To be (the royal we) or...you get the point.

[Nobby]

OK, I just would like to ask why so much fantasy fiction seems to be based on Kings and Queens, (or moreso unknowing foundling princes and princesses)

I enjoy fantasy but why is there regularly such a genealogical tilt to it? Or (and even worse, in my view) the grasping middle class desperation to claim royalty for itself. (IE horrible court advisers)

Is it because writers (more probably publishers) think that people want to be elevated to these levels?

Or is it that people just don't appreciate the "salt of the Earth"...

I think my point is that any society is unbalanced when it elevates one section to Godhood, or is this just me


Help and talk me down!

 

[Feo Takahari]

I think it goes with having your protagonists be stronger and faster and better than everyone else--you need some narrative excuse for this, and "royal blood" is as good an explanation as any. Kings are more likely to be viewed negatively in fantasy stories that also have more flawed and frail protagonists.

(Alternatively: because Aragorn.)

 

[Filk]

The positions of royalty also offer easy dynamics. A lot happens in a royal court; it is hard to make one want to read about a farmer, because a farmer's menial tasks are boring (I love getting my hands in the dirt, but as writing goes it is boring). Which isn't to say that you can't find something interesting or dynamic that happens to a peasant, villain, or farmer, but a king or queen face more interesting problems on a daily basis than mending a bucket or blight on their crops. Power struggles and court intrigue make for good stories.

Perhaps writing from the perspective of a lower-class citizen is more of a challenge. How does one who is poor acquire the means to go on a grand adventure? What makes this peasant special?

I am straining my poor brain for an example of a fantasy story totally separate from any royalty and can't seem to think of anything. There's got to be something out there, though.

 

[Nobby]

I know what you are saying, and I especially enjoyed Feo's comment (just because! Pffff! )but really, just for me, royal intrigue in recent fantasy is a touch too much soap opera...

Do you think that an ironic story that sidesteps magic swords and kicks prophecies in the nuts would be unwelcome?

 

[Jamber]

Do you think that an ironic story that sidesteps magic swords and kicks prophecies in the nuts would be unwelcome?

A lot of the Discworld novels could be described that way. I think there's a big audience for genre satire.
One of the oldest short stories I ever read (and it still works) is Israel Zangwill's The Queen's Triplets -- a funny take on quest-based fairy tales as well as regal inheritance.
cheers
Jennie

 

[TheokinsJ]

Kings and Queens will always be in fantasy, and people have always written about them. I wouldn't say that there are many books out there with a member of royalty as the main character, most aren't. Yet I think the idea with choosing to have a character of noble birth, is that it isn't something all that often done, rather than the cliché orphan-farm-boy who finds his destiny ect. Royalty also have benefits to their characterisation, and as many of the other members have said, the life of a member of royalty would be much more interesting than the life of a goat herder or a blacksmith for example, (well, depending how you write it). A Song of Ice and Fire deals with royalty very well, having conspiracies and struggles by noble families for the power of becoming king, it can be done really well and it can be really interesting to read. I'd say that it isn't overdone in books, and that I'd prefer to see a prince/princess as the main character over the cliché orphan-farm-boy any day.

 

[Nobby]

I would love to be as funny as Terry Pratchett. (My favourite line of his being about a vampire being able to rise from the dead, but not the cat...)

Oh, and don't get me started on Gaspode the wonder dog

My silly turn of phrase notwithstanding, I sort of have a feeling for darkness where...

Well, sort of -"Big Things"- happen, around 'small' people.

It ends with my main character chasing down his deemed nemesis behind and between the lines of a (admittedly cut price) LOTR (only slightly more realistic) battle.

Good grief, this sounds more kitchen sink than soap!

I doubt I'm bright enough for satire, I'm pushing it for sarcasm



Ach, this is hard to explain! There is humour involved in my tale, but it is dark humour.

 

[Feo Takahari]

If you really want to ditch the kings, there's always urban fantasy.

Actually, I just realized there's one other group of protagonists who tend not to interact with nobles: mages. Unless it's a setting where nobles ARE mages, mages tend to be completely independent of the nobility.

 

[Nobby]

@TheokinsJ
Ow, I understand what you are saying, but do you 'get' my position! I am sick of entitlement in fantasy! Why should royalty be equated with "Heroic"! Wouldn't a sheep or pig farmer have a more practical grasp on reality than somebody whose ancestors beat the crap out of the neighbouring tough arses, so they could bully said reality into their own twisted shape?

 

[Nobby]

Yep, replace Kings with corner loan sharks

You cheeky samurai fox thing

No, I don't think I made myself clear. My problem isn't so much with royalty, it's more to be with royalty being the Go-To of fantasy in and of itself...

Oh, and for some reason mages strike me as ambulance chasing gits

 

[advait98]

I think it's because royalty tends to have some sort of special powers. After reading Erec Rex, that seems to be my opinion. These days, even the poor old farm boy can wind up being the heir apparent. And they almost always have some specialness about them, which is a desirable attribute in an MC. There's always something to write about when your main characters are of noble birth, always some conflict or another. Royalty is always the highest, the pinnacle of society, and a lot of people would like writing about them.
I don't think this is something that can be expressed in words. It's a psychological thing, I guess. Or maybe it's just what most people are used to, and they wind up writing about it. Who knows?

 

[Chilari]

I actually blogged about this a few weeks ago. Can't link because I'm on my kindle, but a link to my homepage is in my Sig then you can find it on the right under recent posts or look in Archives. But basically, I reckon it's about storytelling focus and scale. Scale because what better way to convince the reader that something is important than have it affect a whole country? We understand how our governments' decisions impact on us and thus how someone else's government's decisions or intrigues impact on them. It's similar to how superheroes are always saving the whole world.

Storytelling focus is about using the fewest resources to tell the best story. Being concise is punchier. Drivel is dull. Royalty enables a tighter story because it gives focus and because people understand it and you don't need to explain it, as you would have to with a Spartan style diarchy. Whether royalty is good or bad in the story, it enables you to focus on one person, usually the king or queen but not always, instead of a whole council of democrats or oligarchs, thus keeping the story tight.

 

[Nobby]

Chilari, and advait ta for the replies, you both make good points, hell everybody has

My story, however is more of the small people caught up in the intrigues and machinations of greater powers, if you see what I mean, and damn has it been difficult for me to broad-stroke the fantasy world they live in. I have a character that I love but re-reading the first couple of chapters, I realised he was just Basil Exposition, Hehe.

Chilari, do you have spooky woo-woo powers? Your last sentence gave me shivers!

 

[Feo Takahari]

I actually blogged about this a few weeks ago. Can't link because I'm on my kindle, but a link to my homepage is in my Sig then you can find it on the right under recent posts or look in Archives. But basically, I reckon it's about storytelling focus and scale. Scale because what better way to convince the reader that something is important than have it affect a whole country? We understand how our governments' decisions impact on us and thus how someone else's government's decisions or intrigues impact on them. It's similar to how superheroes are always saving the whole world.

I'd like to comment on this, because I think it's part of a much larger issue that's affected multiple genres and media over the years. Ernest Adams said it best, describing its impact on computer games:

"Conquer the world!" "The fate of humanity is at stake!" "Save the galaxy!" scream the boxes on the shelves down at the game software store. "No!" I'm tempted to scream back. "I don't want to! The galaxy can go stuff itself!" . . .

I don't want to rule the world. I'm not terribly interested in saving the galaxy. It's too big and impersonal a task, and it's not credible that a single individual can do it anyway. Don't ask me to. I don't feel like it.

All stories require dramatic tension, and dramatic tension is created by establishing a situation that puts something, or someone, that the reader cares about at risk . . . But if you look at the great stories in literature, what's at risk is seldom something vast and incalculable like the fate of the world. Rather, it's the lives and happiness of individual people. There's more genuine tension in a novel by Charles Dickens - will David Copperfield survive the wicked machinations of Uriah Heep? - than there is in all the movies about earth-shattering asteroids ever filmed . . .

"But wait," I hear you cry in irritation. "Aren't you one of those Tolkien nuts? And isn't The Lord of the Rings about as apocalyptic as you can get?" Well, yes, I am, and yes, it is. But what sets The Lord of the Rings apart from most of its pale imitators is that it's not actually about how wonderful it is to save the world. It's about what passes away irretrievably even when you succeed. It's a book about the tragedy of saving the world, the price to be paid for doing it . . .

We don't need for games to be about adolescent armageddon. We only need for them to be about people that we care for, and in fact that allows us to make a much wider variety of games than "Save the world!" does.

 

[Nobby]

Now there is my rub.

The joy I personally find in life is small and given the scale of all things, petty. But, I'll punch your lights out in its defence

Foxy samurai thingy, I think I love you

 

[Jess A]

I love stories about royalty and court intrigue and backstabbing. It's good fun. These dynamics can be explored in middle-class groups/merchants etc as well, or peasant villages for sure. But I've always loved a good castle drama. If well-written I love those ridiculous stories about orphans who discover they are nobles - not my cup of tea to write, but I like reading about it! Not ashamed to say.

On the other hand, I love to read about the common people - in books and in real history. What was life like? How did they survive? What trials did they face and what inner strength did they find despite being poor?

My book has a mix. Some are connected to one of the major royal families. Others are foreigners or commoners. I've not focused much on the heirs to the throne, though - mostly the cousins. One of the young royal cousins is a real prat and a criminal. The other is an old rebel and still calls himself Duke in his new lands, though the King stripped him of lands/titles/claim to throne. Of course, if his followers choose to turn against him, he's just another man, an obstacle. He's not their leader because he was a Duke before; he's their leader mostly because he led them to freedom and offers protection in return for their loyalty. And looking centuries back at the first King of the Kingdom in particular, he was a commoner who rose to power through some serious bloodshed, overthrowing the current rulers to take over.

I think my point here, in my tiredness, is that many take royalty for granted. Because they're royal they're utterly special and of course they have to become King or Queen or whatever. I remember a discussion some time ago on this site on that topic. Works for kids/YA fiction I think, but older readers are more discerning with that stuff, for sure. I know I am.

My other MCs are foreign or just commoners.

I also like the dynamics between nobles/commoners - Downton Abbey for example.

EDIT:

Great article Chilari (blog)!

Also forgot to add - another thing I like is seeing a commoner struggle to learn court life, noble life etc. And vice versa. A noble thrown into a situation where he or she has to learn to survive. It's fun for character building.

 

[wordwalker]

I reckon it's about storytelling focus and scale. Scale because what better way to convince the reader that something is important than have it affect a whole country? We understand how our governments' decisions impact on us and thus how someone else's government's decisions or intrigues impact on them. It's similar to how superheroes are always saving the whole world.

Storytelling focus is about using the fewest resources to tell the best story. Being concise is punchier. Drivel is dull. Royalty enables a tighter story because it gives focus and because people understand it and you don't need to explain it, as you would have to with a Spartan style diarchy. Whether royalty is good or bad in the story, it enables you to focus on one person, usually the king or queen but not always, instead of a whole council of democrats or oligarchs, thus keeping the story tight.

Superb points.

Still, I think this kind of power is what a good writer creates with anyone's story. The MC might be cool because he's the king and has armies lining up to hit the barbarians where he says, or it might be because he's a (real) farm boy who's been joking with his brothers as he ploughs, dunked his head in a bucketful of blessedly cold water, and thought of the girl he'll see at the festival next month-- and then the barbarians ride in and threaten to level the place and what are you gonna do?

I've read plenty of stories like that, along with plenty about royalty. Scale and focus and familiarity are good, but everyone's story gives you the tools you need to create that kind of energy, and using them well is still the writer's job.

 

[Mindfire]

Honestly, I think it's because deep down, we all want to be kings. We all want power, respect, and to feel special and like our decisions matter. Fantastic royalty provides the perfect avatar. Heck, one of the reasons I write fantasy (and I'm sure this is true for others) is that it's so much fun to be the god of your own personal universe.

 

[Sean Cunningham]

I read a fantasy novel years ago (my copy is in Australia and I'm in London, so I can't check the title) that was set entirely within a rural valley. The writer made me care about the people there and built the threat credibly, so I was invested in their survival. No royalty involved.

Terry Pratchett builds the same kind of characters, threats and stakes into his witches books. The witches are concerned with the safety of the local village and its people, not the world - though the world may have a problem on their hands in trouble gets past them. He plays it as comedy, but the core concept holds up regardless.

As mentioned previously, urban fantasy is a place where you can find non-royalty. John Constantine is quite specifically a blue-collar warlock. He was even in a band once.

 

[Alexandra]

If you really want to ditch the kings, there's always urban fantasy....

Fantasy writers tend to think big, even grandiose. Kings and queens, presidents, dukes, CEOs, crime lords, gang leaders, it really makes no difference; the antagonist must be powerful otherwise his or her threat would be miniscule and insignificant. Even a beggar king wields real power therefore the protagonist must also be powerful or be able to access or develop power in order to defeat the big bad.

Royalty didn't figure in The Hobbit but Frodo and Sam could not have ruined Sauron's day without a lot of help.

Having said this my protagonist is an apprentice herbalist working in a rural community of about 4-500 people. From small stories epic tales are born.