Is your story set in historical earth?

[Steerpike]

Something I always find interesting in criticism of fantasy novels is when criticisms are directed at a discrepancy between the fantasy world and things as they really developed in history. The proper answer to such criticisms should be "so what?"

For example:

Criticism: In medieval times, they wore X, not Y.

Answer: So what? My story is set in a fantasy world where they wear Y. There might be a medieval level of technology, but it is not set in medieval times.


Criticism: In those times, government structures were more like A, not B.

Answer: So what? My story is set in a fantasy world where the government structure looks more like B. It is not set in "those times."


And so on.

Anyone else on the same page as me? I find these sorts of criticisms of fantasy odd. They'd be well-placed with respect to a historical novel, but even though my fantasy story might look something like medieval Europe, or feudal Japan, or pre-Columbia Americas, it is not, and so it can differ from the "real" time and place in any manner I see fit.

 

[Amanita]

I agree completely. As long as it makes sense that something might have developed that way in an alternate world, I see no reason why everything has to follow earth history.
To take a simple example: Potatoes in a temperate climate area are fine even if it is inspired by medieval Europe, bananas growing there are not. (Without magic.)
The best option, in my opinion is to to take into consideration what's making your fantasy world different from our own (dragons, magic, meddling gods...) and how it would affect the people living in the fantasy world. If this is well-thought out everything's fine even if women do not wear long dresses and have to ride side-saddle or whatever.
Stories where such differences don't have any effects bother me much more.

 

[grahamguitarman]

Yes to a certain extent I do agree, I don't set my high fantasy novels on Earth even, never mind our history.

So I don't really care if my world doesn't fit in with the historical accuracy of our world (my steampunk novel is a different case of course, as it is notionally set in Victorian England).

I don't describe my worlds as being medieval, or any other time period from our history, and don't try to link my creations to existing cultural histories.

I do however try to make my worlds reasonably believable in terms of actually being a workable society, with some thought given to how that culture would work in a social and economic way. Even fantasy worlds need to be believably workable.

Where the problems start to arise is when writers use terms for clothing and weapons from a specific period in history, then add in elements not relevant to that time period. If you use historically accurate names and descriptions, then you raise an expectancy in the readers mind that this will be a historically accurate Novel.

This is why I personally avoid accurate names for types of swords ect, so I'm not linking my world to a human historical period. I even deliberately create unusual fantasy mounts, so no-one can criticise my handling of horses in my stories.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

If your story is told well enough, people can ignore things like representative democracies springing up in a place that has the equivalent technology level of 11th-century England. If not, then they'll pick on you.

The reason is that even in a fantasy world, humans still think and act the same way that humans in real life do. (Or at least, they ought to; if they don't it'll feel weird and alienating to the reader.) Which means that they're subject to all the same prejudices and bigotry that real humans are, and that kind of thing exists at a societal level as well. It took centuries, nay, millennia for humans to evolve social structures where (e.g.) slavery was universally abhorred. If a fantasy society still has knights and swords and iron armor, they're probably not going to be letting the peasants vote on who gets to rule. If they do, you probably need to explain why (e.g. maybe most other societies in this world are typical repressive patriarchies, but this one's different for some cultural reason).

Saying "It's fantasy" doesn't give you license to ignore the way that human societies exist and develop, if your story is about humans, or at least about characters who look and act like humans.

 

[Steerpike]

@Amanita - Yes, physical properties of planets, animals, the universe, etc. should be consistent with what we know unless some alternate explanation is given. So, as you say, growing bananas in the far north would be problematic unless you have an explanation (e.g. magic) to support it.

@Graham - I agree, the world has to be believably workable. It has to be internally consistent. But it doesn't have to mimic the progression of society or technology that really occurred on earth

@Benjamin - That seems to presuppose that the way things actually happened on earth are the only way they could have happened (unless I am understanding you incorrectly). It seems to me there are many plausible roads human society could go down. Human development was shaped by climate and geography, for example. Those will be different in your fantasy world. And if sentient races other than humans exist (elves, dwarves, or whatever), I suspect that would have such a tremendous impact on social and religious development that there's little reason to presuppose they would follow the same path as our history on earth.

 

[Amanita]

The reason is that even in a fantasy world, humans still think and act the same way that humans in real life do.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that societies can only evolve in one specific way. Among the Ancient Greek a wide variety of government forms was known for example. None of them was exactly what we'd call "democracy" know but there still was much more than feudalism and hereditary monarchy.
A representative democracy like we're having really isn't easy to picture in a world without mass media but there's no reason why there shouldn't be elected village leaders who elect the leaders of regions who elect the leader of the nation for example. There are so many possibilities, many of which actually exist or have existed on earth at some time that there's no reason to limit yourself to one thing.
If it's effective in the situation at hand and makes sense in the context of the story, there's no reason not to do it. Having the "good guys" have the kind of government the author believes is best because he wants to spread his political beliefs isn't good writing however.

(e.g. maybe most other societies in this world are typical repressive patriarchies, but this one's different for some cultural reason).

That's why I'm extremely wary of this. One society standing out with a social system completely different from everything the others are doing is very hard to do well in my opinion.

 

[Devor]

Something I always find interesting in criticism of fantasy novels is when criticisms are directed at a discrepancy between the fantasy world and things as they really developed in history. The proper answer to such criticisms should be "so what?"

It does depend a little bit. Some writers do write in historical settings. Other times, "Y" may really not make sense because it takes a higher level of technology behind the scenes. A lot of times things should work a given way even in a fantasy setting - fantasy doesn't necessarily give you license to pretend that a country doesn't need farmers without at least explaining why. Lastly, your writing tone can sometimes imply a stronger medieval setting than you mean to, and a seemingly small discrepancy can create a disconnect between the reader and the story.

None of that should be a problem if you know what you're talking about and set a consistent tone about what is or is not possible with the technology and society of your world. But if you use a fantasy setting as an excuse to just brush aside the logistical and technological difficulties your society would face, you're going to lose readers.

For me, at least one of my stories is set in a clear relatively real-world time period, and I want to stick to the real conditions of that time. But with the others, I've actually tried to find creative ways to advance the technology and society within certain ancient and fantasy-related restraints, such as a lack of electricity and a clear system of alchemy.

For the most part I think clothing is a good one to shrug your shoulders at in a fantasy setting, but at the same time, you can't easily get away with giving your warriors a polyester sports jacket. Ancient societies were capable of a lot, but I think sometimes authors don't realize they're giving their cultures the equivalent of a polyester sports jacket when they talk about certain political or cultural systems.

 

[Anders Ämting]

Something I always find interesting in criticism of fantasy novels is when criticisms are directed at a discrepancy between the fantasy world and things as they really developed in history. The proper answer to such criticisms should be "so what?"

For example:

Criticism: In medieval times, they wore X, not Y.

Answer: So what? My story is set in a fantasy world where they wear Y. There might be a medieval level of technology, but it is not set in medieval times.

Criticism: In those times, government structures were more like A, not B.

Answer: So what? My story is set in a fantasy world where the government structure looks more like B. It is not set in "those times."

And so on.

Anyone else on the same page as me? I find these sorts of criticisms of fantasy odd. They'd be well-placed with respect to a historical novel, but even though my fantasy story might look something like medieval Europe, or feudal Japan, or pre-Columbia Americas, it is not, and so it can differ from the "real" time and place in any manner I see fit.

If you'll allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment - is not the problem then that your setting is too similar to a historical one? I mean, if your setting is so similar to for example medieval Europe that the differances come across as bad research rather then something deliberate, maybe your critics have a point? Not the point they think they are making, of course, but a point non the less.

The reason is that even in a fantasy world, humans still think and act the same way that humans in real life do. (Or at least, they ought to; if they don't it'll feel weird and alienating to the reader.) Which means that they're subject to all the same prejudices and bigotry that real humans are, and that kind of thing exists at a societal level as well. It took centuries, nay, millennia for humans to evolve social structures where (e.g.) slavery was universally abhorred. If a fantasy society still has knights and swords and iron armor, they're probably not going to be letting the peasants vote on who gets to rule.

Forgive me, but I really don't see why. It's not like knighthood is inherantly incompatible with the principle of democracy. It's just that feudalism and democracy are two systems that don't mesh very well. But even then, I'm sure one can figure out a system that lets people pick a king, while still keeping the feudal lords around.

Over-all, I think you are oversimplifying a very complex issue. Democracy isn't some modern idea that arose out the barbarism of the Dark Ages through the enlightment of civilized men, and it's not some kind of high concept that only an educated, modern mind can comprehend. It was invented in Athens almost three thousand years ago, but fell out of favor because people like Plato and Aristotle though it was an inefficient way of running countries. Before Rome became an empire, it was a Republic where people actually elected their leaders annually. Note that this was before the Dark Ages/Medieval Times, the time-period most people associate with fantasy literature. And even in the medieval period, certain city states were ruled by guild democracies, and most economic and religious organizations elected their officials, etc.

What I'm trying to say is, it's not like the concept didn't exist back then. History just took a different turn, and feudal monarchies became all the rage instead. Then, a few hundred years later, we had a change of heart and decided to give democracy another shot. Give us another few hundred years, and we may yet decide to try some other form of goverment. The simple truth is, humans are fickle when it comes to political systems.

 

[Devor]

If a fantasy society still has knights and swords and iron armor, they're probably not going to be letting the peasants vote on who gets to rule. If they do, you probably need to explain why (e.g. maybe most other societies in this world are typical repressive patriarchies, but this one's different for some cultural reason).

Ancient Greek city-states, the Roman empire, and the Norse "thing" were all well-established democracies, and all of those existed long before the Knighthood. As for ignorance and bigotry, there's even clear documentation of pirates operating as a democracy on board their ships.

Admittedly, it's very hard to do democracy on a large scale without the printing press, but Rome still did it. They managed to invent the newspaper. It was just hand written.

I don't, however, have a reference of a fantasy novel which used democracy, so I don't mean to suggest that such and such a book didn't mess it up. But it can certainly be done.

 

[grahamguitarman]

Yep, even in the real world, democracies could exist in medieval times.

Venice for example, was largely a democracy of sorts from its inception in about 697 right up until their invasion by Napoleon Bonaparte.

Although a lifetime appointment, the Doge (ruler) was elected by the citizens, and if too incompetent could be removed by them.

Most of the decision making was made by a large council of about two thousand citizens, many of whom were merchants and craftsmen.

The most essential day to day decisions were made by an inner council of 120 members however, as otherwise nothing would have got done (imagine a council of 2000 plus citizens trying to run a city!)

Its also worth noting that along with Florence, Venice was a major player in the renaissance, bringing a huge amount of art and culture to the world.

The point is that not all amour wearing, sword wielding societies, followed the Feudal pattern that most people think of when considering medieval culture.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

I'm aware of early and odd democracies; my point is that if you're going to have a medieval democracy in your story, most readers are going to think "WTF?" unless you have a reasonable explanation for it, because most people associate medieval times with feudalism, and it will seem unacceptably unrealistic unless you can justify it somehow.

 

[grahamguitarman]

How can something based on a real state, be unnaceptably unrealistic? medeival england was not the only representative of the middle ages.

Venice was not just some small island city, it was a very powerful state that ruled a large part of northern italy and neighbouring countries, and dominated the adriatic sea. Nearly all eastern trade went through Venice, and it had the most powerful navy in the world (even the British Navy wasn't as powerful).

Yet you are suggesting that if anyone was to use the Venetian Republic as inspiration then readers would not accept it as realistic.
Writers may as well give up on imagination if the only acceptable role model for fantasy, is the North European Feudal political system of the middle ages!

Edit: I forgot to mention that I'm using the Venetian Republic as the inspiration for the main political power of my fantasy world. Hence my disbelief that you think no-one would accept this as a believable system.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

I'm just going to stop trying to explain what I'm thinking, since I clearly can't get it across.

 

[grahamguitarman]

I'm just going to stop trying to explain what I'm thinking, since I clearly can't get it across.

maybe I just disagree with your opinion!

 

[Hans]

How can something based on a real state, be unnaceptably unrealistic?

Not in fact unrealistic, but thought to be unrealistic by the average reader. These are two completely different things. People tend to cling to the picture they have in mind, be it right or wrong.


I have a slightly different experience than the one discussed in this thread. I have one setting leaned towards ancient Sumer. A lot of people would just glance over it and say: "Oh, it's that medieval stuff again." Seems like all speculative fiction that has no spaceships is medieval to someone.

 

[grahamguitarman]

Ok my bad, I misunderstood the point about readers not accepting the realism.

Though I'd like to think that most of our readership is intelligent enough to see past the feudal stereotype, after all not all fantasy follows that pattern.

I certainly don't intend to write in that fashion, because I'm bored to death with the whole medieval feudalism thing (especially since trying to read George RR Martin).

 

[Ophiucha]

I find that fantasy writers are as guilty - if not more guilty - of this as the critics, to be honest. Mostly, within the community, we accept the boundaries of subgenres. "Historical fantasy" and "high fantasy set in a world based off of a historical culture" are well-defined, separate entities amongst fantasy readers and writers... but you'll still see people have a hissy fit if there's a tomato in your vaguely medieval English story. Even though we acknowledge that Albion is not England, I think a lot of us still have difficulty accepting it.

And, of course, you have the people who say things like "I can have tomatoes, it's fantasy, who cares" and then go on to say "what? women can't own property, c'mon now, this is medieval England", which is just a wide array of mixed messages and slightly sexist thinking (and don't get me started on "of course every character is white, it's medieval England, now let me eat my yams and dress in silk in peace, dammit!").

 

[Jabrosky]

I don't have actual historical cultures in my new WIP, but I am taking the "Counterpart Culture" approach. For instance, the story opens in the middle of a confrontation between vaguely Norse and vaguely Zulu warriors.

 

[Hans]

And, of course, you have the people who say things like "I can have tomatoes, it's fantasy, who cares" and then go on to say "what? women can't own property, c'mon now, this is medieval England", which is just a wide array of mixed messages and slightly sexist thinking (and don't get me started on "of course every character is white, it's medieval England, now let me eat my yams and dress in silk in peace, dammit!").

Yes, the willing suspension of disbelief is a strange thing. Not always logical. There is this one picture about polar bears and penguins playing tennis. People claimed it is unrealistic because the bears and birds live on opposite poles.
The tennis playing was fine to them.

 

[Ophiucha]

Haha, basically. It's not necessarily "all or nothing", but there's a point where it's either unnecessary or outright illogical to ignore certain aspects of the setting.