High fantasy set in modern era

[Dwarven Gold]

Has anyone written a work of high or epic fantasy set in the modern era?

For some reason epic fantasies are almost always medieval. Why is that?

 

[Telcontar]

Just to clarify one thing, I assume you mean a 'modern' era as being technological in some way and not actually set in the present day. This is because the term "High Fantasy" is defined as a work of fantasy taking place in an invented world.

To answer the question, I've read one series that might qualify. Harry Turtledove wrote a series that can be summed up as 'World War II with magic.' The world is entirely made up, with magic and fantastic creatures (sea leviathans, dragons, etc) taking the place of technology and vehicles.

However, I can't think of any fantasy that takes place in an imaginary world where actual technology (as we know it) rules. Of course, my personal definition of fantasy implies magic, so there might be a clash of viewpoint there.

 

[Ophiucha]

Fully modernized (or futuristic) fantasy worlds are a rarity, although I think the popularity of steampunk has at least jumpstarted the other world into a technological setting, even if it is Victorian. My own story doesn't really correspond to any Earth era in particular. The technology is certainly at least partially modern, although it is (a) magitek, and (b) insanely sporadic. I would say, for the most part, technology is at least in the 1900s. They have film, radio, aeroplanes, and similar technologies - although some are a little less reliable than others. Alchemy is far more advanced than our chemistry, though, and some of their devices are a bit behind where they should be.

As for their culture, though... I couldn't really correspond that to anything. The best is modern day Netherlands, mixed with Heian Japan, mixed with the Wild West. It just doesn't mesh with Earth much.

 

[Ravana]

High fantasy? Haven't written any yet, but I have considered some possibilities.

There are plenty of examples of what I gather are sometimes called "urban (or contemporary) fantasy," often overlapping with "dark fantasy"–that is, they involve vampires, werewolves, and whatnots; apart from such obvious examples as Anne Rice, I haven't read any. (No, not even the Twilight series.) The only example I'm personally familiar with that I'd consider "high" fantasy (in spite of including werewolves and vampires: they aren't the sole or even main focus) is Poul Anderson's Operation Chaos–which I remember loving, though it's been around three decades since I've had my hands on a copy–along with its sequel Operation Luna, which I have not read.

Why Medieval? Three probable reasons I can think of, off the top of my head:
(1) Romantic appeal: chivalry, knights, maidens needing rescued, all that stuff we were trained to regard with nostalgia… whether things actually ever were that way or not.
(2) To get rid of guns. "Balancing" the effects of magic is almost trivially easy compared to explaining why people armed with six-shooters or assault rifles have any problems at all dealing with magicians, or anything else… try balancing that. With modern firearms, death happens too quickly, too easily–someone with a sword can hold out against an army of grunts for as long as your plot requires him to, until rescue can arrive, but it's a lot harder to explain how he can hold out against an army of grunts that can mass fire and cut him down from a couple hundred meters away. Never mind a couple grenades or an artillery barrage. And stepping on a land mine is nobody's idea of "romantic."
(3) Within the limits of (1) and especially (2): because it's the most familiar paradigm that remains to work with. We do have all that accumulated "background" to draw on; it doesn't need explained as much as any other setting we might want to use (or invent). It's also the least removed in time of the possible historical models that avoid gunpowder… which not only aids in familiarity, it also allows the use of anything that precedes it–whereas traipsing about in steel plate would be difficult to explain in a Bronze Age setting.

Of course, one could also take the view that a combination of (2) and (3) is simply laziness on the part of the authors in question.

When I use a (quasi-)historical setting, it's always for a reason. Unless I specifically want my world to resemble Medieval Europe, to whatever extent, it doesn't. I'll have to go dust off some old "contemporary fantasy" ideas and see what I come up with.

 

[Chilari]

The film Ella Enchanted has a weird setting, some parts of which can be seen as modern - for example, there's an escalator-thing powered by a man winding a crank, there are tours of the royal palace, and several other things besides which I can't remember right now.

I have considered a more modern setting. In one of my worlds, several characters are immortal, so I have the opportunity, if I want it, of writing at any technological or social level. I never seem to be able to get past early Industrial Revolution with the technology, though. I've got further with the social aspects - gender equality comes about fairly early thanks in part to the female immortals, and in part to an experience of another immortal who happens to rule quite a large empire and have plenty of influence. I can't really imagine my immortals, at however many thousands of years old, phoning each other on mobile phones, driving around in cars, watching TV (or for that matter being on it) or surfing the internet. Not that what I'm writing (in that world or any other) is really high fantasy - no dragons, elves, magic swords etc, and the magic is a background force, not manipulatable.

 

[Digital_Fey]

I think Garth Nix's Abhorsen trilogy is one of the few that successfully melds high fantasy with more modern concepts. ('Modern' being relative, given that most of the technology used in the series dates from around 1940-50). He avoided the problem of guns being more powerful than swords and sorcery by creating a system in which a strong magical presence renders ordinary machines useless. I've seen a few authors do this and it seems to work, but it's rarer to find books which actually unite both magic and technology. I recently finished A Madness of Angels by Kate Griffin, which did just that - electricity can be controlled by sorcerers, telephone wires have angels living in them, etc. Awesome stuff, really, but I'm not sure if it counts as 'epic' fantasy in sense of, say, Terry Brooks or David Eddings.

 

[Ophiucha]

Yeah, I believe J.K. Rowling has a "any technology doesn't work near magic" rule. At least not on Hogwarts grounds, since there is so much magic there. Other places, presumably, there can be some intermixing. The Ford Angelina comes to mind, in particular.

As for my own writing, I overcome the gun issue by not really having absurd fights to begin with. I don't need Cambell (my protagonist) to fight off 50 henchmen at all, be it with fire or blade, so it doesn't much matter. It just fits the setting better for the weapons to be firearms, and so that's what they are. Any fights in the story are one-on-one, or otherwise at least very proportional.

 

[Ravana]

He avoided the problem of guns being more powerful than swords and sorcery by creating a system in which a strong magical presence renders ordinary machines useless.

Ugh… major cop-out. The entire point behind technology is that it does work predictably, and that anyone can use it. If it systematically "doesn't work near magic," that begs the question why it doesn't, assuming it would otherwise work under all the same conditions but in the absence of magic.

Think about it: how does "magic"–the force, the phenomenon, whatever–"know" what "technology" is, so that it automatically disables it? I'm not talking about someone deliberately casting a spell that would cripple a particular kind of technology: that makes perfect sense, and is self-balancing in that you need to know the spell, have the ability, time, and all requisite paraphernalia to cast it, and so on.

What would and would not count as an "ordinary machine" here? One powered by electricity? Then magic interferes with electricity, not technology in general… and it raises its own problems that can in large part balance it: a magician, or someone with a "strong magical presence"–say, a powerful spell on him–will cause lights to go out as he walks down a hallway, cause computers to crash, and so on (one assumes it doesn't interfere to the extent of canceling out the electrical activity within the brain…). That's about the only one you'd be able to easily make sense of, far as I can see: if it interferes with anything else, you're buying more than you want. Stops gunpowder from working? How can it (and why does it) distinguish gunpowder from anything else that burns? Same goes for combustion engine power. Stops things with moving parts? You mean like windmills or plate armor?

I definitely wouldn't go that route. It defeats the purpose of combining magic with a modern setting. What would make such a setting interesting for me would be to have magic work alongside existing technology–often enhancing it–not canceling it out.

Yes, Ophiucha's solution works: all you do is not tell the stories where guns do become problematic. I was pointing them out in response to the question of why choose a particular time period, not trying to claim guns can't be mixed with magic. (Mixing them with swords is a bit trickier–and of course most fantasy stories have magic as a very limited resource, so most characters will be using whatever normal military technology is available.) And let's face it, that sort of "unrealistic" combat situation is a staple element of a lot of high fantasy… so fantasy authors choose the other form of cop-out and avoid the question altogether.

 

[Ravana]

I can't really imagine my immortals, at however many thousands of years old, phoning each other on mobile phones, driving around in cars, watching TV (or for that matter being on it) or surfing the internet.

Hee hee. I'm working on a novel where exactly that sort of thing is a core part of it.

 

[myrddin173]

Ugh… major cop-out. The entire point behind technology is that it does work predictably, and that anyone can use it. If it systematically "doesn't work near magic," that begs the question why it doesn't, assuming it would otherwise work under all the same conditions but in the absence of magic.

It actually isn't really a cop-out, its explained why in the books. The magic in the novels originates in the Old Kingdom, and can only be used in the Old Kingdom, which is essentially a medieval society. The "modern technology" if from Ancelstierre which borders the Old Kingdom to the south. In reality they are not part of the same world but rather two very different ones. Which explains why magic doesn't work in Ancelstierre, except in the extreme north, within 50mi of the Wall which forms the border between the two worlds. the farther from Wall you get the less powerful the magic till it disappears entirely, which means the majority of Ancelsierre does not believe in magic. likewise, technology fails when you travel north of the Wall.

this is really an inadequate explanation, you should read the books though.

 

[Ophiucha]

It actually isn't really a cop-out, its explained why in the books.

I reckon she means cop out in so far as that avoiding the issue of clashing technology and magic entirely is a cop out, regardless of how justified it is. At least, that's how I see it, myself. And I tend to agree. I love the idea of technology and magic at odds, but I think having the "tech doesn't work near magic" thing is basically trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

 

[Ravana]

The magic in the novels originates in the Old Kingdom, and can only be used in the Old Kingdom, which is essentially a medieval society. The "modern technology" if from Ancelstierre which borders the Old Kingdom to the south. In reality they are not part of the same world but rather two very different ones.

Which means that this is not an example of high fantasy set in the modern era… no more than the Narnia books would be.

 

[Amanita]

My story is set in a modern society, I’m not sure if it will count as „epic“ or „high“ fantasy though.
Why don’t more people do it? In short, because it forces the author to describe events and problems profoundly different from those found in the stories that already exist. And because some things many people seem to like just aren’t possible in that kind of story.

War surely is a big issue. Epic fantasy just seems to nee its epic battles and these will be nothing like those in the usual stories if set in a world with guns, tanks, hand grenades, missiles, bombs...
After World War I many opponents of the poison gas use were mainly upset by the fact that in a war fought with poison gas, things like courage, strength, fighting skills of the individual soldier, fights “man against man” and so on didn’t matter anymore. (The pro poison gas people disagreed but that’s not the question here.)
Fact is that much of the things idealised about war don’t apply to a war like World War I or any war after that anymore. If they did before remains doubtful but with any kind of modern weapon it’s quite clear that it’s not like that anymore. Flying over the Dark Lord’s fortress with a plane and throwing bombs on it just doesn’t seem as heroic as single-handedly engaging a horde of Orcs with a sword.
If the hero fought with magic, it wouldn’t be so difficult to find a way to have him win against a bunch of Orcs with guns but usually, the authors prefer him with a sword that might be magical. There are very few purely magical fighters, probably for the reasons described above.
Traditional, idealised and heroic wars as they exist in many myths seem to be very important for many fantasy writers and they don’t agree with a high-tech society.
For me, that’s not much of a problem because I have no intention of having an idealised war.

Another issue is transport. Travelling on foot or horseback enables the hero to get into difficulties while crossing mountains, getting lost in dangerous magical forests, having to cross dark mines...
If the heroes just use their cars or the train dangerous and interesting things can happen as well but they’re quite different from those fantasy readers are familiar with. Getting the fantasy aspects into the trains and high ways requires more thinking and doesn’t allow the author to more or less do the things that have been done before as many seem to be happy to do.

Communication: People not knowing what’s going on, intercepted messengers and dangerous journeys to inform people in time are also important for many fantasy stories. In a world with telephones, E-Mails, mobile phones and so on this will be much less of an issue. At least at first glance and like with travelling, the problems are likely to be different ones.

Government system: For some reason, many people like to have their fantasy countries ruled by powerful kings, queens or nobles with almost absolute power. In modern settings this isn’t that likely anymore even though it probably could be done. (If someone really wants to.)
In most modern societies there aren’t many individuals who can make decisions of importance to the whole country/world without having to take lot’s of other peoples’ opinions into account. Checks and balances is a good idea, but it might become tedious if there’s a Dark Lord to fight. Especially, if the opposition rejects everything on principal without thinking it through first.
And if it’s a really world-spanning problem, the world’s UN-equivalent might come into play as well and they’d have to pass a resolution to allow the heros’ country to fight the Dark Lord...
Modern politics are rather difficult to understand and many people to like something more simple in their fantasy story.

Despite of all of the above I’d really like to have more fantasies set in a modern era solving these problems in their unique ways. And I’m trying to do it myself, hoping to get it done well, some day.

I don’t really like stories where magic cancels out technology either, that’s why I’m mixing the two quite freely myself. In Harry Potter, I don’t mind it that much because it only seems to affect Hogwarts where so much uncontrolled magic is around. It might be plausibly explained that this interferers with electrical gadgets even though it never is cause JK. Rowling never went into the details about the way her magic works. In other stories it can get quite annoying and I never really understood about that gap between the two countries in the Abhorsen trilogy even though I quite liked the rest of it.

 

[myrddin173]

I reckon she means cop out in so far as that avoiding the issue of clashing technology and magic entirely is a cop out, regardless of how justified it is.

Oh ok, I must have misunderstood Ravana's original post. Looking at it like that I can understand why it could be called a cop-out.

 

[Mdnight Falling]

I think it's because the midieval time period just suits it. I mean look at most fantasy novels, they either take place WAY back when, or WAY into the future when we've destroyed most or all technology and have to start over . I've read some fantasy set in modern times and while they were interesting, they didn't hold me like the forest landscapes do LOL

 

[At Dusk I Reign]

For some reason epic fantasies are almost always medieval. Why is that?

Because most people are sheep. They look at what's gone before and think, 'Oh, that's the way it's done. Far be it for timid ol' me to attempt anything different.' Few authors these days display any intellectual or imaginative bravery. Better to be one of the herd. That's what sells, and shifting units is all that matters when it comes to publishing in the 21st Century. The days of printing something simply because it has artistic merit are long gone.

 

[Ravana]

Oh ok, I must have misunderstood Ravana's original post. Looking at it like that I can understand why it could be called a cop-out.

No problem. Though in this case it isn't a cop-out so much as avoiding the question altogether: the two worlds are mutually exclusive. You could still have interesting stories where people from one world (either one) go to the other, and have to deal with their expectations not meshing up with the reality they're experiencing. To that extent, you will either have people from a modern setting coping with a high fantasy world, or people from a high fantasy world coping with a modern setting. (Which, I'm guessing, is what the author in question is doing here–and if I were writing it, I'd be doing multiple POV to have both at once.) But that's not the same as having the fantastic within a modern setting.

 

[Ravana]

In short, because it forces the author to describe events and problems profoundly different from those found in the stories that already exist. And because some things many people seem to like just aren't possible in that kind of story.

Bingo. Or at least require more effort to portray as possible than the author is willing to put forth. Laziness.

One thing that Amanita gets at indirectly–but which pervades most of the issues she raises–is the speed at which things happen, or at least can happen, in the modern world. In a pre-industrial setting, information moved only as rapidly as the fastest means of transportation, which in turn was the same speed at which a human could travel; this in turn affects not only communication, but also governance (which, if you think about it, is essentially authority communicating its decisions… regardless of the form the government itself takes).

I'm not sure I'd agree that modern politics are any harder to understand than those of previous eras–take a look at the Holy Roman Empire in the 16th and 17th centuries, especially during the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648); it beggars the UN in complexity. Nor were most monarchies as straightforward as generally portrayed in fiction. I think it's more that people simply ignore complexities that existed regardless of period (or, for that matter, type of complexity: see previous discussions about castle construction.… )

Saying it's "laziness" isn't necessarily fair, of course: if a Medieval European setting is what you want, there's no reason not to use it. I do think it's a major factor in why there's so much written in those settings, though.

One thing I do, when considering fantastic elements in modern settings: rather than ask the question "How would history have been different from what we know?" I ask "How did these fantastic elements, existing all along, cause history to be the same as what we know?" Maybe magic was used to extract the U-235 for the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima…?

 

[Kevin O. McLaughlin]

To some degree, there's safety in the tropes that other writers have used. Heck, I use some. Probably most of us do. We know readers like them, know them, are comfortable with them. And publishers tend to be more sure of a "book like that last book which sold well", too.

But I can't help looking at Amanita's list of "why authors don't" and seeing it as a list of "wow, wouldn't it be cool to write about that..."

 

[Amanita]

I'm not sure I'd agree that modern politics are any harder to understand than those of previous eras

Real politics of earlier times aren't easier to understand. "Fantasy Politics" usually are and people who aren't too interested in history won't realise that something's wrong as quickly as in a modern setting.