Callen Clarke
Member
Ah. Thanks for the info. I couldn't track down the actual definition. I think it's a great coinage. Subtle. I didn't get it right off.
History and Fantasy
- Thread starter sknox
- Start date
Ah. Thanks for the info. I couldn't track down the actual definition. I think it's a great coinage. Subtle. I didn't get it right off.
Callen Clarke
Member
Since we're talking about the nature and character of Fantasy as a genre...
Is anyone familiar with James Burke and his series 'Connections'? (1980) This has really influenced my thinking about Fantasy and SF. Burke says Modern Civilization is characterized primarily by the Rate of Change (ROC) caused by technological innovation. He says human society has experienced an increasing ROC since the invention of Agriculture: slow at first, and then faster and faster.
It seems to me that SF is the literature of Technology, and above all, of the ROC. That, to me is what defines SF. How does technology and science alter people's lives?
Fantasy, then, is the opposite of that. The thing about almost all Fantasy I have come across is that it posits a technologically static world, harkening back to a time when tradition and religion (or magic) dominated people's thinking. It's a respite against the relentless ROC that we deal with today, the ever increasing rate of change we see and feel all around us. I think that's the 'fantasy' part of Fantasy that we most connect to. This might explain why so many Fantasy authors and readers draw on Medieval and Dark Age Europe for their inspiration. As members of Western Civilization, that is the source of our traditions and folklore.
So if this is the case, there are a lot of stories that, though they have gadgets and technology, in many ways are more properly defined as Fantasy (in these terms) than SF.
It's also curious, if we follow this line of thought, that Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings might be said to have a strong SF element to it, since it deals with the passing away of the magical world, and the 'coming of Men', and materialism, etc. We see, through the course of the book, how peoples and kingdoms and a whole way of life ceases to be viable because of change, and we sense that, henceforth Middle Earth will go the way of the 'Real World.' Materialistic and Rational, rather than Magical and Spiritual and Intuitive.
Is anyone familiar with James Burke and his series 'Connections'? (1980) This has really influenced my thinking about Fantasy and SF. Burke says Modern Civilization is characterized primarily by the Rate of Change (ROC) caused by technological innovation. He says human society has experienced an increasing ROC since the invention of Agriculture: slow at first, and then faster and faster.
It seems to me that SF is the literature of Technology, and above all, of the ROC. That, to me is what defines SF. How does technology and science alter people's lives?
Fantasy, then, is the opposite of that. The thing about almost all Fantasy I have come across is that it posits a technologically static world, harkening back to a time when tradition and religion (or magic) dominated people's thinking. It's a respite against the relentless ROC that we deal with today, the ever increasing rate of change we see and feel all around us. I think that's the 'fantasy' part of Fantasy that we most connect to. This might explain why so many Fantasy authors and readers draw on Medieval and Dark Age Europe for their inspiration. As members of Western Civilization, that is the source of our traditions and folklore.
So if this is the case, there are a lot of stories that, though they have gadgets and technology, in many ways are more properly defined as Fantasy (in these terms) than SF.
It's also curious, if we follow this line of thought, that Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings might be said to have a strong SF element to it, since it deals with the passing away of the magical world, and the 'coming of Men', and materialism, etc. We see, through the course of the book, how peoples and kingdoms and a whole way of life ceases to be viable because of change, and we sense that, henceforth Middle Earth will go the way of the 'Real World.' Materialistic and Rational, rather than Magical and Spiritual and Intuitive.
Alexander Lesnoy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2013
- Messages
- 72
Wow. My fantasy world is not like that. Quite the opposite. For me, its impossible to write about a static world, because it goes completely against human nature. There's beauty in change. The world will never again be like it is now.
It can be very tricky to draw on another culture for one's own story. Sense of honor, sense of humor, small gestures -- a thousand things separate one tribe from another, just ask any software developer who does internationalization.
But fill your story too much with 17thc Bolivian (or whatever) humor and jargon and references, and you risk losing most of your readers. Perhaps what we are wanting is fantasy that is exotic and original more than wanting it specifically to be not-medieval. And, of course, we all want it well written. Then again, Sturgeon's Law applies, right? So I don't fuss too much if seventy percent of fantasy is, well, you know.
For my own stories, there was never any question. This is my area of knowledge. And besides, it's classic SF development: change one thing, and see what happens. In the case of Altearth, it's a pretty big change, but it's been huge fun for me to work through the consequences and then to write stories within that new context. I like to think this is a somewhat original (not entirely, I know) approach, despite having both feet firmly planted in the Middle Ages. That said, I do carry the history right up to present day. The first story I published was actually set in the 1950s, Earth date. And I've been wondering lately what an Altearth space program would look like.
But fill your story too much with 17thc Bolivian (or whatever) humor and jargon and references, and you risk losing most of your readers. Perhaps what we are wanting is fantasy that is exotic and original more than wanting it specifically to be not-medieval. And, of course, we all want it well written. Then again, Sturgeon's Law applies, right? So I don't fuss too much if seventy percent of fantasy is, well, you know.
For my own stories, there was never any question. This is my area of knowledge. And besides, it's classic SF development: change one thing, and see what happens. In the case of Altearth, it's a pretty big change, but it's been huge fun for me to work through the consequences and then to write stories within that new context. I like to think this is a somewhat original (not entirely, I know) approach, despite having both feet firmly planted in the Middle Ages. That said, I do carry the history right up to present day. The first story I published was actually set in the 1950s, Earth date. And I've been wondering lately what an Altearth space program would look like.
I've posted a second essay for fantasy writers on my Altearth blog. In the interest of non-spam, I'll be switching to posting an update here only a few times a year, mainly to inform newcomers. For those who care to follow along at home, the publishing schedule is a new essay once every two weeks.
The second essay is "How Old Was Old" and concerns medieval lifespan and perceptions of old age.
The second essay is "How Old Was Old" and concerns medieval lifespan and perceptions of old age.
One criticism I'd level at that is the sources you use to justify your argument.
You quote the Old Testament, which is notoriously unreliable when it comes to numbers - there is a lot of apologetic literature suggesting scribal errors when it comes to a lot of numbers in the OT.
Additionally, you then refer to the ages of people in the Roman upper class - but the contention has always been that the easier living rich, not subjected to the same daily rigours of strife as the poor, necessarily live longer. It would be like quoting the ages of lords in the Victorian age as a reference to longevity for working down the mines.
Which comes to the meat of it: lifespan was very much dependent on social class, and requires due consideration.
While you can, of course, have old poor working class people, they will be necessarily less common than among the richer classes IMO. After all, when harvests repeatedly fail, the rich will continue to eat but the majority of the population will face the very real threat of starvation.
Just because you posted the article link, so I figured it was a discussion point.
You quote the Old Testament, which is notoriously unreliable when it comes to numbers - there is a lot of apologetic literature suggesting scribal errors when it comes to a lot of numbers in the OT.
Additionally, you then refer to the ages of people in the Roman upper class - but the contention has always been that the easier living rich, not subjected to the same daily rigours of strife as the poor, necessarily live longer. It would be like quoting the ages of lords in the Victorian age as a reference to longevity for working down the mines.
Which comes to the meat of it: lifespan was very much dependent on social class, and requires due consideration.
While you can, of course, have old poor working class people, they will be necessarily less common than among the richer classes IMO. After all, when harvests repeatedly fail, the rich will continue to eat but the majority of the population will face the very real threat of starvation.
Just because you posted the article link, so I figured it was a discussion point.
While I agree that lifespan to a large extent depended on social class (as it invariably still does) I think the point sknox is making is that even the lowliest serfs/peasants didn't consider someone of, say, 45, as old. (Well, not a man anyway -- I'm willing to bet that women over 40 were looked at in a different way then as now.) A man might die at the age of 45 through accident or ill-health or warfare, but his neighbours wouldn't think that he'd lived to a ripe old age.
The Judge has it right, and brings up a worthwhile point about gender differences in perception of age that is relevant along the whole span of a life. Women were considered adult at an earlier age than men. Women were considered ... not exactly old, but beyond the age of interest, at a younger age than men. Even at that, though, widows could and did marry younger men, even into old age. Golddiggers existed in both genders.
Anyway, to return to the point, I did not go into detailed demographic evidence, but it's there for anyone interested. We can't get at age of death for the common folk until we get to parish registers, which is roughly 15th century and later. But from as early as we can document, we can find elderly farmers.
The relationship between longevity and wealth would seem to make sense, but only superficially. The evidence tells a more complicated tale. For example, death by accident spikes in the teen years--drowning for girls, farm accidents for boys. These wouldn't apply to the noble or to the merchant, but they had their own risks (e.g., hunting or war). Noble women died in childbirth at much the same rates as did commoners, because the medical treatment was essentially the same. By the time we have records deep enough to make sound statistical statements, we're beyond the Middle Ages and other factors enter into play.
I can't remember the historian, but the comment applies in all sorts of areas. In the Middle Ages, wealth did not buy safety so much as it bought comfort. Somewhat related: what set the nobility apart from commoners was not so much wealth as privilege. But that's going to be another essay, down the road.
And thanks for the commentary, to one and all!
Anyway, to return to the point, I did not go into detailed demographic evidence, but it's there for anyone interested. We can't get at age of death for the common folk until we get to parish registers, which is roughly 15th century and later. But from as early as we can document, we can find elderly farmers.
The relationship between longevity and wealth would seem to make sense, but only superficially. The evidence tells a more complicated tale. For example, death by accident spikes in the teen years--drowning for girls, farm accidents for boys. These wouldn't apply to the noble or to the merchant, but they had their own risks (e.g., hunting or war). Noble women died in childbirth at much the same rates as did commoners, because the medical treatment was essentially the same. By the time we have records deep enough to make sound statistical statements, we're beyond the Middle Ages and other factors enter into play.
I can't remember the historian, but the comment applies in all sorts of areas. In the Middle Ages, wealth did not buy safety so much as it bought comfort. Somewhat related: what set the nobility apart from commoners was not so much wealth as privilege. But that's going to be another essay, down the road.
And thanks for the commentary, to one and all!
Sure, absolutely, if we're talking specific numbers. But that passage is a general one. If 40 (to pick a number) was "old" then for a writer to say the age of man is threescore and ten would be an absurdity. It would be like someone today saying everyone knows people live to about two hundred. It's not about a specific figure, I quoted it because it's an early piece of literary evidence, like defining senectitude as starting at sixty.
Make sense?
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,072
On a broader point, anyone using history to inform their writing has a vast store of useful material from which to draw. It's particularly useful for people wanting to get away from the bog-standard SFF trappings: by-the-numbers Space Opera and Epic Fantasy in particular. I think a slightly historical influence can help make the unfamiliar easier to understand: the trappings of an old empire help make the nature of an imaginary one easier to "get". Just don't make them absurdly similar.
Of course, you often can't literally replicate actual historical stuff, otherwise your pseudo-medieval characters would all be filthy, bigoted zealots spouting barely-comprehensible language. Knowing where to draw the line is difficult, and some things will jar with some people more than others.
One surprising problem is there are points where real life is just too strange. If you tried to write, say, the lives of Joan of Arc or Orde Wingate as fiction, it would just look crazy. In overview, the twentieth century reads like a gaudy, tasteless science fiction - like bad SF, in fact.
Of course, you often can't literally replicate actual historical stuff, otherwise your pseudo-medieval characters would all be filthy, bigoted zealots spouting barely-comprehensible language. Knowing where to draw the line is difficult, and some things will jar with some people more than others.
One surprising problem is there are points where real life is just too strange. If you tried to write, say, the lives of Joan of Arc or Orde Wingate as fiction, it would just look crazy. In overview, the twentieth century reads like a gaudy, tasteless science fiction - like bad SF, in fact.
Good points, Toby.
I see quite a bit of talk about realism in fantasy writing. Conversations go back and forth. I prefer a different word: verisimilitude. Similarity to truth. Plus, it's just fun to say.
I don't aim for realism or try to be realistic. Reality is messy, as Toby points out, and is mostly boring, as many others have noted. But reality can provide inspiration for great literature, so long as one aims not for realism but for verisimilitude. (harder to type than to say!)
I see quite a bit of talk about realism in fantasy writing. Conversations go back and forth. I prefer a different word: verisimilitude. Similarity to truth. Plus, it's just fun to say.
I don't aim for realism or try to be realistic. Reality is messy, as Toby points out, and is mostly boring, as many others have noted. But reality can provide inspiration for great literature, so long as one aims not for realism but for verisimilitude. (harder to type than to say!)
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
History for Fantasy Writers | Writing Resources | 37 | |
|
Veteran Readers: From SF and Fantasy to History and Biography | Book Discussion | 18 | |
|
Fantasy quest, split history, kids in tow | Book Search | 2 | |
| R | Creating fantasy worlds using actual history. | Writing Discussion | 12 | |
|
Too Much History, Not Enough Fantasy? | Book Discussion | 15 |
Similar threads
-
-
Veteran Readers: From SF and Fantasy to History and Biography
- Started by Extollager
- Replies: 18
-
-
-