Firearms in Fantasy: Is there a stigma to that?

[MikeAnderson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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-]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

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]

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]

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]

"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.