Selective 'historical accuracy' in fantasy

[allmywires]

Inspired by Teresa's post in the Prince of Thorns thread - why does so much of fantasy rely on the same tired old argument against often legitimate criticism, ie, 'That's what life was like back then,' when emphatically it often wasn't?

We write fantasy; we can make our own rules. Obviously one cannot immediately discard social constructs and historical trends, but why do authors so often stick to the one 'tried and tested' model? What would be so wrong about a fantastical society with the morals and laws of Ancient Greece, say - while I'm sure they exist, why is it that the mediaeval fantasy tends to trump them all? Surely it's not just the Tolkien factor.

And as regards to the 'gritty realism' - I'm not saying rape and murder should never be mentioned in fantasy. It just seems that all too often the perpetrators are our protagonists, or almost certainly the males; if people want to read about realistic mediaeval society, why is it all about the lords and ladies? Peasants rising to claim their true birthright. Do people really want to read about rural mediaeval life? I am curious, and I'm not saying people who enjoy reading mediaeval, gritty dark fantasy are inherently in the wrong. I just want to know what makes it grip - Lord knows I'd like to write a book one day that had the same kind of following, but if I'm not writing 'expected' mediaeval fantasy, is there really any hope?

Not sure if this should be in GWD or not.

 

[Toby Frost]

I've no problem with selected "real world" elements, but I know that it will send some people into a righteous fury. Take for instance Scott Lynch's Lies of Locke Lamora, where it is casually mentioned that there are women gladiators (fine in Ancient Rome, certainly not in the age of chivalry) and women police (very much late 20th century). I'd be slightly wary of things that really stick out - why wear plate armour if there are reliable guns? - or if it's nothing but an obvious sop to political correctness or the equivalent. However personally, if the whole thing meshes at the end, why not?

It's also worth pointing out that some real-world details weren't how we often imagine them. Cathedrals, for instance, were quite often brightly painted, not just bare stone. So how should a writer of fantasy depict a cathedral if wanting to see accurate: how it really was, or how most people prefer to imagine that it really was?

Re the period, I think some time frames lend themselves to certain sorts of story. "Medieval" makes me think of quests, knights, heraldic monsters (dragons, gryphons etc), dynastic houses, wizards and to an extent the church. "Renaissance" brings to mind inventions, paintings, city-states and backstabbing (and the church, except worse). And so on. A medieval setting certainly allows a lot of adventure, which unlike, say, colonial settings, is pretty much guilt-free.

On the subject of grit, the fact is that people like the odd bit of squalor (especially people in comfortable first world countries, who aren't on the bread line or getting shot at, I suspect). Look at all the novels, probably largely bought by women, about serial killers torturing women. Perhaps it appeals to a masochistic streak, or makes people feel vicariously tough*. I'm not excluding myself from this, by the way. Then there's also the fact that some people see grim = real, and the grimmer, the realer. Sometimes I think that there are three ages of grimness. We grow up with bright colours and jolly heroes, then we get disappointed as teenagers and want everything to be Stalingrad without the laughs, and then we realise that life is varied, and that it's right to depict the world as pretty varied as well.

*It seems ironic that horror fiction is going through a bad patch. But in a way I prefer horror to drab miserablism.

 

[JoanDrake]

I can offer two theories, and I use them both interchangeably in regard to my own stuff only.

a. the standard theory. Fantasy doesn't let us just make up our own rules in a random fashion. Reality within fantasy has different rules than actual reality but it achieves its "willing suspension of disbelief" by being consistent, both with its own exceptions and with whatever reality it doesn't affect as well. There might be fire-breathing dragons but they reduce the pretty princess to the kind of sickening charred corpse we see in NCIS after she's been doused in gasoline rather than just sanitarily vaporise her, which requires very high temperatures.

b. The fact that many of us aren't writing fantasy as much as it's quasi-historical with magic. This reduces, or eliminates entirely, any need for all that messy and difficult research and especially the arguments it can entail. Real history is, after all, "A lie, agreed upon", and some may not . I call this the "King Arthur Syndrome". The reason so many fantasies involve King Arthur is that there are simply NO good records (or even many records of any kind) from that time. We still don't know whether he even existed, where Mt Badon was, if there even was a Mt. Badon, or Camelot, etc, etc., so basically you can say anything you want.

Mind, I'm not denigrating either justification. I liberally use whichever one suits me and any other I care to make up for my purposes. I sort of agree with you, this is fantasy, we can say what we want. My real reasons for using gratuitous sex and violence (beside liking them myself) is because it's allowed nowadays and I want to keep the reader turning the page.

Stalingrad without the laughs

LOL

 

[Anne Lyle]

We write fantasy; we can make our own rules. Obviously one cannot immediately discard social constructs and historical trends, but why do authors so often stick to the one 'tried and tested' model? What would be so wrong about a fantastical society with the morals and laws of Ancient Greece, say - while I'm sure they exist, why is it that the mediaeval fantasy tends to trump them all? Surely it's not just the Tolkien factor.

I think that a lot of fantasy isn't strictly medieval, but the absence of gunpowder (and industrial technologies) tends to result in warfare based around medieval weaponry and tactics (e.g. castles), which leads the reader to visual a medieval setting unless the writer takes pains to describe it otherwise.

For example, to me a lot of Joe Abercrombie's world feels quite 18th/19th century in its politics and social institutions, at least in the Union. Only Logen, the Dogman and crew feel truly medieval, because they lack the sophistication of the "civilised" characters.

As for why these quasi-medieval settings are so popular, it's probably inertia in the publishing industry. Editors tend pick manuscripts that are similar to other ones that have done well, for understandable business reasons. If he/she buys, say, a fantasy Ancient Greece novel and it tanks, the blame may well be placed on the setting rather than the quality of the book - and this then prejudices them against other books set in that type of culture.

 

[Nerds_feather]

All fantasy is selectively realistic. Nothing wrong with that.

The problem is when "realism" or "historical authenticity" are referred to in defense of fantasy that has been criticized for excessive violence, casual racism, sexism, homophobia or other things along those lines. It's a weak defense, precisely because of realism's or historical authenticity's selective application. And besides, realistic for what? Medieval societies weren't monolithic, either over space or across time--and appeals to historical accuracy are usually made without reference to what the inspiration within history was for the book in question.

The justifications for these things, when there are justifications for these things and they are not just the result of the author not having thought about them while writing, needs to be more precise and more interesting than just "but...but...it's historically accurate!"

And of course it's also how things are presented. Say there's a world that is severely intolerant of homosexuality. If this severe intolerance is presented to us primarily in the form of straight people enacting horrible violence upon gay people, then you not only have excessive homophobic violence, but also have a very superficial exploration of this facet of the culture. Why not try to show how those who are not strictly heterosexual struggle in this world? Hiding in marriages, sneaking around, etc. Give the victims some subjectivity--it's much, much more interesting that way.

 

[Anne Lyle]

Well said!

 

[allmywires]

Re the period, I think some time frames lend themselves to certain sorts of story. "Medieval" makes me think of quests, knights, heraldic monsters (dragons, gryphons etc), dynastic houses, wizards and to an extent the church. "Renaissance" brings to mind inventions, paintings, city-states and backstabbing (and the church, except worse). And so on. A medieval setting certainly allows a lot of adventure, which unlike, say, colonial settings, is pretty much guilt-free.

b. The fact that many of us aren't writing fantasy as much as it's quasi-historical with magic. This reduces, or eliminates entirely, any need for all that messy and difficult research and especially the arguments it can entail. Real history is, after all, "A lie, agreed upon", and some may not . I call this the "King Arthur Syndrome". The reason so many fantasies involve King Arthur is that there are simply NO good records (or even many records of any kind) from that time. We still don't know whether he even existed, where Mt Badon was, if there even was a Mt. Badon, or Camelot, etc, etc., so basically you can say anything you want.

Both very good points: that the magic/mysticism of the mediaeval period has been very much ingrained in us because stories from that time present magic and wizardy as pseudo-truthful. But what of the ancient myths? Just as fantastical, but not as popular, at least not in fantasy.

As for why these quasi-medieval settings are so popular, it's probably inertia in the publishing industry. Editors tend pick manuscripts that are similar to other ones that have done well, for understandable business reasons. If he/she buys, say, a fantasy Ancient Greece novel and it tanks, the blame may well be placed on the setting rather than the quality of the book - and this then prejudices them against other books set in that type of culture.

Sigh. I think I'm destined never to get published -- whenever I see something popular I never think 'I want to write a book like that', only 'I want to write something completely different!. I had never thought about the risks agents take on 'unproven' subject matters until I started querying. Now I know it all too well...

Why not try to show how those who are not strictly heterosexual struggle in this world? Hiding in marriages, sneaking around, etc. Give the victims some subjectivity--it's much, much more interesting that way.

A point I'm exploring in the current WIP (but I doubt any of it will really come to the fore until book 2).

 

[JoanDrake]

Both very good points: that the magic/mysticism of the mediaeval period has been very much ingrained in us because stories from that time present magic and wizardy as pseudo-truthful. But what of the ancient myths? Just as fantastical, but not as popular, at least not in fantasy.



Sigh. I think I'm destined never to get published -- whenever I see something popular I never think 'I want to write a book like that', only 'I want to write something completely different!. I had never thought about the risks agents take on 'unproven' subject matters until I started querying. Now I know it all too well...



A point I'm exploring in the current WIP (but I doubt any of it will really come to the fore until book 2).

You need to read more Harry Potter. Write a completely different version of something that's exactly the same

Frex, does any one remember a version of King Arthur that used Samurai as the Knights? I saw it on BBC years ago

 

[Brian G Turner]

The mediaeval period is wonderfully evocative, but I find it hard to think of any fantasy books that actually try to be explicitly mediaeval in terms of realism.

The novel Game of Thrones I think does try this to some degree, but it's still a fantastical world - and to myself becomes more and more fantastical as the series progresses. There's a lot that is exaggerated and extreme (anything involving Ser Gregor is a good example) but are used as devices for the story, rather than realism.

Joe Abercrombie doesn't try to be realistically mediaeval - there's a distinct lack of world-building in his early novels excepting for hat tips to historical themes (Gurkish as Turkish is blatant), and it's only in the first two standalone novels he actually seems to stop and push this aspect into his storytelling to some degree. It actually feels more renaissance when he does, and after Red Country, it appears industrialisation is about to happen over a decade or so.

Scott Lynch - well, it's plain he's using Renaissance Venice as an inspiration to start with.

In fact, the nearest I've found to mediaeval realism in fiction are just two authors:

The first is Ann Lyle, who is implicit that she is writing historical fantasy based on the Elizabethan period - and is obvious by the large number of research details that pepper her work, especially regarding early Elizabethan theatre.

The second is Douglas Hulick's "Among Thieves", which again is low fantasy and very much in period - but then again, you expect that from someone with a Masters Degree in Mediaeval History!

Everything else tends to be a "vague pick and mix of pre-industrialisation without gunpowder". In effect, touching on folk tales, but usually without much of a concern for trying to recreate any actual degree of mediaeval realism.

I say this as someone who is desperately trying to recreate a series of novels with mediaeval realism at its heart - but there is a key philosophy within it that people in the mediaeval period are no different to now. Different tools, same attitudes. I think lots of people stereotype people of the mediaeval period as dirty, drab, and stupid, but I would argue that it was anything but - people were clean, dressed colourfully, and were wonderfully inventive. And in 500 years time, people will look back at us and wonder at how primitive we were!!

Btw, people keep talking about all these rapes in gritty fantasy, but I have yet to encounter a rape scene in my reading. Accounts of it in a bloody coup in Game of Thrones, yes, but little more. I know there's something in Thomas Covenant, but that's a very old novel.

Frankly, the entire fantasy genre is about as far as you can get to realism in general. Which is a shame because there is a lot about the mediaeval period that is frankly quite wonderful.

Also, the violence isn't real and is cartoony, as we found out in the killing thread. I noticed Scott Lynch recently said one of his regrets about The Lies of Locke Lamora is that the fighting is too clinical, and not enough focused on fear during the experience - something he's learned directly as a now experience firefighter.

 

[Southern Geologist]

I hope Teresa won't mind if I repost the (excellent) post which provided the inspiration for this thread (I'm pretty sure this is the one, at least ). It seems an excellent way to carry on the discussion:

But do writers find themselves writing about these things because of the medieval (or quasi medieval) setting they have chosen, or do they choose the setting because it allows them to write about disease, starvation, violence, etc.? And if readers are so keen to read about these things, because that's how life is for the vast majority of people, why not read real-life accounts by people who have actually experienced these things? Or why not read contemporary fiction based on those accounts? There are plenty of places where such things are happening right now. Why not read about them without the fantasy trappings? Not much good as escapist entertainment? A little too close to home?

Why are most stories about rape told from the male point of view and written by male writers? The male character does it or sees it and then moves on. A female viewpoint character has to live with the trauma, the consequences. But again, perhaps not so good as escapist literature?

Why, if we want to see something new, don't we get out of the Middle Ages altogether? Staying in the same playground, even if the games are more dangerous and the players are getting more badly hurt, is not the same thing as growing up and gaining a more mature perspective on the world -- which may be long overdue. Of course there is Steampunk and Urban Fantasy, which do present some different perspectives on the human experience, but they don't feed the appetite for violence, nor support the narrow mindset that fantasy must take place in a quasi-Medieval setting.


I wonder if violence and rape are becoming as much a cliché as the battle between good and evil? After a while, taking the old stereotypes and turning them on their heads ceases to be original. One of these days, people might start referring to books that are relentlessly dark and violent as "extruded fantasy product."

None of what I am saying refers to Mark Lawrence's books, because I have not read them nor do I intend to -- the very things that some people say they like about them don't match up with what I care to read about -- but to the general trends some people have been discussing here.

Personally, I tend to think that the use of the medieval setting is a demonstration of inertia not just on the part of publishers, but on that of writers. Writers are readers, too, and many of us are bound to take a theme of Medieval Europe as the default to work within. One has to ask why the average quality writer would take a lot of time researching a different era or geographical area when her or she grew up on dragons and castles and forests and continues to read this kind of stuff? Fantasy may be escapism and thus fertile ground for fantastic leaps of the imagination, but escapism can often turn into a form of intellectual comfort food. We tend to be a particularly dedicated and passionate lot here so I would not be surprised if many of us miss for the forest for the trees when it comes to the matter of writing something comfortable vs truly expressing oneself.

I also think Teresa's question about whether some writers are using the Medieval era (or another 'dark'/violent time) because it provides an excuse to write grimdark material is a valid one. Let's face it: Sex and violence sells and if one is looking for a chance to really dig in deep into those subjects they can (theoretically) toss aside any moral qualms others may have by referring back to the time period as being 'that way'.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

One thing I always wonder is why "gritty" fantasy often leaves out the actual grit under the fingernails and the people grubbing in the dirt to survive. How many stories about medieval wars have viewpoint characters who are refugees fleeing from the war? Isn't it almost invariably about the powerful? There is violence and bloodshed, but how much do we see of long, dusty travel, with blisters and sunburn, and the children crying and hungry -- why aren't there more babies and small children who have to be toted around and cared for? Someone mentioned starvation, but how often are the main characters the ones starving? If they are starving, how long does it take for them to be inducted into a gang of thieves or assassins and the problem of actual starvation is thereby avoided? Does the story even dwell on the time before?

If the goal is a realistic depiction of the Middle Ages, why don't we see more extended scenes of childbirth? The things that go on in women's bodies tend to make men cringe, but if they're not afraid of reading about torture, why can't they face this? Is it because it's something where the male characters -- unless they are doctors, which they usually aren't -- are generally helpless to do anything? But speaking of doctors, if we want grit and realism, why not a protagonist who is a medieval surgeon following the armies and tending the wounded after each battle, and he does this throughout the book, without once using a weapon of any kind? Perhaps there are such characters, but I haven't seen them, and that's the kind of thing I would call grit and realism. Medicine and magic were pretty much mixed together at the time, so the writer could easily bring in the fantasy element. Of course this is not as much fun as writing about the characters who wield the swords during the battle, but leaving out the people who do the mopping up and the stitching back together after the battle is hardly an accurate depiction of the period.

Anne Lyle's book, on the other hand, is set in Elizabethan England, which is well into the Renaissance, and the setting is unmistakably Elizabethan. But most books about the Renaissance concentrate on court intrigue which is also pretty bloody, and it is often hard to distinguish them from the faux-Medieval setting. Yet the Renaissance was also an age of discovery, not just conquering new lands (which could be, of course, bloody as well, but at least in a new vein), but also an age of experimentation and expanding knowledge. Why aren't there stories about that? In terms of new lands, why not write about the colonists discovering a new world, about the daily hardships but also about anything fantastical they might discover. We see this in science fiction, but not in pure fantasy.

If we move beyond the Renaissance into the 17th and 18th century, there is even more discovery, experimentation, and invention. One could write an entire story in which all the action is in the way of discovering new things and coping with the consequences.

I guess my real problem with books that are full of fictional bloodshed and sexual violence is that those who read them try to justify their preference with this selective view of the medieval world. Personally, the type of book that people like doesn't bother me -- unless that's all they are reading, and they get too obsessive about it (like the teenage girls whose reading is all vampires, all of the time). Then I confess to some qualms. But why should anyone feel the need to justify their reading habits with the same old tired defense about being true to the Medieval period, adding for emphasis a few barbs for those who prefer to read about something else, if they feel entirely comfortable with what they are reading and there is no nagging sense of it being a guilty pleasure?

Why not just say, "I enjoy these books" and leave it at that, instead of the historical argument (so often presented by people who really know next to nothing about life in the Medieval or Renaissance periods, except that it was violent and cruel, and there were a lot of swords), which people can pick apart? If a person simply says it's the kind of story they enjoy, I can respect that, and it has the advantage of being the one thing that no one can refute.
.



.

 

[Southern Geologist]

One thing I always wonder is why "gritty" fantasy often leaves out the actual grit under the fingernails and the people grubbing in the dirt to survive. How many stories about medieval wars have viewpoint characters who are refugees fleeing from the war? Isn't it almost invariably about the powerful? There is violence and bloodshed, but how much do we see of long, dusty travel, with blisters and sunburn, and the children crying and hungry -- why aren't there more babies and small children who have to be toted around and cared for? Someone mentioned starvation, but how often are the main characters the ones starving? If they are starving, how long does it take for them to be inducted into a gang of thieves or assassins and the problem of actual starvation is thereby avoided? Does the story even dwell on the time before?

Wallace Stegner made a similar point about cowboy literature. Something to the effect of it always leaving out the dust and the feces, the cold, the low pay and the terrible back pain. You're completely right, of course, when people want something 'gritty' what they really want is the guts and the gore with the romantic elements intact.

EDIT: Excellent post all around, actually, and you and I, Brian are both dead on about most proponents of 'medieval realism' are not really familiar with life in that period. One doesn't have to be a scholar on the subject to write a book that nails down the realism well and doesn't just use the period as an excuse for large quantities of violence, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to contact a few of them.

 

[JoanDrake]

Teresa, I believe Umberto Eco does books sort of like what you describe and there is one that was popular by another author some years ago, about a midwife who invents a more humane forceps 400 years early and is nearly killed by the Inquisition for it.

I think the main dispute here is not between those who think medieval times should be depicted as a period of unmitigated pain without end but rather just those who do not want us to fall into the Victorian trap of thinking that the Middle Ages were actually better than modern times. As far as suffering goes the 20th century takes a backseat to nobody and the 21st isn't shaping up any better, but I would still rather be born poor now than royalty even in the Renaissance.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I think the main dispute here is not between those who think medieval times should be depicted as a period of unmitigated pain without end but rather just those who do not want us to fall into the Victorian trap of thinking that the Middle Ages were actually better than modern times.

I just wonder why people can't say they like their stories "gritty" without having to take a swipe at those who don't, as though anything that doesn't suit their taste is pablum.

As far as suffering goes the 20th century takes a backseat to nobody and the 21st isn't shaping up any better, but I would still rather be born poor now than royalty even in the Renaissance.

That would depend on where you were, wouldn't it? If you lived in some drought-stricken part of Africa, and a war on your borders or corrupt officials inside them were diverting the food and medicines that other countries were trying to get to you, it wouldn't much matter that you were living in the 21st century.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Oh, and one thing I forgot to say. I prefer books that are well-researched, but that's my personal taste. I just get annoyed when people are claiming that something is representative of a particular period when they get all their ideas about that period from reading fantasy.

"That's how it was back then" just sounds weak.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Also, I'm assuming the primary reasons for wanting to be born today would be medical-related.

Fantasy set during a plague would be serious grimdark, and tough to read, but interesting.

 

[Brian G Turner]

How many stories about medieval wars have viewpoint characters who are refugees fleeing from the war?

Indeed, far too many protagonists are either upper class or financially independent.

I just wonder why people can't say they like their stories "gritty" without having to take a swipe at those who don't

I suspect we're seeing something similar to the SF genre, of "hard SF" vs "space opera".

 

[Hex]

Guy Gavriel Kay has a POV doctor character in The Lions of Al-Rassan (medieval Spain) who follows a troop of soldiers around, though she is a woman.

I wonder if poverty and misery tend to be viewed from afar in fantasy because they are so very dark, and so completely hopeless.

In wars, someone wins (however ambiguously/ eventually). Someone intrigues their way to the throne. There is hope that it's going to happen.

People living in the sort of poverty that most of the world endured/ endures don't have a neat end to the storyline -- nor is there much hope. Unless you're writing England of Times Gone By where the sunshine falls on the many pigs eating acorns in the forest and fat peasants drink beer in their gardens. I know not all peasant life was unremittingly grim -- people still celebrated and enjoyed themselves -- but I wonder if it's a bit grim for a modern audience.

Also, it's easier to find books on kings etc.

I am struggling just now because the setting I have chosen for my new wip is so grim, and I don't like grim stories (and I suspect the sort of people who do, won't be interested in this very real grimness).

Goldhawk posted a link a few months ago about how stories are supposed to let us experience emotions etc. vicariously so we'll be happy in real life. Perhaps experiencing the emotions etc of something as ongoing as desperate poverty is too guilt-inducing?

 

[Boneman]

There's grim and there's grim. Never ceases to amaze me how the human spirit (always assuming your story is about humans) rises, even in the direst circumstances. Put children into the worst kind of poverty and grimness and at some time, they'll still play games. Even in grim, there's love between two people, and the closeness (and hope) they share.

A story I read in a biography: three Jewish men in a concentration camp (doesn't get any grimmer than that) were on a working party when the sun the came up. It was so beautiful that all three cried at its beauty, moved beyond the hopeles grim they were in for those few seconds...

 

[Hex]

You're right -- many of the concentration camp stories, appalling as the context was, are full of hope as well as terrible grimness. I love Primo Levi's books.

However, the awfulness of the concentration camps was not a normality --those within them knew that life was not actually like this. Almost everyone had had some years outside.

I's like the difference between chronic pain and acute pain -- reading about the agony of a sword wound is interesting, reading about arthritis where the pain is ongoing and awful, probably less so. Of course, I bet a sword wound isn't very interesting either.

And just because I love this, and it's relevant to the thread, if not to the specific point I was making, lemme quote Ursula LeGuin:

“The trouble is that we have a bad habit, encouraged by pendants and sophisticates, of considering happiness as something rather stupid. Only pain is intellectual, only evil interesting. This is the treason of the artist: a refusal to admit the banality of evil and the terrible boredom of pain.”