Technological Advancement

[Mythopoet]

One thing to consider, and I've been hesitant to bring it up because I know where it could possibly take the discussion, is that it wasn't until the "scientific revolution" that the attitude necessary among scientists and engineers to produce technological advancement really existed. It is only modern science that pushes for such constant advancement. It is only moderns that view technology in a mostly positive light. The word technology wasn't even coined until the 1600s, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary, and at first referred to grammar and didn't refer to mechanical and industrial arts until the 1800s. It was during the scientific revolution that the attitude of scientists changed from a general attitude of wanting to simply study and understand nature to an attitude of wanting to utilize and subjugate nature. Technological advancement of the modern kind necessarily uses the earth to the point of destruction for the unlimited progress of mankind. Many (most?) human societies would have shuddered to even contemplate that. It is only in the modern age that it has become something we don't even think about because technological advancements are one of the Great Goods of our society.

Personally, one of the main reasons I love fantasy is because I can immerse myself in cultures that don't think that way and in worlds where everything isn't paved over for cars and dotted with cell towers. I would rather live in those worlds.

 

[Androxine Vortex]

I know i am late replying to my own thread but i actually never read the Lord of the rings books. I am currently reading the silmarilion but did tolkien have his civilizations progress well? I'm sure this sounds like a silly question but then again i haven't fully read everything.

 

[X Equestris]

I know i am late replying to my own thread but i actually never read the Lord of the rings books. I am currently reading the silmarilion but did tolkien have his civilizations progress well? I'm sure this sounds like a silly question but then again i haven't fully read everything.

There was some progression. And there were collapses after catastrophes. There was definitely change occuring in the world.

 

[Mindfire]

One thing to consider, and I've been hesitant to bring it up because I know where it could possibly take the discussion, is that it wasn't until the "scientific revolution" that the attitude necessary among scientists and engineers to produce technological advancement really existed. It is only modern science that pushes for such constant advancement. It is only moderns that view technology in a mostly positive light. The word technology wasn't even coined until the 1600s, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary, and at first referred to grammar and didn't refer to mechanical and industrial arts until the 1800s. It was during the scientific revolution that the attitude of scientists changed from a general attitude of wanting to simply study and understand nature to an attitude of wanting to utilize and subjugate nature. Technological advancement of the modern kind necessarily uses the earth to the point of destruction for the unlimited progress of mankind. Many (most?) human societies would have shuddered to even contemplate that. It is only in the modern age that it has become something we don't even think about because technological advancements are one of the Great Goods of our society.

Personally, one of the main reasons I love fantasy is because I can immerse myself in cultures that don't think that way and in worlds where everything isn't paved over for cars and dotted with cell towers. I would rather live in those worlds.

Mythopoet brings up a good point. One of the reasons technology has evolved so rapidly in our world is that a great number of discoveries and innovations were made without any regard or respect for nature and the environment (*cough*Climate Change*cough*). In a world where people are much more conscientious about preserving the earth- for spiritual or other reasons- technology might evolve at a much slower pace and/or in a different direction.

 

[skip.knox]

There is no discernible cultural development in LoTR, except in the general sense of a decline from former greatness that informs a good deal of European cultural mythology. And it doesn't seem to have done him any harm in terms of sales or reputation.

I think there are two separate issues being confused here. One has to do with world building and sociological realism. In that respect, the OP's observations are quite correct. It is not realistic to imagine a world that doesn't change in any meaningful way over the centuries. I have no problem with that proposition.

The separate issue has to do with effective story-telling. There, all depends on the story. It's possible to write stories that offer no sense of historical change, or to write stories that are all about historical change. What matters is the story.

Where the OP has gone wrong is to suppose the one is a precondition of the other. It is absolutely not necessary to construction a world that takes into account long-term cultural change (let us leave aside that problematic word "progress") in order to tell a good story. And the converse is true. The failure to so construct a world does not necessarily lead to a bad story. They are separate issues.

I say this as a historian. First, tell me a good story, and I will forgive much. Make history your centerpiece, and I will show up with knives sharpened. You choose.

 

[FifthView]

Certainly. Having characters believe the world has always been one way is one thing. It's why we have art from Renaissance Italy depicting Bible scenes with people who look exactly like contemporary Italians, or paintings of the Fall of Jerusalem showing the Crusaders wearing plate armor. Having the world actually have been the same for tens of thousands of years is a different case entirely.

How many novels actually show the world being exactly the same for "tens of thousands of years?"

I think there may be examples of novels either incorporating flashback sequences, perhaps prologues taking place thousands of years in the past; or else, novels/trilogies which span the full thousands of years (perhaps advancing approx. 1000 years with each installment in a series of novels.) But this is a fairly rare approach.

In most cases, all the action happens in a "here and now." So unchanging stagnation isn't definitively shown. Sure, characters and written histories might imply an unchanging society lasting many thousands of years. But as I said in my original comment, there's no reason to believe these accounts are not limited, myopic, uninformed.

So in short: In most cases, the issue of stagnation doesn't legitimately arise or require an author to expend effort justifying the current state of the society in which the novel occurs.

 

[X Equestris]

How many novels actually show the world being exactly the same for "tens of thousands of years?"

I think there may be examples of novels either incorporating flashback sequences, perhaps prologues taking place thousands of years in the past; or else, novels/trilogies which span the full thousands of years (perhaps advancing approx. 1000 years with each installment in a series of novels.) But this is a fairly rare approach.

In most cases, all the action happens in a "here and now." So unchanging stagnation isn't definitively shown. Sure, characters and written histories might imply an unchanging society lasting many thousands of years. But as I said in my original comment, there's no reason to believe these accounts are not limited, myopic, uninformed.

So in short: In most cases, the issue of stagnation doesn't legitimately arise or require an author to expend effort justifying the current state of the society in which the novel occurs.

I already posted the TV Tropes link. That has some examples. As I said earlier, it's only an issue when someone actually shows the distant past and it's the same as the story's present.