# Importing 21st century sensibilities into a medieval society



## DeathtoTrite (Nov 25, 2015)

So, just a question about something that has always bothered me-- how do people feel about author's making their medieval societies remarkably tolerant and wise? I feel like this overlaps a lot with having Mary Sue races, which of course is part of the problem. 

And of course, not every fantasy society has to be homophobic and paranoid of foreigners, but good grief, reading about how the society is totally accepting, takes care of the homeless and orphans, etc. etc. just gets jarring, especially when systems are ripe for abuse but everyone in power is an altruist. I also feel like some of this comes from authors being overly zealous with the inclusion of minorities of all kinds. 

In the case of Mary Sue progressive societies, of course the big bad empire next door trying to invade is full of racist goose-steppers. 

Maybe a part of this is my general preference for darker settings. Also, let's make sure we don't get derailed. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Ban (Nov 25, 2015)

I think it depends on the tone of the story and the world. If we are talking about a happy, upbeat story for younger audiences than i don't mind this over optimistic view on society. However, in a darker world or a very political story like my main project, it quickly becomes my main argument against the book.


----------



## Russ (Nov 25, 2015)

One of the great things about Spec fic is that you can play with ideas.

The idea that technological development goes hand in hand with moral, social or ethical development is one that can be played with.

If an author wants to explore say...what if a culture with medieval technology was really enlightened and does so in a thoughtful way I might well enjoy that.  On the other hand one can explore what if a highly technologically advanced culture was very corrupt or feudal in governance?  That could be interesting as well.

I agree with you thought about how it can be done in a cliche fashion.  That holds no interest for me.  The idea of enlightened societies facing troubles, internal and external is interesting as long as there are fresh aspects to it.

Cliched or tired writing, pops up in many ways,  not just medieval societies with modern ideas.

But if you are writing historical fiction...woe betide you if you don't invest the time to understand the period mindset.


----------



## Mythopoet (Nov 25, 2015)

It depends on if it's an actual medieval society or not. Is it historical fiction (fantasy or not) that is meant to take place in our own history? Or is it a made up world that shares its aesthetics and other details with medieval society because that's what the author chose to use? In the first case, God, please don't "modernize" it. There's nothing I hate more than picking up a book with a historical setting where I'm expecting to get a historical point of view and finding it to be tediously modern. In the second case, whatever. As long as it's clear this is your imaginary world I'll accept pretty much anything you tell me about it.


----------



## NerdyCavegirl (Nov 25, 2015)

I find that annoying in any setting because it simply isn't true. xD It's human nature to discriminate, hardwired in our brains for thousands of years. Women and men are capable of equality but were designed for different things, other races were competition for resources because they weren't one of the tribe, the sick and disabled were a burden. I'm not saying it's very nice, but a perfectly accepting society (at least of humans) would require mass brainwashing through drugs/magic/etc in an attempt to wipe out everyone's natural instincts to only protect and provide for their closest companions. I doubt even that'd work because it'd require a level of understanding of the human whole that we'll never be able to fully wrap our brains around. xD Sure modern humans might be too lazy to go out and commit genocide, but most are a lot more sexist and racist than they wish to admit. Even the most zealous social justice warriors usually discriminate against anyone who doesn't think like them.


----------



## WooHooMan (Nov 25, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> It depends on if it's an actual medieval society or not.





Russ said:


> One of the great things about Spec fic is that you can play with ideas.
> 
> The idea that technological development goes hand in hand with moral, social or ethical development is one that can be played with.



I'm completely along with this.
On Earth, the medieval period had all kind of viewpoints and behaviors that we would find objectionable.  But perhaps, the "medieval" period in the land of Agloria or Elffeyland had a different sociological trajectory.
Playing with cultural attitudes like that is just part of fantasy fiction.  In fact, for me, that's one of the main draws of the genre.


----------



## Gurkhal (Nov 25, 2015)

I think its ok if the author actually goes through with it and has thought things through as the society may not even be recognizable as medieval if the we take away many of its defining elements and gets down to get some basic understanding for how things hang together.


----------



## Gryphos (Nov 25, 2015)

I don't like writing bigotry, so I don't include it in my stories – full stop. I prefer for my conflict to come from ideological and philosophical differences, as well as simple greed. So I'll still have dickhead fat cats exploiting the working classes and tyrannical lords massacring peasants, but they won't be sexist or racist dickhead fat cats and tyrannical lords.

Because, to me at least, sexism and racism are far too cliche and boring by this point that I'm much more interested in stories that don't use bigotry as a crutch for 'grittiness' or 'realism'. Come on, guys, use your imagination! Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I hate all stories taking place in sexist societies, but I do hate it when authors include such discrimination as a reflex without actually considering the fact that they're writing fantasy and can do water the f*ck they want.


----------



## qWirtzy (Nov 25, 2015)

No one society acted in just one way all the time, either. It's arguable that people are selfish, driven by instinct to self-preservation, but one can also argue that what makes us human is our ability to think and feel beyond mere instinct. The most hard-line feudal systems had benevolent and progressive rule, even if only in one area of society or for one brief generation. You can find historical basis for progress--consider the Japanese permission for homosexuality in the pre-Meiji period. To make a believable world, why not try mixing both modern ideas and regressive ones? Not in the manifestation of Evil Backwards Country vs. Enlightened Elf-town, but by say, having your Baron have sliding scale charges for his serfs grinding grain at the community flour mill?


----------



## Ban (Nov 25, 2015)

NerdyCavegirl said:


> I find that annoying in any setting because it simply isn't true. xD It's human nature to discriminate, hardwired in our brains for thousands of years. Women and men are capable of equality but were designed for different things, other races were competition for resources because they weren't one of the tribe, the sick and disabled were a burden. I'm not saying it's very nice, but a perfectly accepting society (at least of humans) would require mass brainwashing through drugs/magic/etc in an attempt to wipe out everyone's natural instincts to only protect and provide for their closest companions. I doubt even that'd work because it'd require a level of understanding of the human whole that we'll never be able to fully wrap our brains around. xD Sure modern humans might be too lazy to go out and commit genocide, but most are a lot more sexist and racist than they wish to admit. Even the most zealous social justice warriors usually discriminate against anyone who doesn't think like them.



I assume you believe in the hobbesian nature state then, as opposed to Rousseau's view? Hobbes believed that humanity is inherently selfish and that we need a state to keep humanity nice and orderly. I believe that this way of thinking does apply in some societies but that it isn't the only possibilty. 

I believe, like Rousseau, that humanity is inherently good and empathic towards eachother, but that increased populations and the devaluation of individuals by the state combined with our tribal brains (haven't had enough time to fully adapt to modern life) has led many to become detached and selfish.

 Don't see this as offensive or anything, i just wanted to tell you and the OP that there is an alternative to Hobbesian thinking.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 25, 2015)

I think conflict in fiction is good. 

 

For me, I _do_ prefer worlds where there is some seriously major conflict going on, and someone finally steps up to say "enough is enough." Yes, I liked Margaret Atwood's messed up future in Oryx and Crake… even though (for a feminist author) it was full of misogyny, bigotry, racism, rape, 'perfect woman' who was also a child sex slave… I liked the book. I liked the story. 

I like George RR Martin's world which is pretty messed up. 

I like District 12. 

I like conflict in fiction. Rape, bigotry, child abuse… honestly, it doesn't bother me (in fiction… IN FICTION)… as long as someone is fighting against it. 

Perhaps why I wasn't super into the blue guys… Avatar. Sort of boring for me. 

I liked Elysium though… (I know, I know, don't judge… perhaps I just like Mat Damon…) because of it's post-apocalyptic terrible a-moral world…

Oddly enough, I am of the Rousseau philosophy that humans are all inherently good… but I feel like it perhaps makes for boring fiction. (can of worms…sorry..)

And I think that is where I like fantasy/sci fi over contemporary fiction. I don't really want to read about contemporary issues. I want to read about a world that is worse than our world. Terrible, really, really, bad, and I want to see someone rise above it. THis is also, perhaps why I also enjoy historical fiction. I liked "The Help" for example, specifically because it dealt with issues we don't face any more. 

"Gone with the Wind" was funny for that. It made it look like all the slaves were all friendly with the plantation owners and everyone was happy with their lot in life, and it was all this beautiful utopia… so what was the point in the war then? Just because the North didn't like the south?


----------



## Mythopoet (Nov 25, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> Because, to me at least, sexism and racism are far too cliche and boring by this point



But greed is not cliche? lol that's kind of a weird point of view. 

I'm not saying you should start writing sexism or anything, but I mean, greed is the primary reason for all the conflict in the entire world since the dawn of time. I'm just not seeing how it's _better_ than racism or sexism as a source of conflict.


----------



## Gryphos (Nov 25, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> But greed is not cliche? lol that's kind of a weird point of view.
> 
> I'm not saying you should start writing sexism or anything, but I mean, greed is the primary reason for all the conflict in the entire world since the dawn of time. I'm just not seeing how it's _better_ than racism or sexism as a source of conflict.



The way I define greed is very vague, basically any mentality that involves valuing yourself over others, wanting more than others, etc. It's an umbrella concept that can take many nuanced forms, and arguably is the source of all conflict (not to get too philosophical). Whereas racism and sexism and homophobia are more specific things that can more easily unincluded.


----------



## Mythopoet (Nov 25, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> The way I define greed is very vague, basically any mentality that involves valuing yourself over others, wanting more than others, etc. It's an umbrella concept that can take many nuanced forms, and arguably is the source of all conflict (not to get too philosophical). Whereas racism and sexism and homophobia are more specific things that can more easily unincluded.



So, by your definition, racism and sexism are just specific forms of greed.


----------



## Gryphos (Nov 25, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> So, by your definition, racism and sexism are just specific forms of greed.



*shrug* Sure, I guess. But I just prefer using other forms as my conflict points.


----------



## Ban (Nov 25, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> So, by your definition, racism and sexism are just specific forms of greed.



If you think about it all seven sins are forms of greed. SLoth is greed for laziness, Lust is greed for sex, Pride is greed for self-worth. Everything bad can in someone way be attributed to greed i think. Just something to think about


----------



## Mythopoet (Nov 25, 2015)

Banten said:


> If you think about it all seven sins are forms of greed. SLoth is greed for laziness, Lust is greed for sex, Pride is greed for self-worth. Everything bad can in someone way be attributed to greed i think. Just something to think about



Well, I think that's a little simplistic. As a Christian, I think it boils down to 3 categories: lust, greed and pride. But I can understand your point of view as well. I'm not arguing with it. I just found it a bit funny to see someone say sexism and racism were cliche, but he liked to write about greed, the most cliche of the cliche motivations. But of course, like with anything (including sexism and racism), it's really only cliche if you're simplifying it.


----------



## Ban (Nov 25, 2015)

Sure i understand that. I consider Greed and selfishness to be extremely similar. The point i wanted to make is that with Abrahamic religions all sins are about selfishness of some kind, while its virtues are about selflessness. Just something i find very interesting and kind of beautiful about these religions.

I suppose i've derailed another discussion once again. It's very difficult to stay on topic.


----------



## FifthView (Nov 25, 2015)

While I think that competition can naturally lead to bigotry, intolerance, persecution and so forth, I don't think the models need to follow the most successful real-Earth models.  By "successful" I do not mean that real-Earth models of persecution have succeeded in doing something particularly beneficial or are in any way proven and justified methods, but only that their entrenchment happened and, once entrenched, they endured. 

There is a case to be made that the ball, once it's rolling, can continue to mow down a wide swath and greatly shape the environment.  Having shaped the environment so greatly, little may exist to obstruct its continual motion, at least for long periods.  Another analogy:  the formation of a planet that clears a path around a star.  If nothing from the outside comes to upset the balance in the system, then the system itself will have to decay/evolve before the planet's dominance of that orbital path ceases.

But this doesn't mean that the particular ball–say, persecution of homosexuals–is inevitable for every society of intelligent beings at a certain stage of development.

I also tend to think harsher environments and limited resources will exacerbate the negative side effects of competition.  I'm certainly no expert in the field, but I wonder if "21st century sensibilities" might have more to do with the way technological development has artificially created Realms of Plenty–than to some vaguely established abstract called "social progress."  A progress _toward_ plenty, perhaps.


----------



## Russ (Nov 25, 2015)

FifthView said:


> I also tend to think harsher environments and limited resources will exacerbate the negative side effects of competition.  I'm certainly no expert in the field, but I wonder if "21st century sensibilities" might have more to do with the way technological development has artificially created Realms of Plenty—than to some vaguely established abstract called "social progress."  A progress _toward_ plenty, perhaps.



What an excellent post with some great thought provoking material.

But let me suggest I think the reverse may be the case.  I believe that for social animals the harsher the environment the more the value of co-operative behaviours and the less tolerance for group in fighting.  I would suggest that the negative side effects of competition come along when there is a surplus that allows people to make war without risk of group extinction.  For instance the climate of the arctic is very harsh indeed and the Inuit had very little inter or intra group conflict.

Lots of room for creative thought in that field.


----------



## Mythopoet (Nov 25, 2015)

Banten said:


> I suppose i've derailed another discussion once again. It's very difficult to stay on topic.



Actually, I would argue that this is on topic and that focusing on battling specific "isms" (the symptoms, if you will) is a very modern approach, as opposed to striving to maintain virtue and shun vice (the disease) in general, which is an approach found all throughout human civilization.


----------



## NerdyCavegirl (Nov 25, 2015)

Banten said:


> I assume you believe in the hobbesian nature state then, as opposed to Rousseau's view? Hobbes believed that humanity is inherently selfish and that we need a state to keep humanity nice and orderly. I believe that this way of thinking does apply in some societies but that it isn't the only possibilty.
> 
> I believe, like Rousseau, that humanity is inherently good and empathic towards eachother, but that increased populations and the devaluation of individuals by the state combined with our tribal brains (haven't had enough time to fully adapt to modern life) has led many to become detached and selfish.
> 
> Don't see this as offensive or anything, i just wanted to tell you and the OP that there is an alternative to Hobbesian thinking.



Closer to you. Natural humans should only live in tight-knit groups of social groups of less than 100 people per 100 sq miles, thus our brains lack the capacity to truly care about many more than that.


----------



## Ban (Nov 25, 2015)

NerdyCavegirl said:


> Closer to you. Natural humans should only live in tight-knit groups of social groups of less than 100 people per 100 sq miles, thus our brains lack the capacity to truly care about many more than that.



Ah so you agree. That actually kind of surprises me  . But, yes you are right in my opinion. Our tribal mindsets can't comprehend a society as big as ours. It is impossible for us to visualize 7 billion people and also consider each and every one of them (minus the really rotten apples) to be complete humans, with emotions and desires.


----------



## Ban (Nov 25, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> Actually, I would argue that this is on topic and that focusing on battling specific "isms" (the symptoms, if you will) is a very modern approach, as opposed to striving to maintain virtue and shun vice (the disease) in general, which is an approach found all throughout human civilization.



I hadn't thought of it like that yet, good point. This makes me think, though. Wouldn't it be interesting to create a society of people who believe that our sins are actually virtues? That, like the LaVeyan church of Satan (they don't actually believe in Satan) they believe that individuality and creativity are the result of pride and greed and such. That these therefore have merit.

I wouldn't agree with them but maybe it's a cool idea for someone reading this.


----------



## Mythopoet (Nov 25, 2015)

Banten said:


> I hadn't thought of it like that yet, good point. This makes me think, though. Wouldn't it be interesting to create a society of people who believe that our sins are actually virtues? That, like the LaVeyan church of Satan (they don't actually believe in Satan) they believe that individuality and creativity are the result of pride and greed and such. That these therefore have merit.
> 
> I wouldn't agree with them but maybe it's a cool idea for someone reading this.



Honestly, I think we're already there, certainly in America. We already think the greed of companies constantly seeking more profit is perfectly normal and good. We also think lust is natural and should be indulged in all its forms. Pride is responsible for our war-like culture and obsession with guns, which is only now becoming controversial. The problem is that no one is willing to admit that all their comfortable habits are really vices. We prefer to point fingers at "isms" instead.


----------



## Ban (Nov 25, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> Honestly, I think we're already there, certainly in America. We already think the greed of companies constantly seeking more profit is perfectly normal and good. We also think lust is natural and should be indulged in all its forms. Pride is responsible for our war-like culture and obsession with guns, which is only now becoming controversial. The problem is that no one is willing to admit that all their comfortable habits are really vices. We prefer to point fingers at "isms" instead.



That is all true in reality. But many people, especially americans you guys are extremely religious compared to here, still uphold the mask of virtuousness. (Don't worry, despite how anti-america the previous sentence looks i won't turn this political.) Most people still believe that they are living virtuously and i think people have always upheld this "mask" in supposedly "civilized" society. What i am thinking about is a society where people don't care about this superficiality and fully embrace these vices. A society in which people don't even see our sins as sins and appreciate the value of them. Which exist i think, but they are normally overshadowed by the aweful that selfishness causes.


----------



## Mythopoet (Nov 25, 2015)

Banten said:


> That is all true in reality. But many people, especially americans you guys are extremely religious compared to here, still uphold the mask of virtuousness. (Don't worry, despite how anti-america the previous sentence looks i won't turn this political.) Most people still believe that they are living virtuously and i think people have always upheld this "mask" in supposedly "civilized" society. What i am thinking about is a society where people don't care about this superficiality and fully embrace these vices. A society in which people don't even see our sins as sins and appreciate the value of them. Which exist i think, but they are normally overshadowed by the aweful that selfishness causes.



Actually, I think that is basically what Gene Wolfe was trying to portray in his Book of the New Sun series, which is a far future setting.


----------



## Ban (Nov 25, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> Actually, I think that is basically what Gene Wolfe was trying to portray in his Book of the New Sun series, which is a far future setting.



From what i read on wikipedia, that seems like a very interesting book. I've never heard of a book about a journeyman torturer.


----------



## FifthView (Nov 25, 2015)

Russ said:


> What an excellent post with some great thought provoking material.
> 
> But let me suggest I think the reverse may be the case.  I believe that for social animals the harsher the environment the more the value of co-operative behaviours and the less tolerance for group in fighting.  I would suggest that the negative side effects of competition come along when there is a surplus that allows people to make war without risk of group extinction.  For instance the climate of the arctic is very harsh indeed and the Inuit had very little inter or intra group conflict.
> 
> Lots of room for creative thought in that field.



That's an interesting consideration, and I don't have a certain answer.

I suspect that, with a small enough community and sufficiently harsh conditions, competition becomes counter-productive.  If my gain is your loss but your loss will lead to my loss, I'd be better off not competing with you.  But if competition as such doesn't exist, then obviously the "negative side effects" of it would not exist; so...is that really sufficient for correlating those negative side effects with abundance? 

I would guess that such a community would have "less tolerance for group in fighting" as you suggest, but this intolerance would mean that any behaviors threatening that cohesion would be considered dangerous and would be punished in some way.  Bigotry, group persecution, and so forth might not happen in such a small community, yet individuals could still be persecuted or at least punished if anything they did appeared to threaten that cohesion.


----------



## NerdyCavegirl (Nov 25, 2015)

FifthView said:


> That's an interesting consideration, and I don't have a certain answer.
> 
> I suspect that, with a small enough community and sufficiently harsh conditions, competition becomes counter-productive.  If my gain is your loss but your loss will lead to my loss, I'd be better off not competing with you.  But if competition as such doesn't exist, then obviously the "negative side effects" of it would not exist; so...is that really sufficient for correlating those negative side effects with abundance?
> 
> I would guess that such a community would have "less tolerance for group in fighting" as you suggest, but this intolerance would mean that any behaviors threatening that cohesion would be considered dangerous and would be punished in some way.  Bigotry, group persecution, and so forth might not happen in such a small community, yet individuals could still be persecuted or at least punished if anything they did appeared to threaten that cohesion.



That and there would still always be fighting with other tribes, as they'd be seen as taking food from the mouths of your family. Thus the problems in modern society, millions of tribes being squished together and expected to behave. xD


----------



## WooHooMan (Nov 25, 2015)

Banten said:


> I suppose i've derailed another discussion once again. It's very difficult to stay on topic.



After page two, every thread goes in a different and crazy direction.  That's just how this forum operates.


----------



## Ban (Nov 26, 2015)

It at least makes you gain some unexpected knowledge every time you read a thread.


----------



## ThinkerX (Nov 26, 2015)

> That and there would still always be fighting with other tribes, as they'd be seen as taking food from the mouths of your family. Thus the problems in modern society, millions of tribes being squished together and expected to behave. xD



Ok...does the term 'Daybreak' mean anything to you?


----------



## Russ (Nov 27, 2015)

NerdyCavegirl said:


> That and there would still always be fighting with other tribes, as they'd be seen as taking food from the mouths of your family. Thus the problems in modern society, millions of tribes being squished together and expected to behave. xD



But in many places...this simply did not happen.  

The idea that man is "meant" to live in small groups is just not rational.

If you look at any objective measure of quality of life, you can see that all of our specie's great achievements have been done after we have reached a large critical mass of people and resources.  Lifespan, quality of life, literacy, elimination of disease etc have all been achieved by large numbers of people who can devote and utilize massive amounts of resources.

Lionizing former behaviours in primitive settings is simply a rational error.  Even Dawkins freely admits that man should not live according to simple evolutionary premises because they are amoral and unethical.

No rational modern person would want to structure a society based on real evolutionary tenants.


----------



## DMThaane (Nov 27, 2015)

Russ said:


> But in many places...this simply did not happen.
> 
> The idea that man is "meant" to live in small groups is just not rational.
> 
> If you look at any objective measure of quality of life, you can see that all of our specie's great achievements have been done after we have reached a large critical mass of people and resources.  Lifespan, quality of life, literacy, elimination of disease etc have all been achieved by large numbers of people who can devote and utilize massive amounts of resources.



There's actually a study out there ('Nonlinear scaling of space use in human hunter–gatherers' for anyone interested) that showed a few interesting things, primarily that as human populations increase the amount of space needed to sustain each individual gets smaller and that hunter-gatherer populations tended to be as dense as their food source allowed. Clearly, there's a trend towards density and the capacity for cooperation among larger human groups. This is born out by an examination of history. Rome was as big as Roman infrastructure allowed and it was really no more violent or dysfunctional than Iberian or Gallic tribal communities.  

Dunbar's number is a fascinating idea but it's clearly not a hard limit on human social cooperation or coordination.



> No rational modern person would want to structure a society based on real evolutionary tenants.



Indeed, evolution gave as parasitic wasps that brainwash cockroaches to act as living vessels for their young. Hardly a good role model for moral behaviour or societal structure.


----------



## Seraphim (Nov 27, 2015)

Tangent: It has been grazed before, but the idea of Good vs. Evil is actually new in terms of humanity's existence. When deciding the religious ideology of a culture, it is important to remember their are other perspectives. Order vs. Chaos was one of the most common forms of religious conflict that was present even in Judaism in the ancient Israelite culture before Good vs. Evil. It wasn't until Zoroastrianism did the two sides shift to Good and Evil.


----------



## arboriad (Nov 29, 2015)

These are all rely great points. I think that if you can show how attitudes stem from a cultural and religious/social place, as opposed to plucked out of thin air, then it is more believable.  I always have a hard time with any tale in which the protagonist is excessively open minded or enlightened, and there is absolutely no basis in his experience or education to warrant it.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Nov 29, 2015)

Before going over other replies... I would say it depends on the story. In general I loathe the attempt to bring 21st century think into anything that could be counted as historical fiction, even a fantasy historical fiction. I like gritty, dark, real worlds. Real is ugly. Utopia is just a facade. 

But a society that is sexually fluid, with no concern nor stigma attached to any behavior, could still just as easily slaughter and enslave anyone of a different color, or who thinks differently, or even dares step outside their caste.  Now, those sort of societies in a fantasy setting are good writing fodder.


----------



## skip.knox (Nov 30, 2015)

I haven't really read many stories with a pseudo-medieval setting in which everyone is tolerant and accepting. I've read plenty in which the social structure seems naive to me, but most books have hated assassins or feared wizards or whatever. The OP is complaining about something I have not much encountered.

That said, neither have I read many fantasies that portray the Middle Ages accurately. I don't really care. If I want that, I can read any number of historical novels that do a fine job with the era. Fantasy aims at a different sort of target. Complaining about a lack of historical accuracy in fantasy is, to me, rather like complaining about lack of character development in a Hollywood action movie.


----------



## ascanius (Dec 1, 2015)

I think this is something that happens more or less frequently than one would think, thing is a lot of times the author gets away with it for various reasons.  I think the absolute worst offenders are those books where these sensibilities emerge much later in the story.  Thankfully I have only encountered this once, in the third book of a series, it was an " omg  you have to be kidding " moment.  I still cannot figure out why the author cose to go that route.


----------



## Miskatonic (Dec 1, 2015)

skip.knox said:


> I haven't really read many stories with a pseudo-medieval setting in which everyone is tolerant and accepting. I've read plenty in which the social structure seems naive to me, but most books have hated assassins or feared wizards or whatever. The OP is complaining about something I have not much encountered.
> 
> That said, neither have I read many fantasies that portray the Middle Ages accurately. I don't really care. If I want that, I can read any number of historical novels that do a fine job with the era. Fantasy aims at a different sort of target. Complaining about a lack of historical accuracy in fantasy is, to me, rather like complaining about lack of character development in a Hollywood action movie.



I'm using the medieval feudal system for the main human kingdoms in my story. 

I don't plan on spending a lot of time going into every little detail but given there are political conflicts going on I need to at least deal with some aspects of government, economics, etc.


----------

