where that is.  But the thing I like best is being given just enough historical information that I can speculate on cause and effect chains and on what might be going on in the future of the plot.  I don't want to know everything, but just enough to wonder what else there is to know.

I don't know if that makes any sense.  Sorry.


----------



## Wiglaf (Oct 19, 2007)

Personally, I think that just enough history to make characters actions understandable is the best starting point.  If you have the skill, you can make allusions to a few other "historical" events to convey a sense of depth.  For example, "Eventhough the sword was dull and rusty, brandishing it made him feel like Gwarond, slayer of the seven dragons."  Gwar has nothing to do with the story.  All we know is that he apparently killed seven dragons but, he provides a sense that there is a whole world beneath the story as well as providing an example of a hero the protagonist can identify with.


----------



## Who's Wee Dug (Oct 19, 2007)

In some of Moorcocks Von Bek books the history behind it alludes to the 100 hundred years war in Europe.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Dec 2, 2007)

Reality is taking a turn for the worse. That's why books are out there.

Personally, I'm not really sure if history DOES have its place in fantasy. Maybe to a very limited amount it does, but like I said, reality is taking a turn for the worse. Why write something as far out there as fantasy if you're going to bother making it realistic in ANY aspect?


----------



## ice.monkey (Dec 2, 2007)

Well if you don't do your own world building and don't have any history for the backdrop of your fantasy then, in effect, you're world stealing. Brooks says he doesn't world build and that's obvious as the settings for the books I've read of his are completely unoriginal and, in truth, stolen from someone elses efforts. This was the main reason I only read a couple of his books when I was in my early teens and then went looking for original fantasy, not plagarised.

If you spend time on the history of your world it does show through in the book even if you don't info dump. Your vision is clearer and the level of detail can be higher which makes for a more immersive experience for the reader.

Like a lot of things, you don't have to go to the effort of building your own world and creating its history. But it'll show through if you don't and from my own experience I've found books where the author has spent some time creating his own world, mythos and history far better than those that don't.


----------



## Pyan (Dec 2, 2007)

Hi, IM! Nice to see you back! *waves across the Water*



ice.monkey said:


> Brooks says he doesn't world build and that's obvious as the settings for the books I've read of his are completely unoriginal and, in truth, stolen from someone elses efforts.


To be fair, he _does_ admit this, unlike some I could name _(C-r-s-o-h-r  P-o-i-i, anyone?)_, and he has made an effort to develop his world from the early Tolkienesque beginnings.



ice.monkey said:


> Like a lot of things, you don't have to go to the effort of building your own world and creating its history. But it'll show through if you don't and from my own experience I've found books where the author has spent some time creating his own world, mythos and history far better than those that don't.


Absoluteiy, IM - the more you put into the framework, the more solid the final edifice, and the more you and your reader will believe in it. Stories with a back history always seem more realistic to me.


----------



## Jigoku Neko (Dec 2, 2007)

History is an integral part of any story and it has to pop up sooner or later. i don't mean that on page 237 the author should kill the action and start prosing about the 1000 generations of glorious royalty and the 100 wars of the past. it would be enough to insert some little facts that would convince the reader that the people in the story did not just drop out of the sky; they were molded by the environment around them which in turn was shaped by the current world's history. 

the same goes for culture. in many stories the general populace seem to be lacking in artistic pursuits. that sounds like a boring place to be, sort of like an ecomonic symposium for middle management. there should be renowned storytellers, famous stories and bits of gossip, paintings and/or sculptures, buildings and whatnot.  

if the author cannot be bothered to prop up a decent background for his/her story then i'm sure s/he'll muck up the rest too.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Dec 2, 2007)

ice.monkey said:


> Well if you don't do your own world building and don't have any history for the backdrop of your fantasy then, in effect, you're world stealing.


 
Which is why I said that history might have a limited place in fantasy. True, a world completely without may look plagerized, so it could-and usually IS-a good idea to provide SOME background about the land. Too much, however, draws away from the plot and, frankly, could put a reader to sleep faster than Valium.


----------



## ice.monkey (Dec 3, 2007)

> Hi, IM! Nice to see you back! *waves across the Water*


 
*waves back* Thanks Py. It's good to be back...again!



> Too much, however, draws away from the plot and, frankly, could put a reader to sleep faster than Valium.


 
Couldn't agree more Manarion. Divulging the history, or any other aspect, of the setting should be avoided if it does nothing to forward the story. If you want to provide the reader with the history then there are appendices (if you can get away with them these days) or bring out a book titled 'The History of..'. If you've got a fanbase, it'll sell.


----------



## Alurny (Dec 3, 2007)

I always found Terry Brooks good at incorporating the history through the various druids.

I think history greater immerses the reader in the world. I enjoy getting a nice background as to why an event is so significant etc.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Dec 5, 2007)

Alurny said:


> I always found Terry Brooks good at incorporating the history through the various druids.
> 
> I think history greater immerses the reader in the world. I enjoy getting a nice background as to why an event is so significant etc.


 
Personally, I prefer character development to draw me into a story, and it's also my strong point during writing. My backgrounds and history usually aren't worth crap, but I think I do fairly well with character development. Which probably explains why I've fooled people into thinking I was a girl for over three months on Materia Magica...

No, I WON'T go into that.


----------



## Stormflame (Dec 8, 2007)

I am into world-building.  Over the last few years I have been creating an indepth world, (in my few free moments).  I can see why it is often ignored, or just written over allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions on what the history of the 'world' is.  World building is hard.  It takes great lengths of time to set down and build up the gods, the religions that in the book itself may clash with the character whereupon changing the whole map the writer has in mind, making up times sheets and wars and harsh winters that evolved the world, plague years or perhaps famine or too much rain that killed the spice trade on the east coast that then killed the villages on the west- I mean, setting down and building history is an enormous and complex task.  I could go on. 
TSR has stumbled upon some of this problem itself.  At the first, it was easy to just start somewhere in the life of a cleric and take that flashpoint of his TIME and Era and just write it in.  But, as more and more writers have travelled the same world, the same highways, the same seasons, and their wars and triumphs have overlapped the fringes of other writers, the stories are now going back and writing about the life of these present day adventurers and saying that it is now time to see how they were earlier on.  
Writing in the sharedworlds is a dream of mine.  Someday, I may send them a query again as I did like nine years ago.  My favorite writer of all times was once a writer I once hated-R A Salvatore.  He has taken the painstaking tale of the Dark Elves and written every breath that their people have ever really taken.  The tale of Drizzt caught me and I could not put the The Dark Elf Trilogy down for a year.  
History makes a story if the artist takes the time to delve into it.


----------



## Giovanna Clairval (Dec 8, 2007)

The Black Elf trilogy is a good example of excellent world-building. The reality of the setting makes it one of the best YA fantasy novel I have ever read. Every person to whom I lent the books (aged from 12 to 22) came back for more—and was disappointed by the following installments (but this is another story).

Salvatore delved into every area: the strange geography and eerie beauty of the caverns lit by phosphorescent fungi, the gigantic lizards, the different species living in the dark, the social system (a horrible and hyper-violent matriarchal society—well, it's a guy's fantasy…) and the cult of a vengeful spider-goddess. The whole is perfectly believable in its consistency.

No info-dump there, only details brought to life when needed, and allowing the readers to imagine themselves in the new world. Never too much, just brushstrokes.

This is the secret: leave the readers—just a tiny bit—hungry for more information.


And the world's history gives depth to the plot. Once, the black Elves…


----------



## bruno-1012 (Dec 8, 2007)

One of the examples i give to non-readers of why fantasy/sf writing is so much more challenging is the need to incorporate geography, history and socio-political make-up into a story and make it interesting.

You do need these elements to round out a world and make it believable.  Add in the logic of magic in that world and you have a lot of background to give.

History can be used to describe the reasons for allies and enemies being created and the interaction between countries and people.


----------



## brsrkrkomdy (Dec 16, 2007)

*History is fascinating when you learn something you've not heard before just when you thought you got it all figured out.  But mythology is far more fascinating than history. *

*For several reasons, history is dry, clinical, far too precise evidence-wise, and it's often not without bias.  You've all known the story from the conquerors.  It's the story from the conquered that's more interesting.  In other words, truth is relative in regards to one's, namely the historian's, interpretation of the facts.*

*Legends, folklore, and mythology don't bother themselves with facts and figures too much.  All it comes down to is a good story.  And yes, there's often nuggets of truth found in the stories, if you know where to look.*

*World building is all well and good when drawing up a whole new mythology but let's not get bogged down on the story that's striving to get told.  A reader like myself doesn't want to see useless details cluttered up between book covers.*

*Just my two idjits. *


----------



## yellowbird2525 (Jan 17, 2008)

it really depends on the story; The Dark Elf Trilogy is an excellent example; So is Dune & so is Anne MacCaffrey's Pern series with the dragons. On the other hand, the dragonlance books were good as well; So is Gene Wolfe's style of writing which is decidedly different from all of the above & I like them all; So***in response to your question: if the story is good, who cares how much history or non history is involved in the story?


----------



## Hilarious Joke (Jan 17, 2008)

I'm thinking of starting a brand new story without any planning, just going straight in and writing. I intend to flesh out the details about the world, characters, history, culture, etc. as the story requires it, and making sure I keep track so that my story is consistent. 

Anyone tried this approach? Or am I crazy?


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Jan 17, 2008)

Hilarious Joke said:


> I'm thinking of starting a brand new story without any planning, just going straight in and writing. I intend to flesh out the details about the world, characters, history, culture, etc. as the story requires it, and making sure I keep track so that my story is consistent.
> 
> Anyone tried this approach? Or am I crazy?


 
That's how all mine go....huh, maybe that's my problem....but I've tried planning and outlines and those never get off the ground as I never seem to be able to start a story from them....


----------



## Hilarious Joke (Jan 17, 2008)

Lol, Manarion you were the last person on when I left yesterday afternoon and you're the first person on I see when I arrive this morning. I respect that!


----------



## Sar (Apr 14, 2008)

Hilarious Joke said:


> I'm thinking of starting a brand new story without any planning, just going straight in and writing. I intend to flesh out the details about the world, characters, history, culture, etc. as the story requires it, and making sure I keep track so that my story is consistent.
> 
> Anyone tried this approach? Or am I crazy?


 

I think that is a great idea. History, cutlure, language, ect. will naturally have to come out when you are telling a story. You'll have to be patient though, because it will take a lot longer to write a story without the background already thought out. 

As to the initial question: There has to be balance. If a story lacks history it is boring just the same as if it has too much history.


----------



## Hilarious Joke (Apr 14, 2008)

Hey Sar, good advice!


----------



## The Procrastinator (Apr 14, 2008)

History is really the study of everything, or it should be. I see history as the flesh and bones of a character. If you describe a person you won't be describing those inner parts but you should be aware of them, because they will inform all the movements that character is capable of. I'm talking about personal history here, but also the larger scope of the development of a civilisation and culture, which touches us all whether we know it or not. Everyone comes from somewhere and has been influenced by certain things - good characters will have this kind of depth, and a good backdrop needs these touches of "reality" - I think a good writer can get this across without raving on ad nauseum. It is a matter of balance, and on the whole I think it rewards subtlety - you are writing a story after all, not a history.


----------



## Toby Frost (Apr 14, 2008)

I think it depends on the skill of the writer. Many bad fantasy novels are simply the same deck of cards shuffled a bit and then badly described. In bad fantasy novel X elf-king Y uses magic sword Z to defeat... and in bad fantasy A dwarf-king B uses magic axe C to defeat... that sort of world building I don't care about, as it's usually as interesting as the Warcraft manual.

However, when done properly and with skill it can be really interesting. I'm quite happy to see a good deal of real world history creep in, even if caricatured. A well-created history that mirrors the attitudes of the characters can be extremely interesting, even if it is fairly generic (Tad Williams' stuff springs to mind). Good history used sparingly gives a book a sense of being solid and real, even if that reality contains magic and dragons.


----------



## chopper (Apr 14, 2008)

Hilarious Joke said:


> I'm thinking of starting a brand new story without any planning, just going straight in and writing. I intend to flesh out the details about the world, characters, history, culture, etc. as the story requires it, and making sure I keep track so that my story is consistent.
> 
> Anyone tried this approach? Or am I crazy?


 
yep. to both questions.

that seems to be my M.O. too, i'm afraid. as i'm writing the New Epic i get flashes of ideas and bits of history/culture/geography spring up into it. the bugbear of that is making sure its all consistent all the way through. and i'll bet even Terry Brooks had to go back & do that at some point, when his editor said "about this bit that doesn't make sense..."


----------



## Hilarious Joke (Apr 17, 2008)

Phew, for a second there I thought I was sane .

By M.O, do you mean _modus operandi_? I should use that phrase more often.

Yeah consistency is tricky. I'm writing a story with a friend (we're up to 9000 words) and we sort of had a hiatus from it and are getting back into it and its been tricky for me to make sure I'm being consistent.


----------



## ironvelvet (Apr 17, 2008)

On the rare occasions when the ideas leave my head and make a bid for freedom via a keyboard I always grind to a halt over the petty details of whichever world I'm dreaming about.
For instance- the naming of days and months. Ours have various roots, usually from Greek/Roman/Norse mythology. When the story is about a fantasy world why would the days have the same names? Why would days last 24 hours. Why would there be a moon or moons and if they exist why would they affect the tides. Why need rocks be heavy or water wet. Why do characters eat and sleep? And what words do they use to curse and why?
Naturally I grind to a halt once this destructive pattern sets in, so too much attention given to context can definitely be death to creativity.

However the posts that have smugly referenced character development as their preferred fictional driving force are winding me up. 
Dis-ingenuous naivety _is_ annoying
_Why_ are the characters developing? Because *stuff* - political, economic, social 'events'- are happening. QED

Also I don't know why Terry Brooks is being name-checked so much. Tolkein lifted alot of his context from old and middle english sagas and even the great original Terry Pratchett references eastern religious creation myths - Hindu I think. 

Ultimately to be gripped by a story the reader has to be given enough history/context to be able to identify with the characters and their travails. Writers can't afford to be too original or they'd never sell.


----------



## Quokka (Apr 17, 2008)

brian said:


> Something I need as well isn't simply the history behind character motivations, as much as an actual world history that explains why so-and-so events are actually occuring.
> 
> and rarely does any history have a single immediate cause. Which is the precise conundrum for an author plotting a proper history - to what degree do you reveal the overall picture?


 
How many historically important or famous people acted without knowing the full story? I think sometimes not knowing all the reasons at the time helps to create a feeling of urgency for the reader, encourages them to empathise with the characters and it can lead to nice moments of revelation later if things become clear later down the track. Of course there's always a certain amount of things that anyone who lives in a place would be expected to know and that's sometimes hard to reveal to the reader in ways that are original and consitent with the story.

Personally I'm a bit over world building at the moment but so much of it is decided by the individual story and done well it's great. I love the feeling of depth that books like the Malazan series, Dune etc have but it's all to easy to go overboard and have the reader get lost in dozens (or hundreds) of side characters and events happening miles away from the protagonist/s, again it's a book by book thing. Robin Hobb's Six Dutchies and Live Ship Trader series kept a fairly tight focus on the characters actions and yet imo you're still left with a good impression of the world as a whole.

It's such a balancing act but personally I'm finding at the moment that I'd rather read about a character's personal experiences then the events that shape countries and worlds. 

One thing I think is really important whether you're writing an epic or a one man show is consistency, I love books that have little comments and clues through them that tie everything together and help create the feeling that even though you're only seeing one view of it there is a very real world around them. It's the sort of thing that really stands out, and can add a lot of enjoyment to, going back to reread a story. So even if the world building is research that doesn't always get into the book verbatim it can still add a lot to a story.


----------



## Hilarious Joke (Apr 17, 2008)

Yeah I agree with you Quokka.

Though in the story I'm writing with a friend, I just started a bit of an info dump section. This is because so much has happened already I think the reader needs some background. I'm worried though about how well this will work, but inspired by Hobbs little excerpt from the start of each of her chapters in the Assassin and Tawny Man trilogies.

And on a side note, writing without a history is a bit tricky sometimes, but writing without a map seems even harder!


----------



## JoanDrake (Jun 27, 2008)

I didn't read all 4 pages here as I don't have time so I'm very sorry if I repeat what someone else has said.

Theodore Sturgeon once said that the way to describe in a story is to see the setting the character is in very thoroughly in your mind's eye and then just go ahead with the action. That way you should naturally put in just enough of the right description when required. (Well... it worked for him, but then he was talented)

I think this might work for world building in a way. See the world very thoroughly in your mind's eye and then move your characters about in it without worrying about description as such.

Incidentally, I thought this thread was about combining history with fantasy. I just love that.


----------



## ushumgal (Jul 22, 2008)

nightwalker said:


> History is boring. Its male politics and war and fame. That doesn't interest me as reading material. Real history would be about normal people.


 
Many people share this attitude about history, and I think it's created by the way history is usually taught in schools, with a clear focus on dates and battles as the important info to know.  As others have mentioned, that can't be blamed entirely on teachers - they are, after all, usually obliged to stick to a curriculum largely created by politicians - but I've had my share of terrible history teachers.

History taught right is quite another matter - history is full of interesting people and interesting events, and it should be taught in such a way to let these personalities shine through.  Some periods in history make this easier - for example, all the classical authors allow us to come up with pretty nuanced pictures of prominent people of the era, but in my period, ancient Mesopotamia, the records tend to be much more dry and impersonal.  But read with due care, plenty can be gleaned even from that.

There's also a common refrain saying that history is all about men - this is not true.  Histories tend to be *political* histories, and since, in most cultures, women did not play nearly so prominent a role in politics as men, we naturally hear more about men's actions.  It is a product of the cultures that we study, not of the biases of the historians who write about it.  Indeed, when female rulers show up, such as Hatshepsut, Semiramis, Cleopatra and the like, historians often play is up as something novel.  

Anyway, I'm all for world building.  A well-crafted and believable world as a backdrop adds much to the richness of a story.  But it must never overpower the story itself - it should remain just that, a backdrop.  And the characters should be true to that world.  I've always been a touch annoyed when authors assume people 500 or 1000 years from now will necessarily think and act just like modern westerners.  They should consider that westerners of only 100 years ago had a vastly different civilization...so how much is it likely to change in future centuries?

I think the best example of mixing history and fiction are the novels of Patrick O'Brian - yes, they are very detailed, but they make the past seem to come alive, rather than just dumping modern people in an extinct society.


----------



## chopper (Jul 22, 2008)

Hilarious Joke said:


> And on a side note, writing without a history is a bit tricky sometimes, but writing without a map seems even harder!


 
hell, yes.

that's the first thing to happen, for me - i'm lost without the map....


----------



## Rosemary (Jul 22, 2008)

I have usually enjoyed most Historical Fantasy books.  Favourite authors would have to be *Edward Rutherfurd *and *Ken Follett.

*These stories do not use too much history but mainly to set the storyline.  

One thing I *don't like* is getting an historical fact wrong.


----------



## Lioness (Jul 23, 2008)

I also love historical fiction. Edward Rutherfurd is excellent imo, and I also enjoy mediaeval fantasy/fiction.

Fantasy story wise. I like the worlds to have some history, it adds depth to the story and makes it seem more realistic.


----------

