# Too Much Thinking?



## C Hollis (Nov 10, 2013)

_OMG!  You can't have him using sandpaper!  They used glasspaper in the time frame your make believe world should be emulating!
He's checking his mailbox?  What the heck?  Did you not do any research at all?  Mailboxes didn't come into existence until...
They clogged up his plumbing?  Plumbing?  Seriously, you need to look into this, because indoor plumbing wasn't widely used until...
Elves do not have pointy ears!
Crystals that are used to power a hyperdrive vehicle cannot be red.  Red crystals are only used for..._

So I take a gander at the top of the page and I read _The Art of Fantasy Storytelling_.  Yet, nestled in this wonderful community are threads about the reality of swords, archery, castles, bleeding out, etc.  Many of us seem to obsess over staying true to the reality of things in our made up worlds.

Don't take me wrong; I'm not knocking this.  I have several texts that cover various historical cultures, with many that go into great detail on their daily lives.  I've even gone so far as to have long conversations with my cousin about certain aspects of cultures he has studied and trinkets he's found on his digs.

The artist for my book covers pokes fun at me when I talk about some of the research I do for my fantasy world.  But, I have always felt there needed to be some semblance of reality embedded to pull the reader into my made up world.

But, on that same token:  This is my world.  If you don't like it, move on.

After reading (for the umpteenth time) a mega-fantasy classic, and coming across several things that many of us would cringe at because they were 19th and 20th century inventions, I have questions for the group:

Do we tend to waste too much time trying to make our fantasy worlds too real?  
Do we waste this energy in an effort to appease the uber fantasy geek?  
Maybe you don't think it's a waste.  Maybe you feel it is necessary.  Why?


----------



## Philip Overby (Nov 10, 2013)

C Hollis said:


> _OMG!  You can't have him using sandpaper!  They used glasspaper in the time frame your make believe world should be emulating!
> He's checking his mailbox?  What the heck?  Did you not do any research at all?  Mailboxes didn't come into existence until...
> They clogged up his plumbing?  Plumbing?  Seriously, you need to look into this, because indoor plumbing wasn't widely used until...
> Elves do not have pointy ears!
> Crystals that are used to power a hyperdrive vehicle cannot be red.  Red crystals are only used for..._



Yes, this looks familiar. 



> So I take a gander at the top of the page and I read _The Art of Fantasy Storytelling_.  Yet, nestled in this wonderful community are threads about the reality of swords, archery, castles, bleeding out, etc.  Many of us seem to obsess over staying true to the reality of things in our made up worlds.
> 
> Don't take me wrong; I'm not knocking this.  I have several texts that cover various historical cultures, with many that go into great detail on their daily lives.  I've even gone so far as to have long conversations with my cousin about certain aspects of cultures he has studied and trinkets he's found on his digs.
> 
> ...



This is a challenge every writer is going to come across. Even in fantasy writing, there has to be that believability factor to what is happening. If an anachronism jerks the reader out of the story, then you've lost them. However, I lean towards your perspective personally. I think people tend to think anything with swords and dragons is medieval and expect the story to "sound like fantasy." I personally prefer writing in a more modern style. I know people probably didn't say "Yeah" in medieval times, but my story is a fantasy world. So for me, I use the language and settings I want. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. Everyone can't be happy.



> After reading (for the umpteenth time) a mega-fantasy classic, and coming across several things that many of us would cringe at because they were 19th and 20th century inventions, I have questions for the group:
> 
> Do we tend to waste too much time trying to make our fantasy worlds too real?



Not sure if it's a waste of time for some people, but for me, yes it can be. I used to be a hard and heavy world-builder. Maps, histories, the whole nine yards. Nothing is wrong with doing that, but I found myself obsessing over dead languages, old empires and such that had nothing to do with my actual story. Sure, it was fun to write and added some background for myself, but most of it would never make the story.

One thing about fantasy is that it isn't hard science fiction. If you're writing hard SF, you need to know what you're talking about. That fan base can scrutinize every aspect of something and tear it apart piece by piece. A recent example of this might be the movie "Gravity" which a lot of people with knowledge of astrophysics crapped all over. Was the movie entertaining though? Yeah, a lot of people said so. 

So for me, time spent not writing my story is time wasted. I world-build as I go now and when I do make more extensive notes, I do it for about an hour and that's it. 



> Do we waste this energy in an effort to appease the uber fantasy geek?



Again this depends on what audience you're trying to reach. If you're writing something like Arthurian legend, you may want to pay attention to little details. However, if you're writing in your own world and have your own style to it, I wouldn't worry about that as much. I'm technically an uber fantasy geek, but I enjoy fiction for what it is. If it isn't something that I want it to be, then that doesn't make me hate it. I'll just think, "Maybe he or she should have done this instead." That's one thing great about reviews. Even if someone dislikes one part of a story (historical inaccuracies) they may still love the characters and plot. For me, immersion is important, but the best authors do this so well, you don't notice the plumbing, so to speak.



> Maybe you don't think it's a waste.  Maybe you feel it is necessary.  Why?



A certain amount of it is necessary, I think. However, obsessing over tiny details is something best saved for later drafts. I find that a lot of writers may spend loads of time developing a world and when they start writing their story they get this "World>Story" complex where their world is so awesome, no story is good enough or does it justice. I always think it should be the opposite myself. The story should be as awesome as you can make it and then the world-building makes things pop and glitter so people can marvel at all the intricacies along the way instead of being distracted by them or obsessing over them.

So those are my thoughts. Good discussion point!


----------



## Svrtnsse (Nov 10, 2013)

I think it's not so much about making it realistic as it is about making it believable. By this I mean that I want the world to make sense, at least from my perspective. I've spent a fair bit of time researching various aspects of reality to try and incorporate them into my world in a way that I like. 

I believe that I as a reader have a certain threshold for what I will accept when reading something. I don't have issues with dragons breathing fires or gnomes shooting frost bolts or maidens in lakes distributing swords as a means of deciding the leader of a government. These things are fine and perfectly normal.
However, if the author shows normal everyday details that I'm familiar with and gets them wrong I will raise an eyebrow. 





C Hollis said:


> Do we tend to waste too much time trying to make our fantasy worlds too real?
> Do we waste this energy in an effort to appease the uber fantasy geek?
> Maybe you don't think it's a waste.  Maybe you feel it is necessary.  Why?



1. If your goal is to write a story in the world the time it takes to make the world real is only wasted if it gets in the way of actually writing the story. 
2. No, I do it because I enjoy it.
3. I don't think it's a waste, because it's something I enjoy doing.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Nov 10, 2013)

I think some disciplines are more important than others in worldbuilding, because some rules are harder than others. Inventions are fluid--a device can be invented a thousand years later in one place than in another place. Geography is sticky--Christopher Paolini drew a lot of heat for that world map that showed a river going _through_ a mountain range, because that's just not something rivers do.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Nov 10, 2013)

My opinion is that many people indeed give _way too much_ importance to creating realistic worlds, believable stories, acceptable geography, plausible magic systems, historically accurate settings and all of that.

This quest for being realistic in Fantasy is something that I do not agree with, and I was very surprised by this type of thinking when I joined Mythic Scribes almost two years ago. I am a writer of unrealistic style Fantasy, after all... I think that the Fantasy literature these days is favoring the realistic style, and that's why many writers want to follow that path.

We can have both styles, why not?

You can find readers that seek very believable and realistic stories, while others want pure escapism and impossible worlds.

Another thing that I have noticed is that world-building is given more importance than the storytelling itself, and in my opinion, that is something that we should change.


----------



## Malik (Nov 10, 2013)

I'm cool with inventions; this is not time travel. Neither is this sci-fi. But if I'm reading fantasy and somebody does something that simply does not -- ever -- work, it's like a segfault. I _tsk tsk_ the writer. I do. I'm that guy.

- Steel is not an ore.

- You can't make a tourniquet without using a windlass. 

- If you wake up after being knocked out, you can't just go on with your day like nothing happened.

- Punching someone in the face with your bare hand is a really bad idea unless you've spent your entire life training how to do it.

- People don't immediately fall down and die with arrows sticking out of them.

- You can't gallop a horse all day. Or run all day like Conan did. Especially if you look like Conan.

I could go on. Perhaps in a future blog post, I will. But these are ridiculous errors, and they are so common that they have become tropes. So yes, to a point, I'm hardcore about realism. 

Throw in handwavium. Use pixie dust. "Turn up the Flash Gordon noises and put more science stuff around," as the man says. Make me believe it. But don't insult me by not doing your homework. 

I've said it before: writing is academic: you hypothesize, you research, you analyze, you write down what you've found. Whether it's style, grammar, or the political workings of your world, writing a fantasy story is a research project. Do your homework. If you don't, someone who does will bust your work open like a pinata and all your slacking will tumble out onto the floor, and they will lose faith in you as a storyteller. Because you are lazy.

I'm not the only reader who thinks this way.


----------



## Philip Overby (Nov 10, 2013)

One thing I often say during action movies is "Yeah right!" Like people fighting on the top of a train or someone jumping off a jet's wings. However, I understand they're action movies. If I know what kind of action movie I'm watching, I let myself just say, "OK, I'm watching an action movie. Maybe I should take off my thinking cap." I think there's room for big, dumb fantasy the same way there is for smart, intelligent fantasy. 

However, I'll agree with Malik and say if you're going to write fight scenes, perhaps understanding that no, you can't punch someone in the face and not hurt your hand is pretty important. If I know this particular world I'm reading about tends to bend the rules a bit though, I just accept it. I'm not going to toss a book aside personally unless the story doesn't engage me. Bottom line. While I may scoff and say, "What? She just punched that dude like 20 times and didn't even say "Ouch" or anything!" I'm not going to give up on a book for these kind of issues, nor will it ruin my enjoyment if I'm otherwise having a good time reading it.

So there are multiple types of readers out there. Target the ones you want and hope they come to you.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Nov 10, 2013)

When I write I want a level of believability that I'm comfortable with. If I'm writing something I want to have a reason for it happening and I want to know why something works a certain way. I'm not comfortable just saying "it's magic" or "I'm the writer, I want it to be like that because it's cool". That doesn't mean I want the real world physics/chemistry/biology explanation, but I want a reason that "makes sense" to me.


----------



## teacup (Nov 10, 2013)

By all means, let fantasy be fantasy. I prefer reasons behind everything, but having something like magic just being an unexplained force in the world is completely fine. Fantasy doesn't have to be real, but the parts which aren't fantasy should be realistic.

For example: If humans go to space and can breathe, there should be a reason within the story as to how/why they can breathe in space. Just because it's fantasy doesn't mean humans should be able to do this. That's just lazy and it doesn't make sense within our world or a fantasy world. But then, having them breathe in space as part of their magic is perfectly fine as long as it is consistent with the magic used in the story as a whole.

I back Malik completely on this, too. Have as many impossible things in your fantasy world as you like, it is fantasy, after all. Just don't have things that would be impossible in the fantasy world, too. You can't justify errors like he wrote by just saying "well it's fantasy" unless there is a fantasy reason for it. Horse galloping for days on end? No way. Horse galloping for days on end due to magic? Okay, fine.


----------



## Guy (Nov 10, 2013)

I think a little attention to realistic details helps draw the reader in and suspend disbelief, thus making the "fantasy" seem more "realistic." I have a character who is abducted by slave traders and taken to a different region. Once I decided upon the distance, I had to figure out about how long it would take them to get there and how long it would take my character, on foot, to get back home after her escape.


----------



## Penpilot (Nov 10, 2013)

I try not to over do it on the research. As said above, you don't have to be uber realistic. I think there's a confusion between realistic and grounded. If you want to get entrenched with all aspects of swords, that's fine, but is it needed for the type of story you're telling? The audience can be very forgiving if things are framed correctly. For example, I remember hearing a discussion on sword fighting in movies. When heavy swords connect, they make a ting sound and spark. Two heavy swords wouldn't ting or spark when they connect, but if you were to change the sound, to something more real, the audience, because they come to expect the unrealistic sound, reject the realistic sound as not sounding real.

Same with explosions in space. No air. No sound. But if something goes boom in Star Wars, does anyone really think twice about how that's not realistic? Also gunshots. Movie gunshot from handgun, POW. Real gunshot from handgun, firecracker-like pop. Of course this depends on type of gun. 

For me, it's not about realism. It's about being grounded in common sense. I don't care if it isn't realistic that a horse can travel a hundred miles a day for ten straight as long as all horses can consistently do that in the story. But I do care if the characters disregard using a transport spell, that is established as cheap and easy to use, and instead use horses just because. 

Also realism doesn't always make for a good story. Most fights only last a few seconds, with who ever makes the first mistake dead or down, but in stories and movies they can go on and on, moving from one end of a castle to the other. It doesn't usually make for a good climax if the hero shows up a the evil overlord's lair and ends things with one punch. The End.



C Hollis said:


> Do we tend to waste too much time trying to make our fantasy worlds too real?



Yes and No. It all dependent on what type of story you're telling and the needs of the story. There's always the danger of getting caught in the cycle of always researching and never writing. 



C Hollis said:


> Do we waste this energy in an effort to appease the uber fantasy geek?



Maybe for some, but also maybe for others, if it's their first book, it maybe they just don't know how much they should research for the type of story they're telling, so they go full bore into the rabbit hole trying to learn things so they can get them right.  But the more they learn, the more they realize they don't know. So, the research more and again realize how much they don't know... and on and on... until forever.  




C Hollis said:


> Maybe you don't think it's a waste.  Maybe you feel it is necessary.  Why?



It's hard to say if anything is a waste as long as it gets you to the point where you're ready to write and finishing your stories. But if you've spent 5 years researching and haven't written very much on the actual story itself, then maybe I'd suspect that you're overdoing it.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Nov 10, 2013)

Yesterday Svrt posted a link http://mythicscribes.com/forums/games/10343-future-games.html to a talk from a couple years ago which seems on the surface to be about the future of gaming.  The speaker is a professor from Carnegie Mellon University, and about halfway through the talk he said something that made me sit up and really pay attention.  To paraphrase, "The consumer today wants *authenticity*."  Authenticity is the word we're dancing around when we talk about accuracy and detail in our fantasy fiction - and make no mistake, we are in the entertainment business and our readers are our consumers.

Now, I'm notorious for my detail research, because we write urban fantasy and if we screw something up, it really stands out.  If I mention my MMC didn't know about BLT's during his last sojourn in the Mortal Realm, then yeah, I'm going to spend 5 minutes researching the history of the BLT to make sure it didn't exist in the 1940's.  It's about authenticity.  It's about establishing a working paradigm within your fantasy world and _sticking to it_, and not saying, "I can do whatever, because it's fantasy, right?"  That's lazy writing.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Nov 11, 2013)

Some time ago, my father was watching _The Return of the King_ when I walked into his room, curious to know what he would think about the characters and the story.

He did not catch the movie from the start (it was the final seventy minutes or so) and, even though I know that my dad is not an admirer of the Fantasy genre, I was quite surprised by what he said:

_"Look at the size of those elephants! Can you imagine how much food one of those would need in a single day? That world does not have enough plants to feed those things, this is stupid..."_

I had to admit that he was right: Not only would the MÃ»makil soon starve to death in a world like Middle-earth, but their sheer size alone makes them a biological impossibility.

They would simply collapse under their own weight like a whale in the sand, and the same goes for Godzilla and other similar creatures.

Later in the movie, my father commented:

_"Look at Frodo and Sam, in that rock, surrounded by the flowing lava... The heat alone would finish them! Come on, the volcanic gases would have killed them already... This is too unrealistic."_

Once again, he was right: In the real world, the volcanologists wear protective suits and gas masks when they face similar scenarios, because without protection they would be dead within a matter of minutes.

My dad pointed out even more unrealistic things that I cannot recall now while watching _The Return of the King_, but the point here is...

Do we stop and think such things while watching these movies, or do we simply enjoy the story and the adventures??


----------



## Malik (Nov 11, 2013)

I make it a point to overdo it on the research. I want my books to do for swords and mail what Stephen Hunter's books did for the bolt rifle.


----------



## Malik (Nov 11, 2013)

Sheilawisz said:


> Do we stop and think such things while watching these movies, or do we simply enjoy the story and the adventures??



I had my face in my hands the first fight with Aragorn and the Nazgul on Weathertop.


----------



## Philip Overby (Nov 11, 2013)

> Do we stop and think such things while watching these movies, or do we simply enjoy the story and the adventures??



I very rarely stop and think these things. I mean, I love giant monster movies. If I said "Well, this is biologically impossible" then that ceases my enjoyment. I don't care if it's biologically impossible. It looks cool. Penpilot listed a ton of things that are unrealistic in movies, but we just accept them. I'd say the margin of people that truly, truly want realistic fantasy are probably pretty small. Most fans don't want inconsistencies more than anything. Make the world you're working in make sense.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Nov 11, 2013)

In another thread, someone mentioned that they weren't able to get into a book because a character reached directly into a lava flow to get something. I think that's a point where most readers would say "this is too silly." If you think about it, it's equally silly to have the characters fighting right near the lava, but most readers probably wouldn't say "this is too silly." Lack of research is relative.

Mind you, I still say "this is silly" in the latter case. Reader reaction is relative to your readers as well.

P.S. I should note that I'm approaching this from a different direction than most people. I think of stories as thought experiments--"if there existed such a group of people, in such a world, with such a set of natural laws, what would happen?" Different authors with the same characters would give different endpoints, but that's because they believe in different "truths" about our world, which leak into how they depict similar worlds (and a well-depicted world can convince you to believe in a different truth!) If a natural law is broken, but it isn't clearly established how the depicted world is different, the experiment is compromised due to inconsistency. I realize this isn't a common way of looking at things, though.


----------



## Penpilot (Nov 11, 2013)

I just remember something I saw on Robot Chicken about expecting too much realism in ones stories, specifically Pirates of the Caribbean. I think it applies to this thread. Probably NSFW, but it gives me a smile.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HblbpLwC_XA


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Nov 11, 2013)

OMG that is SO wrong on so many levels.

Yeah, I can't stop laughing and the cat is looking at me funny.


----------



## Philip Overby (Nov 11, 2013)

Yeah, Penpilot's post sums it up. 

If some people really, really want realism, it can get pretty real. I do think there's a place for that in fantasy fiction obviously, but I just wonder why a lot of fantasy fiction doesn't deal with rampant diseases, general bad hygiene, what wearing full plate armor would do to your body, how difficult it is to actually swing a claymore, and other such things. These may feel like a buzzkill when a reader just wants to enjoy a light fantasy story. I say insert what you think makes your world shine more and stand out from the pack, but if you go too far in one direction (either too real or too fantastical), it can ruin the entertainment value of the story.


----------



## C Hollis (Nov 11, 2013)

This has been a great conversation, and I tend to agree with quite a few points here.  When it comes to my current works, I want the foundation molded from reality and the finished product accented with fantastical elements.  Which seems to be the current fantasy genre norm, ala Martin.

One comment from Philip really grabbed my attention.


> Again this depends on what audience you’re trying to reach.



This is so true.

When I go to the theater to see an action film, I expect to see hard-hitting punches to the face without even a flinch.  Watching a muscle-bound behemoth move with the alacrity of a spider monkey doesn’t phase me.  Seeing one these guys pick up an 80 pound gun and rattle off an endless stream of bullets for five minutes straight is expected.  All of that is part of the genre.

Many people hate action films for the same reasons many people love them.  I think the same holds true for, what I will call classic fantasy.

Gigantic beasts that would clear the vegetation of an entire region in an hour.  
Sword fights that go on for hours.  
Staring into the face of a volcano.  
Running a horse all day.  
Hiking to the top of a mountain without stopping for hydration.
Chocolate rivers.
Snow in the desert.
Waterfalls that flow up.
Hopping off a horse in full plate. (doing anything in full plate for that matter)

People hate the fantasy genre for those things (and others), but most classic fantasy fans don’t even think twice about them.  Some want that escapism.

However, as has been eloquently pointed out; some fantasy readers hate that type of fantasy.

George R.R. Martin writes fantasy fiction with a realistic foundation, because appealing to a much broader audience is what he has been trying to do for several decades.  And if your goal is to reach out beyond the traditional fantasy fandom, then I believe you aren’t wasting your time on research.  Your target audience requires this of you.



> Do your homework. If you don't, someone who does will bust your work open like a pinata and all your slacking will tumble out onto the floor, and they will lose faith in you as a storyteller. Because you are lazy.



There is a certain “feeling” to classic fantasy, an almost giddiness.  A fascination with the over-the-top imagery that fills your gut with butterflies.  Excitement fills your entire being when the hero, dressed in full plate, leaps from the horse and gets into a gymnastics-filled hour long battle with the evil one-eyed villain.

In classic fantasy, I don’t think it’s lazy when you forego reality.  Allow your heroine to gallop a horse all day long through lava fields with nary a hair out of place.  Your target audience will swallow this up and beg for more.

It is all about the target audience.


----------



## glutton (Nov 11, 2013)

C Hollis said:


> Hopping off a horse in full plate. (doing anything in full plate for that matter)



...you do know that people in plate armor can still be pretty agile *realistically*, right? Plate being nigh impossible to move in is a myth.



Phil the Drill said:


> how difficult it is to actually swing a claymore



I imagine it would get slightly easier if you train doing so day in and day out, no..?

This is coming close to expecting 'modern couch potato' levels of fitness for presumably athletically well-trained characters.


----------



## C Hollis (Nov 11, 2013)

> ...you do know that people in plate armor can still be pretty agile *realistically*, right? Plate being nigh impossible to move in is a myth.


My point being doing things as though they are in their birthday suit.  I was in no way insinuating "nigh impossible to move".  There is a significant impact to maneuverability when compared to other armors, which is often disregarded in fantasy writing.  I have worn full plate, and believe me, there are some things you just don't want to do with an extra 80lbs of weight.  In the time I wore it, there was little I couldn't do (I was athletic at the time, btw.), but there was much that just wasn't worth the energy required.

Oft-times in fantasy works you will see a farm boy stroll out of a livery wearing full plate and wielding a great sword (claymores averaged just over 5 pounds, but could weigh in the high teens depending on length) like he had been trained his entire life.  That is where realism takes a nosedive.  Athletic or couch potato, those things take some getting used to.


----------



## Philip Overby (Nov 11, 2013)

For me, I didn't fall in love with Martin's attention to realism, although that is one good point of his writing. It was always the characters for me. And it's almost always the same for anything I read. However, one thing I enjoy is the Warhammer aesthetic. Perhaps this ties into my interest in pro wrestling. I like over-the-top "spectacles" so to speak. Warhammer to me is a spectacle of insane fantasy action. I get that pro wrestling is a form of entertainment. I don't go "That's so fake!" Being that I had a background in it, I know that it's not fake. It hurts. You can look at my X-rays to prove that.

For me it's about memorable characters. The same way Hulk Hogan was a memorable character for me as a child, the same goes for Tyrion Lannister now. They stand out in my mind and interest me. I don't so much concern myself with if what they're doing is realistic. They evoke emotion from me as characters. So I allow myself to enjoy what I'm reading without worrying about the world so much. Sure, if Tyrion was scooping up Gregor Clegane and dumping him on his head, I may go, "Huh?" but that wouldn't change me from liking Tyrion as a character. 

One thing about Martin's realism that truly stands out is that no one is safe. Sometimes when you read novels, there is never any expectation that the hero is going to die, because hey, he's the hero. Martin totally chucks this idea out the window. That's one reason his books are so talked about is because he does what Shakespeare did: if you have to die to make the best story, you have to die. If Romeo and Juliet ended with them happily ever after, I'd dare say it wouldn't be recognized the same way as it is now. That's the kind of realism that I think attracts people to Martin. Not so much his attention to getting all the regional foods right or showing people urinating.


----------



## glutton (Nov 11, 2013)

C Hollis said:


> I was in no way insinuating "nigh impossible to move".



Well, 'doing anything in full plate' was listed with other things that are far more unbelievable...



C Hollis said:


> a farm boy stroll out of a livery wearing full plate and wielding a great sword (claymores averaged just over 5 pounds, but could weigh in the high teens depending on length) like he had been trained his entire life.



Fair enough which is why I don't tend to write farm boy heroes XD


----------



## glutton (Nov 11, 2013)

Phil the Drill said:


> Sure, if Tyrion was scooping up Gregor Clegane and dumping him on his head



Why are you looking at me... what are you looking at


----------



## Svrtnsse (Nov 11, 2013)

I guess this is good example of when what is commonly perceived as realistic doesn't actually match up with reality.

I remember hearing and reading about how heavy plate armor is and how hard it would be to move in full plate. It's not really been something I've questioned. It made sense to me. It's made of steel so it must be really heavy and clumsy.
Then on mythbusters (or something equivalent) pops up and mentions that a full set of plate armor weighs less than the kit an average marine in a modern day army drags around.
According to the wikipedia article on plate armor:


> A complete suit of plate armour made from well-tempered steel would weigh around 15-20 kg(33-44 pounds).[2] The wearer remained highly agile and could jump, run and otherwise move freely as the weight of the armor was spread evenly throughout the body.



Now, this isn't meant as a lecture on plate armor. It's meant as an example of when what's realistic and what we think is realistic don't match up.
Some people here will already know about this (Malik, glutton and probably others), while some people (me) will find it new and interesting.


----------



## Malik (Nov 11, 2013)

Svrtnsse said:


> It's meant as an example of when what's realistic and what we think is realistic don't match up.



I'm building my whole series on this.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 11, 2013)

glutton said:


> ...you do know that people in plate armor can still be pretty agile *realistically*, right? Plate being nigh impossible to move in is a myth.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Since the invention of the television remote? Very good point. In the days when 80% of everyone's day was tied up in the production of food, minus the tractors and machines, people were physically stronger.

I train at the gym for 1 hour 6 days a week (after sitting on my butt in front of a computer every day for 8 hours) and I don't consider myself anywhere near the strength level of a full time peasant, let alone a knight training every day with horses, armor, and heavy weapons! 

I took a fitness test recently and scored in the top 85% of Canadians. You might think that is a good thing, but when I look at myself, I think it rather says that we are all in very bad shape if *I* am in the top 85%!!


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 11, 2013)

Sheilawisz said:


> Some time ago, my father was watching _The Return of the King_ when I walked into his room, curious to know what he would think about the characters and the story.
> 
> He did not catch the movie from the start (it was the final seventy minutes or so) and, even though I know that my dad is not an admirer of the Fantasy genre, I was quite surprised by what he said:
> 
> ...



I'll be honest with you, last night I read in a book where a person applied a tourniquet without mentioning a windlass of any sort.

Did I notice it? Obviously. Did I stop reading the story? No. It's an interesting enough story that it still holds my interest.

I think this is not a black-or-white issue where even one error of that sort is going to catapult your reader out of the story and cause them, in turn, to catapult your book across the room. Rather, it's a matter of how good your storytelling is and how often you make such errors. One or two aren't going to be a problem, but half a dozen or a dozen probably will be.


----------



## Addison (Nov 11, 2013)

I wouldn't say we over research. If we do then we're procrastinating the story writing. Most research is mostly done to make sure we stay consistent through the story and we get facts right. If you're writing a story in medieval europe you don't want a character to mention Marie Antoinette. We research to discover and understand the fundamentals of the setting/era of the time or world we've chosen.


----------



## Malik (Nov 11, 2013)

GeekDavid said:


> it's a matter of how good your storytelling is and how often you make such errors. One or two aren't going to be a problem, but half a dozen or a dozen probably will be.



This right here.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 11, 2013)

I've always thought the details which share commonality between a fantasy world & the real world should be as accurate as possible. In my opinion, this can aid in plausibility and make the reader's suspension of disbelief easier to achieve and maintain regarding fantastical aspects of the story. Those details which are unique to fantasy I prefer to leave up to the imagination.

My approach to research is the same as my approach to character background stories. I know far more about why my characters are who they are than the reader will ever see. Although that knowledge isn't directly referred to in the prose, the feel seeps in, making the characters feel more real and well-rounded (at least I hope it does). 

That being said, I generally want a working knowledge of a topic. I may not need to be an expert (unless that particular element is crucially important to my story) but I need to know enough to sound credible. I need to make sure I don't throw readers for a loop by showcasing my ignorance on a topic. 

There are certain details I'm not too concerned with however....like travel distances, how certain animals eat, etc. I'm not likely to discuss the intricacies of travel to the point where I'm keeping track of time. It's only big events within that travel time that I'm going to show. Further, people that read fantasy are going to be more accepting of fantastical beast. After all, the dragon is a staple of the genre. There are many physical impossibilities with the classic dragon. People that don't enjoy fantasy may scoff at similar ideas but the people who will buy your story are not likely to pay that detail much mind.

The point is to get key details correct. If you're going to include them in the story, know what you're talking about. Make a conscious choice to include information or ignore the details. A lot of details people might think are important, may not add much to the story. If they don't add anything, I'll skip them. I want to write about what's interesting. 

The  exception to this are items that add texture. If your scene is developing within a feast, for example, you be amiss not to mention the food & drink, and maybe the entertainment. After all, these are the central activities within the event. As far as the other details, I'd describe just enough (with powerful, concrete descriptors) for the reader to build the remaining description of setting.


----------



## Philip Overby (Nov 11, 2013)

I think what my major concern is, after reading a lot of comments about the focus on research, is that while I think a lot of people have commented on how research has strengthened their stories, I'm afraid there are a lot of people out there that focus on research before they even start writing anything. This can become of more interest to them than the actual story. I personally applaud well researched stories. I do find the knowledge shines through in most cases. What I notice, however, is that there are many people who become so consumed in getting every detail right, that their story doesn't get written. 

I'd like to offer something that may help people in this situation.

I'm writing my novel at the moment. I've had some fight scenes, some things have exploded, etc. I didn't so much focus on the physics of these things as I've been writing them. I'm just writing as it naturally flows out of me. I'm not stopping to research what happens when someone gets trampled or the physics of a tree exploding. I'm just writing it. When I get finished with my first draft, I'm going to find these things and root them out. I'll try to make these things as believable (not necessarily realistic) as possible. That way the research doesn't get in the way of telling the story I want to tell, and instead enhances what I've already written. Being that I'm writing in a secondary world (my own world) I can do this. If you're writing in our own world, you may have to research more beforehand.

For now if I want a man in full plate male hanging off the neck of an imp while molten lava dumps on their heads, that's what I'm going to do. If it's completely asinine and makes no sense within my world, I'll take it out when I edit. This allows me to work on the story first and foremost and worry with the details later.


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 11, 2013)

Phil the Drill said:


> For now if I want a man in full plate male hanging off the neck of an imp while molten lava dumps on their heads, that's what I'm going to do. If it's completely asinine and makes no sense within my world, I'll take it out when I edit. This allows me to work on the story first and foremost and worry with the details later.



Story comes first. Always.

You can have a marvelously researched treatise on the use of plate mail in the middle ages, and if there's no story you've written something only history nerds will find enjoyable.

But a good story will carry people to another world or another time, and they'll forgive the occasional slip up in the details.


----------



## Addison (Nov 11, 2013)

"All the world's a stage, and all of us the players." -Shakespeare.  

In that thinking, in a theater production there's a part called the fourth wall. In the building and stage itself the fourth wall is the space separating the audience from the stage. They aren't up on the stage participating but they're close enough to feel, hear and experience everything the actors have to give. A fun play, and a better story, is when that fourth wall is voluntarily broken. 

In "The Proposal" the fourth wall is broken in the first scene when the audience is directly addressed by the character. In "Putnam County Spelling Bee" the fourth wall is repeatedly broken which immerses the audience more fully in the play which earns the audience a great experience. 

For writing you build the set, the costumes, props and audition the characters behind stage. When the curtain goes up-the book is opened-the story may start behind the fourth wall. But the characters, who they are and what they're doing, pulls the audience onto the stage. They don't realize the play was a play, that they're in a seat, until that curtain comes down in their face.  With writing there is a fourth wall, only instead of an invisible wall it's ink and paper (or pixels depending on your publishing method) and your story pulls the reader in so they forget it's a story in their hands. It's all the details working together that pull the reader through that wall.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 11, 2013)

There seems to be two ways in which the fourth wall can be broken. In one way, the characters themselves let the readers in on what is happening in their minds. In another way, if you employ a narrator you can create a veil between the reader and the characters. You must accept that it is through the narrator you are hearing the story, but the narrator represents a filter. We aren't omniscient, we are captive to the narrator to understand reality.

I'm on a kick to read all the classics I somehow missed over the years, currently reading The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky, a book notable for breaking the fourth wall. 

In the story, the narrator lets the reader know that he is a writer. What is (logically) odd is that the narrator knows all manner of things that he could not know. So, you are left to wonder at times about what license the narrator has taken in interpreting people and events in the story, and then at other times I am completely absorbed in the story, taking the words at face value. It is a strange experience, but I am gripped by the story on different levels, and so it works for me. It feeds a sense that we never really can be sure of anyone or anything, which is a theme in the novel, a lot of things come into doubt. I think that was a brilliant choice for this work. It is like Dostoevsky is infecting me with the doubt the characters feel.

In another work with a narrator, I might wonder at the omniscience of the narrator if they are declared to be human and part of that world. If they claimed to know things none could know, I would wonder at their motivation, or reason for the claims. If it did not serve the overall story in some way (meta to the inner story) I would probably feel like it was a failed POV, or some kind of quaint, "let me tell you a story of the old days" kind of approach. In that case, what purpose does the narrator serve? None, it just gets in the way.

I would be wary of trying such a practice in my own writing - at this point. I would not say _don't_ do it, but I would say be _wary_ of it. If you are going to do it, it should be a clear decision (like any writing decision).


----------



## Penpilot (Nov 11, 2013)

Svrtnsse said:


> A complete suit of plate armour made from well-tempered steel would weigh around 15-20 kg(33-44 pounds).[2] The wearer remained highly agile and could jump, run and otherwise move freely as the weight of the armor was spread evenly throughout the body.



This got me thinking. I play hockey and the equipment I wear weights around 25lbs, more when I train with a 15lb weight belt, and the goalie's equipment can weigh 60lbs. If someone wants a rough modern analogue of trained athletes moving around encumbered by weight distributed over their bodies, watch some youtube clips of NHL goalies moving and flopping. 



Phil the Drill said:


> This allows me to work on the story first and foremost and worry with the details later.



I find that the better your story telling is, the more likely nobody will notice mistakes/inaccuracies/plot holes. If people are focused on the story, it's harder for them to notice the mistakes. In bad stories people are not focused on the story, so their focus has more freedom to find those accuracy problems more easily. 

For example Raiders of the Lost Ark. It was pointed out to me that Indiana Jones is superfluous to the story. Had he refused the mission, the Nazis would’ve found the Ark on their own, brought it to the island, opened it and died the same horrible death.

Nothing changes with the introduction of Indiana Jones to the story. The story’s protagonist is completely unnecessary. 

I didn't notice this issue at all, and even after it's pointed out, I don't care because the story is well told regardless of the big flaw.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Nov 11, 2013)

Penpilot said:


> For example Raiders of the Lost Ark. It was pointed out to me that Indiana Jones is superfluous to the story. Had he refused the mission, the Nazis would’ve found the Ark on their own, brought it to the island, opened it and died the same horrible death.
> 
> Nothing changes with the introduction of Indiana Jones to the story. The story’s protagonist is completely unnecessary.
> 
> I didn't notice this issue at all, and even after it's pointed out, I don't care because the story is well told regardless of the big flaw.



Oh dear...
I never thought of that. :/


----------



## Devor (Nov 11, 2013)

I think there's two kinds of research:

1) Wait, I want to write fantasy, and I just realized I know nothing about the middle ages, weapons, horses or lifestyle except for some loose ends I picked up elsewhere.  I need to educate myself before I risk making a fool of myself.

2)  I have a scene that requires a few details about a blacksmith's shop.  How can I make it look right?

The second one should be easy to fix.  The first is obviously problematic - it's that same neverending morass of "Am I ready?" that dogs new writers every step of the way.

What would help, I think, is a well-done "so-you-want-to-write-fantasy?" guide to research, instead of all the random books that have too much detail about too many specific things.  I haven't seen if one exists.


----------



## Malik (Nov 11, 2013)

^^ I have a book somewhere called something like The Fantasy Writer's Sourcebook that is exactly this. It's probably 20 years old. I may have given it away but I'll look for it later and post the info if I still have it.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Nov 11, 2013)

Malik said:


> ^^ I have a book somewhere called something like The Fantasy Writer's Sourcebook that is exactly this. It's probably 20 years old. I may have given it away but I'll look for it later and post the info if I still have it.



I googled that and ended up with: Amazon.com: fantasy writing: Books


----------



## Addison (Nov 11, 2013)

I have all three books of "The Complete Fantasy Guide" series. Fantastic series, helped me out a lot when I started writing.


----------



## Devor (Nov 11, 2013)

Svrtnsse said:


> I googled that and ended up with: Amazon.com: fantasy writing: Books



I don't see anything there that's specifically on research.  I expect most of those are useless long-winded rants on character arcs and a whole lot of writing prompts.

Well, wait.  There's this by Writer's Digest.

The Writer's Complete Fantasy Reference by Writers Digest (Nov 15, 2000)

I wonder if it's any good.


----------



## Addison (Nov 11, 2013)

That is a fantastic book Devor. I have it myself, it covers medieval life, magic in several ages and cultures. I learned of types of magic and creatures I'd never heard of before.


----------



## Devor (Nov 11, 2013)

Addison said:


> That is a fantastic book Devor. I have it myself, it covers medieval life, magic in several ages and cultures. I learned of types of magic and creatures I'd never heard of before.



Is there anything about swordplay, travel, urban life and agriculture?  Those are the big ones.

((edit))

I just looked at the Table of Contents.  I'm not impressed.  I'm not questioning that it's good information, but it doesn't cover all of the necessary topics.


----------



## Addison (Nov 11, 2013)

If by sword play you mean types of weapons and dueling ethics, then yes. It covers wagons, horse travel. Urban life as in today's urban? No. But it does explain everyday life in medieval times. It goes into great detail about the agriculture.


----------



## Malik (Nov 11, 2013)

Devor said:


> I don't see anything there that's specifically on research.  I expect most of those are useless long-winded rants on character arcs and a whole lot of writing prompts.
> 
> Well, wait.  There's this by Writer's Digest.
> 
> The Writer's Complete Fantasy Reference by Writers Digest (Nov 15, 2000)



That's it. 

It's not bad. It's basic and not very involved, but I've probably read twenty self-published fantasies in the last month that could've used even this much help.


----------



## Devor (Nov 11, 2013)

Addison said:


> If by sword play you mean types of weapons and dueling ethics, then yes. It covers wagons, horse travel. Urban life as in today's urban? No. But it does explain everyday life in medieval times. It goes into great detail about the agriculture.



They might be there.  But I'm very confused, for instance, why they would give clothing and warfare the same amount of space, and why there's a section on "Dwarves" or "Elves" at all.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Nov 11, 2013)

People generally wear clothes and the way people are dressed say a lot about them. Most readers will have some experience with clothes, even if not specifically medieval style garb. If they pick up on that you've missed something in someone's clothing it may annoy them. 
In contrast, most readers will have little to no experience with warfare and will probably be less likely to accept mistakes.

There could of course be other reasons too. Like: writers like to describe what their characters are wearing in great details - or something.


----------



## Devor (Nov 11, 2013)

I'm probably just being too critical, the chapter on warfare is twice as long as the one on clothes, and elves & dwarves are valid historical myths.  I'm adding it to my wish list.  Maybe I'll pick it up.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Nov 12, 2013)

One interesting issue I'm running into right now, as I'm writing actually, is describing combat in a way that is both realistic _and_ entertaining.  Because in real life, fights are over very quickly, but we also have to agree that the tearing-around-the-castle-up-and-down-the-ramparts fights are fun to watch/read.  So, I'm trying to find a balance, because my inner realist doesn't want to cry bullsh!t on myself, but I also want to show more than crash, bang, dead.

Also, for your generic "I know nothing about Medieval times" setting research, Daily Life in Medieval Times: Frances Gies Joseph; Gies: 9780760759134: Amazon.com: Books is pure awesome if you can get your hands on a copy.


----------

