# Firearms in Fantasy: Is there a stigma to that?



## MikeAnderson (Jul 16, 2020)

So, I've recovered most of my American Civil War fantasy novel, _Golden Viper. _Lost much of it when my laptop went down, but thanks to that there cloud (and finding that thumbnail drive with most of my notes.) I've managed to cobble it back together over the last few weeks. Showed a few friends i know that run a comic book store in my town a few chapters, asked them for feedback. General consensus...

*Man, this is killer, but, are you SURE you want to use guns in a fantasy world? A lot of fantasy fans might be turned off by it.*

Well, I explained, besides the the fact this novel is set in post Civil War era, and somebody running around using nothing but a flaming sword in 1872 New Mexico would be odd, I told them I wanted to add a different wrinkle. Besides, this isn't a new concept; there have been handfuls of stories set in fantasy worlds where primary weapons were guns.

But I do notice some fantasy fans react oddly when you decide a protagonist needs a weapon that requires ammo to function. Is it because the sword and shield have become so prominent in the genre, anything else doesn't feel right? Plus, guns aren't as popular in culture as they used to be; I do notice when  the younger guys read it, they didn't like the ballistic weapons aspect.

What are your thoughts? Is it off putting to fantasy fans for these objects to be implemented in magic realms? Is it because of today's culture, or people are too accostomed to certain tropes in the genre.

Your thoughts, por favor.


----------



## Foxbat (Jul 16, 2020)

As far as I’m concerned there are only two important things in any work of fiction (fantasy or otherwise): a good idea that is then shaped into a good story. Everything else is just about putting flesh on that idea. The argument about needing ammunition is just stupid. Does a bow work without arrows?

You might have to work harder to get folk to accept your fantasy with firearms but I think if you are happy and inspired by what you’re doing, you should have faith in your own idea and fly with it.


----------



## Margaret Note Spelling (Jul 16, 2020)

Brandon Sanderson's _Alloy of Law_ made use of guns plus magic. I can't think of any others--maybe _Ashtown Burials_? I don't personally have a problem with it, except insofar as it just changes the tone of the story. It does become a different sort of tale when you take the next step towards weapons of mass destruction after bows and arrows. Mechanized & manmade, vs. more organic & with minimal human artifice. There _will_ be a difference in how the characters look at their world. You could even take the question a step further--what's the problem with computers in a fantasy story? Nothing--except that it then starts leaning more towards cyberpunk in genre. Go too far in _any_ direction and you trip over a different genre. Or you end up straddle the line between both. (Which can be awesome if done right.)

For me, I've been planning to gradually implement the use of guns into my own fantasy world, as part of a larger transition towards more industrialized technology. It's all part of the arc. In the middle of a war, I figure that ought to make for some fun problems and strategic re-thinks for every character, and everyone's going to have to adapt. I like that sort of genre-collision in a story.

And yet there isn't a lot of magic in my world, so there's nothing actually standing in the way of it, which is another thing you have to consider. Writers of fantasy frequently use magic to _replace_ technology. So with a magical way of creating ice, who would invent the refrigerators? You've lost the incentive. Necessity is the mother of invention and you've just orphaned it before it was born. But that's the best thing: with a fantasy world, you can explore different ways that technology _might_ develop if you give them different necessities than ours. Pocket watches and crossbows. Mortar cannons and woodstoves. The possibilities are endless.

Guns might give non-magical people a fighting chance against those _with_ magical power. Or the guns themselves might be built to be enhanced by magical power in some way unique to your world. It could work. I think whether people accept it or not will depend mainly on how you handle it.


----------



## sule (Jul 16, 2020)

I think the answer to your question "Is there a stigma against guns in fantasy?" is "Yes, among certain fans," but I think that applies to every genre in some way. My personal feeling is that getting trapped in the "Well, it has 'this' so it's not fantasy" as a reader can cut you out of so many great books that you might have otherwise loved. As a reader, I want to pick up books that tell a good story, and I'm doing myself a disservice if I prematurely curate the ones I'm willing to read just because they don't fit my idea of fantasy.

Also, I think what you're describing has come to be known as "flintlock fantasy" and there's actually a decent number of those. Naomi Novik's *Temeraire* series is a fantasy set in the Napoleonic Era (although I don't remember if there's any magic) and Brian McClellan's entire oeuvre is "flintlock" fantasy. Also, Phillip Pullman's *His Dark Materials* springs to mind as a fantasy that has guns.


----------



## DLCroix (Jul 16, 2020)

In fact there is even an old discussion in which some think that sci-fi is a subgenre of fantasy while the most radical sci-fi fans claim that this is a apart genre, as well as there be many criticism when someone from Mainstream writes sci-fi and they consider him more of an intruder instead of be glad by it.
But, going back to your question, there is an dividing line that no one can cross.
In fact I will go further on your idea. Imagine how a character could be seen using lightsabers or blasters or piloting an X-wing in a world where at the same time there are fairies and dragons or magicians and elves. Or vice versa.

That imaginary line has been put there by the fandom.
In a hypothetical convention, fantasy fans would stop by the stand where you are signing your book and would say you, "Man, what is this?" Those at least would go through your booth. Because you would only get a smile from sci-fi fans.
I personally don't see anything wrong with you imagining a knight riding with a rifle on his back. I have no problem imagining Aragorn thoughtfully examining a Colt pistol you wish to sell him. I think nothing else would just ask you if you have more bullets. Well, I drew comics, maybe that's why I have always defended the idea that, "if you can imagine it, you can also draw it".
Or, well, you can write it.

There is a wonderful world out there. We all really have that power of imagination. In fact, when we were children we had no limits. We were not concerned with the rules. What we cared about was enjoying that world of fantasy. IMO, writing should be more or less the same. What if it looks strange? Never mind. What if it is very crazy or not is writed according to the canons? Never mind. When I read a story, I care more about whether it is consistent with its internal structure, with the rules the author created for that particular world. Above all, that the story has a consistent plot. If in that story things happen. If it have emotion. Because always, regardless of whether it is a sword or a blaster that a character uses,  are more important the reasons behind the decision that pushes that character to deliver the fatal blow or pull the trigger. What that character risk with every choice.
That is my modest opinion. But if you are convinced with the results of your story (even if you're the only one, mind this), my advice is you go ahead and persevere. Now, well, if you intend to put that on the market, that's another matter. Flour from another sack. But, personally, I think that when you put the word _end _in a story, especially when it comes to novels, you are not really thinking about publishing, but in the next story.


----------



## -K2- (Jul 16, 2020)

Just my personal opinion...

But, magic in a fantasy set story puts me off. Science no matter how primitive, weapons no matter which end of the spectrum AND their creative use, and most of all knowledge of and creative use of real world survival skills--be it any wild environment to even the densest city on the planet--is what I would rather see every time.

In fact, I honed my creative thinking as I learned to read playing a fantasy based online RPG. Where most people wanted to use magical abilities to whatever degree, I went out of my way to have my characters, the race, and classes I develop shun them. It was so much rewarding to investigate and apply real world solutions to other-world problems. In the end, most folks were very kind in their praise, but most of all, learned things they could actually use not only in play, but in their real lives from my play.

Magic--for me--makes it too easy. I get it, that's what a lot of folks wish for themselves (ability wise), but will never get. I'd rather find ways to accomplish the same things in ways that really work.

So, if firearms fit in your world, have at them.

K2


----------



## DLCroix (Jul 16, 2020)

I remember an episode of Galactica in the 80's. During a combat the ships of a human pilot and a cylon fall in an old town in the West. The Cylon becomes a kind of Johnny Ringo, obviously using his laser gun. The episode I think is called _Red Eye_. There is also the case of _Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter_. I don't want to refer to their quality, but to the fact that they are examples (one is sci-fi; the other, fantasy-terror) that it is possible to cross thematic differences. And we must not forget Steampunk's stories, where a more fantastic approach like yours would not look so strange. Wild Wild West spanking an orc, for example.
This makes me think of Artemis Fowl. In fact, that barrier between two different worlds is a constant. Then, bringing her closer to your idea, just hand weapons to the fairies and you would see that the idea is no longer so extravagant. It would have limitations, yes, regarding the reading public. Because such an argument would no longer be MG but directly upper YA. And even that would have to be revised.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jul 16, 2020)

MikeAnderson said:


> What are your thoughts? Is it off putting to fantasy fans for these objects to be implemented in magic realms? Is it because of today's culture, or people are too accostomed to certain tropes in the genre.



Do a search for "Flintlock Fantasy" and you'll find some  very successful series, from Naomi Novik's _Temeraire _to Brian McClellan's _Powder Mage_.


----------



## nixie (Jul 16, 2020)

I read  most sub genres of fantasy ( did I actually mention my pet peeve  )
Gunpowder, pistols even nuclear bombs don't in anyway deter me from reading a good book.


----------



## Toby Frost (Jul 16, 2020)

I suspect there used to be more of an anti-firearms prejudice, when fantasy was more dominated by imitating Tolkien and was almost entirely mock-medieval. But that has changed: there's a broad time period between high Victorian steampunk and the Medieval period when guns were used in differing ways, and those have been "fantasy-ised" by various writers. And then there's Urban Fantasy and the various Warhammer fantasy stories, which have always included gunpowder.

To be honest, you might lose a few readers, but not that many, these days. In the same way that a lot of fantasy is no longer set in a magical version of Europe, a lot of it is also set outside the pre-gunpowder time.



MikeAnderson said:


> But I do notice some fantasy fans react oddly when you decide a protagonist needs a weapon that requires ammo to function. Is it because the sword and shield have become so prominent in the genre, anything else doesn't feel right?



I think that gunpowder and firearms have a sort of levelling effect on fantasy. Somehow it's easier to believe that a dragon can shrug off sword wounds and arrows than a couple of musket balls in the chest. That's unrealistic, but the idea of killing a very powerful enemy in one hit feels un-heroic (at least in stereotypical Dungeons and Dragons terms), rather than battering down his hit points in a protracted battle. That said, killing an enemy with one strike has been a staple of samurai stories, it appears: the swords in the Kurosawa films are much the equivalent of the guns in the westerns that copied them.

Personally, I've used gunpowder in two (self-published) novels and have written a series where the technology level is around 1600 (unpublished by anyone) so I very much hope that it's still considered acceptable!


----------



## .matthew. (Jul 16, 2020)

There's a lot of guns in fantasy already so I certainly don't see any problem with it.

With yours being set civil war era it's likely on the edge of what people have already mentioned in flintlock fantasy (quite a popular sub-genre). I'm currently reading Django Wexler's flintlock series and it's good so far. Huge fan of Temeraire and Powder Mage was excellent too.

It is a genre into itself though, much like urban fantasy is - which usually uses guns as well, but counters them with shields. To a certain extent, this is what marks the difference to me in terms of the magic systems. Flintlock to me is where mages affect the plot with non-combat or restricted use magic - in other words, magic can't be in direct competition with the guns. That said, it really depends how you've written it to work 

There are also books like Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell that is most definitely fantasy but slides it smoothly into the Napoleonic Wars. 

In short, you might put some readers off, but my guess is that using the Civil War as a backdrop will attract the fans you're looking for anyway (people who like muskets and cannons and stuff).


----------



## Overread (Jul 16, 2020)

If your setting is the Civil War period it would be more abnormal for there not to be guns. 

Sure there are some who only like swords and sorcery type fantasy stories. There are also those who dislike high magic settings and those who dislike low magic settings. Part of filtering feedback is learning to draw the line between a particular readers desires/likes/personal taste and between objective facts/elements regarding the book. A dislike of guns is not objective but personal.

The only time you might follow such advice is if you were trying to produce for a very specific market; then you'd want to match your creation to that markets' desires. Accepting that many times those markets can change and evolve. Go back a few years for films and "oh no one wants comic book films" was the mantra. Today you'd be mad to suggest that.


----------



## Astro Pen (Jul 16, 2020)

Maybe there is a vertical division age wise. "Young adult" reader expectations with all the protective luggage that implies vs  full adult readers.  
My first suggestion is to run it by a broader age range of potential readers  before making a policy decision.


----------



## Ori Vandewalle (Jul 16, 2020)

sule said:


> Also, I think what you're describing has come to be known as "flintlock fantasy" and there's actually a decent number of those. Naomi Novik's *Temeraire* series is a fantasy set in the Napoleonic Era (although I don't remember if there's any magic) and Brian McClellan's entire oeuvre is "flintlock" fantasy. Also, Phillip Pullman's *His Dark Materials* springs to mind as a fantasy that has guns.





Brian G Turner said:


> Do a search for "Flintlock Fantasy" and you'll find some  very successful series, from Naomi Novik's _Temeraire _to Brian McClellan's _Powder Mage_.



Flintlock fantasy. Cool. I was working on a fantasy story last year set in a Renaissance-type setting with cannons and guns and was wondering if there was anything broadly similar out there to compare to. Good to know there's a name for it.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jul 16, 2020)

I haven't read Temeraire, but I have enjoyed Brian McClellan's work:





__





						Review: Promise of Blood by Brian McClellan
					

Most fantasy is set in some form of pseudo-mediaeval pre-industrial agrarian utopia. So the idea of a book that is openly "flintlock fantasy", full of muskets, political revolution, and guillotines, in a society that includes a workers union, was very intriguing.    The story seems simple...




					www.sffchronicles.com


----------



## tonymuhs (Jul 16, 2020)

MikeAnderson said:


> So, I've recovered most of my American Civil War fantasy novel, _Golden Viper. _Lost much of it when my laptop went down, but thanks to that there cloud (and finding that thumbnail drive with most of my notes.) I've managed to cobble it back together over the last few weeks. Showed a few friends i know that run a comic book store in my town a few chapters, asked them for feedback. General consensus...
> 
> *Man, this is killer, but, are you SURE you want to use guns in a fantasy world? A lot of fantasy fans might be turned off by it.*
> 
> ...



To hell with the haters Mike! Btw, Civil War fantasy sounds supa cool.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 16, 2020)

Hand held guns go back further than lots of people seem to realize. (They just weren't very reliable.)  And of course cannons were a feature of medieval warfare for centuries.

The idea that the existence of magic would put a stop to technological development (considering how much technology goes into making a sword, it's likely that swords wouldn't have been developed either if this was true) is based on the idea that in a fantasy world magic would be easy, performed at small cost, reliable, and commonplace.  Obviously, there are a great many fantasy worlds where these things_ aren'_t true, whatever period they are modeled on.

If you had to trudge halfway across your world to find a magician capable of providing you with refrigeration and he demanded your first born child in return, one would feel rather motivated to invent the refrigerator instead, would one not? Or find other ways to keep your food fresh.

The charm of a world where swords are the most sophisticated weaponry (as I discovered when I wrote *Goblin Moon*) is that providing a hero with a sword and the skill to use it well makes him a lot more invincible than a hero with an 18th century-type pistol (which at best is able to get off two shots) is that no one ever has to reload a sword and unless it absolutely shatters a sword is good all day.  A broadsword my grow dull, but it still makes a dandy club. )  As a result, the guy who is armed with a pistol has to be a lot more resourceful than the man with a sword.  For readers who want more-or-less non-stop violent action, the sword is obviously more appealing.  It's also a lot easier on the writer when it comes to getting the hero out of an armed conflict alive.  Though one can get tired of choreographing sword fights and battles, and a writer might enjoy the challenge of a creating a more resourceful hero.

It is obviously a matter of personal taste, for the reader and the writer, what makes a better story—if indeed it depends on weaponry at all—but people do have an inborn desire to try to justify what they _like_ by making it sound more logical or otherwise superior to what other people enjoy instead.  But why they should be defensive about something like that is beyond me.  We like what we like, and although it is possible to broaden our tastes by trying different things, or to change over time, some things just appeal on such a deep and personal level, logic really has nothing to do with it.

Fortunately, we have moved on beyond the point where all fantasy had to be quasi-medieval in order to succeed.  There is room in the field for all kinds of stories and all kinds of settings, and fortunately we are seeing a fair amount of variety these days.


----------



## Guttersnipe (Jul 17, 2020)

I'm not exactly a fantasy-literature connoisseur, so I'm not sure about people's reactions to the concept, but I find it refreshing; wands and medieval weapons are too overdone.


----------



## hitmouse (Jul 17, 2020)

Dark Tower
Chronicles of Amber
Artemis Fowl
Discworld
Viriconium
Hengis Hapthorn
Gormenghast

all have guns without too much angst. Might be out of place in a Hobbit pastiche, even if golf is allowed.


----------



## JimC (Jul 18, 2020)

"Plus, guns aren't as popular in culture as they used to be"

Please expound on that.  They seem to me to be becoming more popular.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Jul 18, 2020)

I say, publish and be damned while you rake in the filthy cash.


----------



## -K2- (Jul 18, 2020)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> I say, publish and be damned while you rake in the filthy cash.



Dirty money is always the best 

K2


----------



## .matthew. (Jul 18, 2020)

-K2- said:


> Dirty money is always the best
> 
> K2



That's why I roll around in mine


----------



## MikeAnderson (Jul 22, 2020)

JimC said:


> "Plus, guns aren't as popular in culture as they used to be"
> 
> Please expound on that.  They seem to me to be becoming more popular.


It's more of a social-political thing, which I'm careful about discussing on this site, but more and more people seem to not like firearms, period. In the U.S., there's been more calls to restrict or ban weapons, and even media that promotes gun violence.


----------



## MikeAnderson (Jul 22, 2020)

That's why I love this site; the input I've received is great. Appreciate it, folks.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 23, 2020)

Let us please stick with firearms as they have been used in fantasy or science fiction or this thread might not last long.

All the the arguments that I have ever seen against guns—or any technology more advanced than swords—in fantasy have been on the grounds that once magic is developed beyond the most primitive level in a fantasy world  then all technological development would come to a shuddering halt.  But that is absurd.  For if it were so, then in most fantasy worlds that we have been reading about all these years there would be no swords, no wind mills or water wheels, etc. etc. etc.   Magic users would do it all.  A look at the most popular fantasy novels of the last seventy years or so shows a very different picture than that.

And that is not how the real world works, either. One method of doing something does not immediately squeeze out all others.  Did people stop using swords the moment more-or-less accurate fire arms were invented. No they did not.  Did cars immediately eliminate horses.  No.  Once we had airplanes did everyone take to the air and leave cars behind.  No again.

And besides, this "magic would put an end to technological development" is a tired old argument from the days before steampunk came on the scene, or at least before steampunk was so popular.  As we have seen, there is steampunk of a science-fictional bent, and there is steampunk with a fantasy bent where magic and machinery go together in a way that many readers find utterly satisfying. And now there is black powder fantasy, gaslight fantasy, and so forth.  (And lets not forget futuristic science fantasy that was written as far back as the early twentieth century.)  Some readers want to stay forever with the old quasi-medieval type of fantasy (which wasn't so very accurately medieval anyway) and then there are those who want to see fantasy that harks back to the old historical adventure classics, set in various periods, that they read growing up.  Some of us would like to read fantasy in a variety of settings. Why should we not?  Why need we limit ourselves? I happen to like black powder fantasy not because I am fond of guns (I'm not) but because there is a particular long period that appeals to me for other reasons that serves as an appropriate  inspiration for blackpowder fantasy.  It's not about the gadgets.  It's about the kind of stories that a certain historical set-up lends itself to. 

Depending on whether a writer is trying to appeal to the widest possible readership, or is happy to write what pleases them personally and will be happy to find a niche audience that is just waiting for something like what they want to write, there is room for everyone these days.  That's the good news.  We will always find plenty of people willing to say that their favorite form of fantasy is the purest, the most superior form, but we need not listen to them.  We can choose to read and write what we want.


----------



## JimC (Jul 23, 2020)

My own preference is for fantasy in more modern settings (not all involve guns).
Heinlein's 'Our Fair City' and 'Glory Road'
Boucher's 'The Compleat Werewolf'
Blish's 'There Shall Be No Darkness'
Williamson's 'Darker Than You Think'

And though a bit further back in time, but still involving guns - any of Lindskold's Prudence Bledsoe stories.  Prudence is a bit of a gunwoman, though she certainly has no need to be.  I'm a fan


----------



## Abernovo (Jul 23, 2020)

Two works I've not seen mentioned so far are Jonah Hex (graphic novel and film), and Wynonna Earp (graphic novels and cult TV show, growing in popularity).

They're not prose novel form, but the way they resonate with people shows there's a demand. Just look at _Buffy_ to see another example. Fantasy is not, and never has been, restricted to sword and sorcery. There is Urban Fantasy (and Rural Fantasy), Paranormal Romance, and a raft of others. Of course there will be some who won't  read it, but there will be plenty of people who will give it a chance.


----------



## Pyan (Jul 23, 2020)

Jim Butcher's Dresden Files series mixes magic with guns - there's at least one scene where an entity is defending against being magically attacked, and instead is terminally surprised by a .45 bullet...


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Jul 23, 2020)

Firearms in Fantasy.

Surely the there is endless potential for there use while still remaining true to the genre.

Merely as a potion delivery system for instance. Not every gun needs to be directly lethal. 

How better to throw a charge of holy water infused Lavender seeds that turn the Goblins into nervous wrecks or whatever.


----------



## Overread (Jul 23, 2020)

One thought on the whole "magic stops technological development" is scale of magical ability within the population. If everyone can cast powerful spells at a whim then I would expect technology to slow and stifle with significant gaps.
However if magic is very draining on the person and/ or limited to only a small portion of the population, then  technoligy should not be stifled unless those with power are working against it (a bit like DEATH breaking the first harvester in Soul Music, even though he knows it is a futile act)


----------



## MikeAnderson (Jul 28, 2020)

Overread said:


> One thought on the whole "magic stops technological development" is scale of magical ability within the population. If everyone can cast powerful spells at a whim then I would expect technology to slow and stifle with significant gaps.
> However if magic is very draining on the person and/ or limited to only a small portion of the population, then  technoligy should not be stifled unless those with power are working against it (a bit like DEATH breaking the first harvester in Soul Music, even though he knows it is a futile act)


In this world, magic and industrial age tech work with each other; it just takes special components and modifications to make it work. A regular Colt Single Action Army made of steel couldn't handle arcane flow, but one cast from specific metals could. And in this alternate realm, magic use can and does cause long term health problems. The main character explains to his assistant that using magic is like burning coal in a steam engine; overuse or too much pressure and heat output damages the equipment. Same with magic; you'll see casters in this realm with all sorts of nasty ailments; tumors, premature aging, failing organs and prosthetic limb.  Magic use comes with a heavy price tag.

Oh, and I decided this will be a hard adult novel. The Y.A. book isn't my style, and with a lot of concepts based off the real era (racism, colonial expansion, warfare going industrial), this will be a pretty gritty novel.


----------



## Laura R Hepworth (Jul 28, 2020)

I so go for it. Yes, some people might have issues with it, but, given the time period, their arguments would be rather flawed. A lot of fantasy is set in medieval or Renaissance era inspired worlds where the use of a gun would just be out of place, but in later eras it's perfectly fine. Anyone who says that guns can in no way be used in a fantasy book clearly hasn't read an urban fantasy. Besides, there is a sub-genre call science fantasy and it sounds like this would fit right just fine. Your world, your rules.


----------



## DLCroix (Jul 29, 2020)

Hi! Absolutely agree. And I think two things are the main ones that lead you to make that decision, at least based on the saga I'm writing.

*1. You write the story you want to read.*
The one you have visualized all these years while walking down the street and you have felt it as real and detailed as a movie. Well your brain, your personal blender where all the things you see or read are mixed, is not thinking about gender classifications or thematic censorship. It gives you a product according to your own personality, and even though you could manipulate that visualization already turned into a novel (with your mind set to a Ya, for example), it is not always possible, or you realize that it will lose its power or original purity, and something in your head will not stop ringing like a bell telling you that you are corrupting something that was unique and valuable. Or that you are selling you to the market.
Exactly the same thing happens with music.

Also, unconsciously everything you can write has a framework of possibilities previously determined by what Harold Bloom calls "Anatomy of Influence". There are writers that you like more than others; then it is inevitable that some of that will be reflected in your stories. And, BTW, when it comes to studying a subject, the Civil War, for example, one also searches for books even by authors that one does not know. Or you see series like "The Blue & The Gray", "North & South" and, of course, "God & Generals".

There are also gender issues. Eroticism, for example. On the one hand, in sci-fi novels it has a rather naive treatment while Fantasy far surpasses it. Still, self-imposing a PG puts automatic restrictions on you.
Although it is obvious that at the time of the Secession men were much more courteous and delicate and people in general more naive. Ex: Picnic civilians trying to get a good panoramic view at the actions in the Battle of Bull Run and when it all goes to hell they running away like rabbits.

*2. The conceptual and ideological framework of a story defines its target audience.*
As you say, developing all those concepts (racism, colonial expansion, warfare going industrial) a Ya reader will surely understand them, but most likely, they will get bored. In the same way, a magic flint weapon will interest the Ya only as long as they see it firing.
Instead, an adult will most likely want to know how that weapon works, and he will even be disappointed if he does not see any explanation, even minimal.

In fact only a few details are needed.

He does not need to know that the Argall spark arrester (it just occurred to me, you can use it if you wish) that makes the weapon work comes from a mineral that is only found in an African mine, but that had to go into jungles to obtain it , fight with wild beasts and cannibal tribes and also nobody knew where that mine was, so they first had to find a priest of the order of, etc, because he was the only one who knew where the damned mine was, etc, etc. No. All you have to do is tell what mineral the mysterious and magical Argall spark is made of.
Suspension of disbelief doesn't take much theory to rule out the Deux ex Machina. The reader will see that there is a certain material, metal or alloy that he did not know and will accept that it has some importance in history. And then, based on that, he will continue to accept and consider as logical all the subsequent conflicts that may arise derived from the importance of these materials. What do I know, these can be:
» Contraband of Argall.
» Kidnapping of mystic alchemist engineers who are experts in arcane flow.
» The desertion or murder of an important scientist or mystic.
» Derailment of a federal train carrying valuable pipes and condensers whose unique utility in the world was that they could resist the dangerous instability derived from the industrial process to manufacture certain ammunition.
» The unexpected flight of slaves who were to be assigned to these dangerous industrial tasks. As you say, if the "magic use can and does cause long term health problems", this also produces a conflict of a moral nature. So perhaps it is necessary to resort to people who have no chance to question anything or claim their rights, forced to work on something that they will lead to death or sure deformation. In other words, cheap labor.

Also, going back to those concepts (racism, colonial expansion, warfare going industrial), contrary to young readers, an adult will always read willingly a reasonable development of all that. He wants to know what the narrator of your story thinks about the various issues behind a certain conflict. And history will seem weak or insufficient if he doesn't see it.


----------

