Upsetting Convention

[Telcontar]

I have a love/hate relationship with fantasy norms. There are some I find so comforting that I never get tired of them, like the enigmatic sorcerer type. Love 'em. Unless they are hopelessly incompetent, an author can pull off this this type of character well enough for me to enjoy them.

Then, of course, there are conventions that bother me. Some of them are very tiny, and I try to never, ever follow them.

One such is the usual associations of West with Good, and East (and South) with bad. Basically, fantasy worlds often roughly parallel our own world's basic social geography. The most settled continents to the West, and more exotic lands to the east. Also, there is often a massive grassland/savannah (no doubt home to some horse-riding barbarians!) in the north east.

I prefer to upset this. However, in order to use a certain phrase in a current project (The Four Lords of the West, which just rolls off my tongue in a very pleasing way) I might have to actually make 'West' the civilized, quote-unquote Good side of the world. Or, if not Good, at least more familiar to the reader as much of the action takes place there.

Oh, well. It won't be that big of a deal in the long run, but I really do find it bothering me. Anybody else ever run into these little things? Little pet peeves that you somehow find yourself contributing to?

 

[TWErvin2]

Of the fantasy authors I tend to read, the geography thing doesn't fit the mold that concerns you (mainly Brust, Donaldson, Zelazny, Saberhagen, and Moorcock--I need to get some newer ones soon). In my first fantasy novel, set mainly in a post apocalyptic Europe, the Necromancer King resides in the north and his legions of zombies and such march south (against the 'good guys'). In the second novel, the threat comes from the west. But I guess I could just as easily have had it work otherwise. Just how my world fell into place.

There are so many good authors out there, just avoid the ones that have elements that annoy you. And throw any 'convention' to the wind with your novel. Shaking things up a bit never hurts--okay maybe rarely it does

 

[Monshala]

Perhaps because we progress to the "right", east tends to be the positive and west, "left" is the negative. North has such symbolic characteristics like the North Star, north represents "Up" versus south, etc. etc. (I do this whole, "etc. etc." thing a lot. My bad). Anyway, it may sound elementary, but I believe our brains are just wired that way from institutionalized learning. When we create our own worlds, we need to challenge ourseslves and break the mold, but do so with simplistic reason to allow our readers to believe without being re-wired.

 

[Devor]

It's my understanding that the problem with this convention stems not from the heroes being in the west but from the villains, by contrast, ending up in the East. It starts with the idea that the West is familiar and the East is exotic, but people over-interpret it to mean that the people living in the East are vile corruptible hordes.

So if you really want to use "The Four Lords of the West," that's the first and less controversial half of the convention. You could probably circumvent this by doing something fun in the East and having the "villains" come from North-by-North-West or South-by-South-East or something.

 

[Ghost]

I don't see what's wrong with The Four Lords of the East. It could be changed to The Four Eastern Lords, The Eastern Four, The Four Lords of the South, The Four Lords, whatever. I don't think the name is that important in this case. If it bothers you to see East = Evil, I don't see why you'd write it unless they turn out to be the good guys after all.

As for annoying things that somehow ended up in my own work, I'd go with elves. They were the long-lived, tree-dwelling, wise, slim and fair type, complete with a flowing language. The main difference between them and most other elves was that they were racist and tried to commit genocide against humans and "impure" elves. I realized this wasn't the type of fantasy I wanted to do. I don't really like reading about elves, why should I write about them?

 

[newtofantasy]

Didn't the The Wise Men come from the East?

 

[Elder the Dwarf]

There are four cardinal directions, so why not just make them south or north? Although in my experience north is usually used as evil more often than south. Screw it, make it the evil Center. Evil spreads out from the middle. And, newtofantasy, I think he's referring to most modern fantasy where the west is portrayed as "good" because in the history there has been a perception that the West is "cultured" or "good".

 

[Telcontar]

Well, '... of the East' just seems to roll a bit less easily than '... of the West.' In any case, I don't intend for this book to be so simplistic as to have any direction be the one that 'evil' comes from. More it will be as Devor pointed out - not so much a contrast between good and evil as between Familiar and Exotic.

In the end I am likely to keep it this way - I've removed most other habitual parallels to Earth's geography wherever I can do so without troubling the story. I was just remarking upon the fact that the cliche exists, and I dislike seeing it. Especially in my own writing!

 

[Reaver]

One of my biggest pet peeves that seems to repeat itself is the majority of main characters who are "Nordic" types...you know, the ones with "faces like sculpted ivory, beset with eyes of sapphire, framed by luminious golden tresses". Or anything similar to that except that their hair or eye color may vary. That type of limited scope really bugs me. I also dislike stories with far too many POV's..for example, (and I may be making some enemies by saying this) Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth Series..chiefly after "Blood of the Fold". I mean, how many POV's were in those books? I lost count. Anyone agree? Disagree?
But I digress...those are my main pet peeves with mainstream fantasy fiction.

 

[DameiThiessen]

I know what you mean...but I did it on purpose for that fact. xD Traditionally the four cardinal directions are all associated with the four elements, which are all associated with the four temperaments (or the "four functions" in personality psychology).

South - Fire - Instinctually motivated
North - Earth - Sensually motivated
West - Air - Intellectually motivated
East - Water - Emotionally motivated

I think we've all fallen into this trap because of the effect Classical literature and mythos has had on Western civilization. The west is "civilized" and "good" because it represents our reasoning mind, and the east is "exotic" and "bad" because it represents our irrational mind. People from the north are down-to-earth hard working types that revel in creature comforts, and people in the south are wild and live like animals.

Just something to think about. ;P

 

[Devor]

I know what you mean...but I did it on purpose for that fact. xD Traditionally the four cardinal directions are all associated with the four elements, which are all associated with the four temperaments (or the "four functions" in personality psychology).

South - Fire - Instinctually motivated
North - Earth - Sensually motivated
West - Air - Intellectually motivated
East - Water - Emotionally motivated

I think we've all fallen into this trap because of the effect Classical literature and mythos has had on Western civilization. The west is "civilized" and "good" because it represents our reasoning mind, and the east is "exotic" and "bad" because it represents our irrational mind. People from the north are down-to-earth hard working types that revel in creature comforts, and people in the south are wild and live like animals.

Just something to think about. ;P

I have a map which cuts the edges through Eurasia, puts the US in the middle, Europe to the East and China to the west (it's a terrible map except it's view of the Pacific). Not sure if that means anything.

 

[Ravana]

Perhaps because we progress to the "right", east tends to be the positive and west, "left" is the negative. North has such symbolic characteristics like the North Star, north represents "Up" versus south, etc. etc.

At the risk of prolonging a specific aspect of what I think Telcontar intended to be a more generalized discussion… keep in mind that you're viewing this as an inhabitant of the northern hemisphere. Polaris doesn't mean a whole lot to people in Australia or South Africa, for instance: the world seems to rotate around the south pole to them. (Though I imagine Sigma Octanis doesn't mean a whole lot to them either.) And if south is your "up," then the west is on your right.

Also, putting north at the top of the map is not only purely a convention, it isn't even all that old a convention. From the fall of the Roman Empire, up to at least the Renaissance, world maps produced in Europe generally put east at the top of the map–which seems irrational to modern scientific knowledge, since there is no "east pole"; it made perfect sense from a religious standpoint (even if it did put Asia "above" Jerusalem…), and to people who weren't mapping an entire globe. Some very good Arabic and Chinese maps put south at the top… in spite of both those lands being in the northern hemisphere. (In the Chinese case, at least, it's probably because their earliest magnetic direction indicators were designed, for whatever reason, to indicate south–another convention: lodestone actually points to both poles at once; it's humans who choose which direction to regard as the "toward" or "away" one. Possibly the Arabs were imitating this.)

So I'd say it's institutionalized, definitely–but it isn't necessarily an obvious thing to do.

 

[Elder the Dwarf]

At the risk of prolonging a specific aspect of what I think Telcontar intended to be a more generalized discussion… keep in mind that you're viewing this as an inhabitant of the northern hemisphere. Polaris doesn't mean a whole lot to people in Australia or South Africa, for instance: the world seems to rotate around the south pole to them. (Though I imagine Sigma Octanis doesn't mean a whole lot to them either.) And if south is your "up," then the west is on your right.

Also, putting north at the top of the map is not only purely a convention, it isn't even all that old a convention. From the fall of the Roman Empire, up to at least the Renaissance, world maps produced in Europe generally put east at the top of the map—which seems irrational to modern scientific knowledge, since there is no "east pole"; it made perfect sense from a religious standpoint (even if it did put Asia "above" Jerusalem…), and to people who weren't mapping an entire globe. Some very good Arabic and Chinese maps put south at the top… in spite of both those lands being in the northern hemisphere. (In the Chinese case, at least, it's probably because their earliest magnetic direction indicators were designed, for whatever reason, to indicate south—another convention: lodestone actually points to both poles at once; it's humans who choose which direction to regard as the "toward" or "away" one. Possibly the Arabs were imitating this.)

So I'd say it's institutionalized, definitely—but it isn't necessarily an obvious thing to do.

Something that makes me more irritated is how the the layout of cultures of fantasy worlds tend to imitate real world cultures. Sorry that was a terrible way to say it. What I mean is that in every fantasy book I read (ok, not every one) there are desert nomads in the south, either big, viking-like raiders or big barbarians to the north, and Chinese people to the east. (They may not say "Chinese" but come on.)

So, I created my northerners. Then I came here. I saw all the realism threads, and I rethought my culture.

"Well, I guess it'll be really cold..."
"*groan* They'll have to wear furs, won't they?"
"They are on an island where it's cold most of the year. What will they grow?"
"Oh no... I guess they'll have to *gulp* raid for food."

The scene ends with the sound of glass shattering in my head. So, I thought about it and came up with something similar to what you said, Ravana. I was going to put the poles in the East and West and design the world off of that, but then I realized that that isn't really changing anything, just kind of rotating it. So I kept my pseudo-norsemen, though they do have many differences.

 

[Devor]

So, I created my northerners. Then I came here. I saw all the realism threads, and I rethought my culture.

"Well, I guess it'll be really cold..."
"*groan* They'll have to wear furs, won't they?"
"They are on an island where it's cold most of the year. What will they grow?"
"Oh no... I guess they'll have to *gulp* raid for food."

The scene ends with the sound of glass shattering in my head.

It's not well understood why the Vikings raided, but it wasn't for food. If anything, they raided in winter and returned to their crops by spring. Most of the old Norse people were farmers, just like everywhere else. Otherwise they couldn't, and wouldn't, live there at all.

 

[Telcontar]

Actually, I very much like that the topic has stuck with tropes relating to geography. We've had discussions on others already, and this one is often overlooked, I think.

...but then I realized that that isn't really changing anything, just kind of rotating it.

I did this as well, sort of. When I realized that my wonderful map was falling victim to all these conventions that annoy me, I basically just flipped it vertically - north for south, south for north. It's actually quite astonishing how much it disoriented me at first. There may even be something to be said for keeping to those conventions, simply to avoid disorienting your readers for too long - I think they'll get used to it soon enough though.

world maps produced in Europe generally put east at the top of the map

I've seen some of those maps. I've also seen one with West at the top, where it was fashioned so that Europe looked like a man (a robed Wise Man type guy). Took me a second to find it, but here it is.

 

[Elder the Dwarf]

It's not well understood why the Vikings raided, but it wasn't for food. If anything, they raided in winter and returned to their crops by spring. Most of the old Norse people were farmers, just like everywhere else. Otherwise they couldn't, and wouldn't, live there at all.

I stand corrected... but hopefully you understand my point.

 

[Devor]

I stand corrected... but hopefully you understand my point.

Of course. I didn't correct you just because you were "wrong," although it is an error I wish people wouldn't make, but I was genuinely hoping it might help you with your northerners. It does rather play into the topic pretty well, though. It's a convention much like the ones Telcontar mentioned. Most likely, though, the Vikings started raiding for the same reasons we see pirates elsewhere, a few warriors found themselves without a war and a subculture sprung up around them.

To bring it back to your point, these conventions do present a problem when we realize how much geography does play into the creation of the real world. People talked elsewhere about why the Mongols were successful in the regions they thrived in, but broke down when they reached the forests of western Europe. Had the Native Americans had horses they would certainly have broken past the stone age and become every bit as "civilized" and "imperial" as the Europeans. These things work in reverse. The more we build real-world restraints into our countries, the more they often start to look like real places.