The primacy of history
Daniel Abraham attacks the idea of historical authenticity in fantasy:
Read the rest at the Black Gate.
The idea that the race, gender, or sexual roles of a given work of secondary world, quasi-medieval fantasy were dictated by history doesn’t work on any level. First, history has an almost unimaginably rich set of examples to pull from. Second, there are a wide variety of secondary world faux-medieval fantasies that don’t reach for historical accuracy and which would be served poorly by the attempt. And third, even in the works where the standard is applied, it’s only applied to specific, cherry-picked facets of the fantasy culture and the real world.This is a fascinating assertion. We need less authenticity in fantasy? Let's begin by looking at Abraham's three initial assertions. First, history does not have "an almost unimaginably rich set of examples to pull from". In fact, those of us who study history either professionally or on an armchair basis tend to be impressed by the way in which the historical patterns tend to repeat themselves. For example, the economic notions of the Mongol ruler Gaikhatu Khan, whose issuance of paper currency in 1294 promised reduced poverty, lower prices, and income equality, eerily prefigured both the General Theory of John Maynard Keynes as well as most of the Federal Reserve statements since 2008. Granted, neither Bernanke nor Geithner met with the unfortunate fate of the Khan's chief financial officer, but as they say, history rhymes rather than repeats.
Read the rest at the Black Gate.
Labels: Black Gate, writing
51 Comments:
It seems a little much ado about nothing - the underlying theme is probably "not much original writing going on" and so people kvetch about not having distractions from the plot that somehow jive with current political events.
As far as historical accuracy, I don't think many authors understand the equipment much (thwapping the guy on his breast plate with a sword and he falls dead like he's been poleaxed), and I don't think many people think that much about magic (I think Gary Gygaxx (sp?) thought about it more than most authors).
Speaking of which, anybody remember a couple fantasy books, one had to do with a young novice mage working for a cruel demanding wizard, and he ends up making friends with a demon? And another SCI FI where a young guy gets pressed into a space pirate outfit, and runs around with them doing raids here and there. One of the main characters was a semi metalic giant. ? (only 30 years'ish since I read these, time flies...)
The first one is the MYTH series by Robert Asprin. Skeeve and Ahz. I don't know the second one.
I don't follow the Black Gate discussions - why does anybody think that epic fantasy series need to adhere to a European backdrop?
why does anybody think that epic fantasy series need to adhere to a European backdrop?
They don't. But they have to if they're going to effectively utilize medieval trappings.
It's axiomatic that fantasy actually has no requirement for any level of authenticity. Some can work, none can work, a little can work and a lot can work. It's fantasy after all. One thing I was struck by on my second or third reading of Thomas Covenant was how unlike any historical setting the land actually was (granted, my first reading, Faux-Medieval Europe (FME)).
I think the problem here (at least in some cases) is the reader projects FME where FME is not warranted.
I thought his Naria example was spot on.
Cherry picking things from history and then jumbling them all together with no logical coherence seems to be the problem more than inaccuracy. As you pointed out it is laziness not historical ignorance that plagues modern fantasy.
Asian women jousting? It's not realistic or historical, but could be believable and a good story if done correctly.
"Why does anybody think..." you ask? Because they express the myths and archetypes of our people and thus continue, deepen and enrichen our culture. Themes like loyalty, honor, heroism, fealty, oath keeping, chivalry and the like are proper subject matter for our children and youth to reflect upon.
Others may want to impress submission (Islam) and jihad upon their youth and the eternal hellfires for not submitting, and I am sure such stories are more appropriate for them and their children. But my people prefer our own.
Although, by all means write what suits you. America is a free country for (most) authors.
Ignoring historical norms is a sure way, in a pseudo-historical background, of telling your readers to "piss off" or seeming like an author is trying to be some moronic preacher of the cult of stupidity. Only a few authors do that successfully, and it isn't through a direct insult to the intelligence of the reader but by explaining the anomalies, or leading the reader to the basis of the anomalies (which generally tend to make the seeming inaccuracy edible, usually through mainstreaming the anomaly with tradition through a melding). I've pretty much stopped reading for a number of reasons. One of the biggest is the idiocy of writers who try to use whatever category they write in as a pulpit of the modernist, soon to be proven out, inanity.
Women didn't fight wars, a few lead in a few areas for short periods of time, anomalies. Women weren't kings, they were queens, and the dynamic was quite different, queens depended hugely on their advisors (and were more apt to create police states). Don't mess around with the basics unless you can explain it. Just like sci-fi to simply suspend the notion of gravity, the need for humans to breath oxygen, or producing light speed or faster. If it defies logic and isn't at least roughly explained with some detail the book simply becomes unreadable. Which, to my notions, most have. Modernist crap sandwiches...
Couldn't the answer be a simple as that you need some common ground to connect with the reader? How else would a reader connect with a wholly made up 9th dimensional universe where sentient interactions vary depending on what dimension the interaction took place in.
Harry Potter, sorry it's the first thing that comes to mind, is a fantasy, but has planes, trains and automobiles, and pubescent teens. A story without some kind of hook to the reader isn't going to get read.
Hmmm, two sources suggest that the introduction of paper money was such an unmitigated disaster from the outset, because people refused to use it. Thus, it would seem to me that it was very different from the current situation.
One of those sources is Wikipedia, which I routinely discount, except in narrowly technical areas (like, the instruction set of the 8086 or SCSI commands etc). The other, however, seems more reliable:
The Islamic World to 1600: The Mongol Invasions etc from U Calgary.
One instigator for the change was Arghun's brother, Gaykhatu, who succeeded him. Eager to make a name for himself as an Il-Khan, Gaykhatu introduced paper money from China into Islamic trading circles. Islamic merchants in the Il-Khanate refused to accept the unrecognisable new money, however, and trade came to a virtual standstill. The experiment was such a disaster that Gaykhatu was forced to abandon it after six months, and the ensuing rebellion ousted him from power in 1295.
So, it seems that it was not rampant inflation brought on by an instant oversupply of money (or even some inflation), but rather, refusal to use the new-fangled type of money that was the problem.
However, perhaps there are other sources that disagree with the above. I am really interested in this topic, because I tend to agree with your general claim about history rhyming.
Abraham actually does make some good points about why historical accuracy may not be important for some fantasy settings, even if they're superifically based on medieval Europe.
I think there's an underlying issue here, though, which is that Abraham doesn't like others building illiberal sympathetic characters or worlds, maybe even especially when they're based on actual societies, and wants them to stop doing it. Sure, he brings up the (great) Narnia example once, but the rest of the time he's moaning about things like a lack of diversity and strong independent black women.
Leftists just can't stand it when their beliefs are not held to be supreme. The idea that the hero of a story is not some anti-racist, feminist, and gay rights loving vegan is a slap in the face to them.
The idea that a writer could want to write a story that has no room for a amazonian warrior woman and her lesbian co-hero who fights against the evil white king on behalf of a gentle and more advance species is completely alien to them. In their mind every story should be a propaganda piece to showcase the superiority of leftist belief and they really can't comprehend why anybody would want to read anything else.
hey vox, off topic, but have u heard about the whole dan savage fiasco?
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/120429/dan-savage-speech-conservatives-denounce-gay-aut
From the Blackgate comments: "And if it isn’t historically accurate, but is well written, engaging, good characters and maybe has something to say about the human condition, why wouldn’t that be all right?"
The laziness on the part of the author for historical accuracy tends to carry over into other realities. Like believable character interactions, relationships, or scenarios - things which the author more than likely never experienced. And most likely, the latter deficiency informs the former. Is probably the reason for the old Russian literary proverb; "I want to live, to think, and to suffer."
Basically, the argument for the lack of authenticity is an excuse for bad writing. And the bad taste which keeps it afloat.
Granted, neither Bernanke nor Geithner met with the unfortunate fate of the Khan's chief financial officer
Their stories are not yet complete.
Give it time.
The only thing important in fiction is that which helps you tell the story. Everything else is nonsense. A good story well told can be either realistic or fantastic.
That is not to be confused with errors... which I think people confuse with a story being "unrealistic".
If you make a mistake that takes the reader out of the story to think... that's unrealistic... the problem isn't realism, it is just a mistake that distracts from the story.
Most people won't even be aware of the historical inaccuracies and even if they are who knows how many would care. This ignorance and apathy allows for writers to be lazy, but then again if the audience doesn't demand accuracy is it the job of fiction writers to try teach them?
Daniel Abraham: "The Middle Ages, for all their many faults, also included Moorsh[sic]Spain where religious tolerance and civilization flourished."
-takes off mask
"And we would've gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling Christians."
"The Middle Ages, for all their many faults, also included Moorsh[sic]Spain where religious tolerance and civilization flourished."
The myth of tolerant Andalusia:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/04/andalusian-myth-eurabian-reality.html
Islamic Spain was very tolerant, if you ignore the constant massacres, enslavement, pillage, forced conversion, and subjugation of Christians and Jews.
From Richard Fletcher's Moorish Spain:
"The witness of those who lived through the horrors of the Berber conquest, of the Andalusian fitnah in the early eleventh century, of the Almoravid invasion- to mention only a few disruptive episodes- must give it [i.e., the roseate view of Muslim Spain] the lie. The simple and verifiable historical truth is that Moorish Spain was more often a land of turmoil than it was of tranquility...Tolerance? Ask the Jews of Granada who were massacred in 1066, or the Christians who were deported by the Almoravids to Morocco in 1126."
"It's for the children."
"It's for the greater good."
"It's for the general peace."
"It's for your comrade."
Really, quoting Jihadwatch?
Wasn't Christianity so much better for the Jews? Majdanek, anyone?
"Wasn't Christianity so much better for the Jews? Majdanek, anyone?"
Oh good gravy, not this again.
Are all liberals this stupid?
Jihad watch or no, the history is what it is...
My area is Jewish History and Here is the way it I see it....
Muslim Spain was better for the Jews than Visgoth Christianity which proceeded it.
When Almoravids took over Spain it was bad for all non muslims
The Catholic Christian Reconquista was briefly good for the Jews (as there were Jews on both sides of the conflict) until the forced conversion and expulsion in 1492.
Jewish scholars fled Christian conquest and resettled deeper in muslim lands... Generally life was tough if you were a minority
Like all societies in the middle ages tolerance toward the non majority was dependent on who the local prince was... and could change every generation. Some stand out as particular brutal and heavy handed (like the Almoravids and Ferdinand and Isabella)
My area is Jewish History and Here is the way it I see it....
'Was it good for the Jews?'
How...um, surprising. Navel gazing as narrative.
I make no apologies for knowing my own history... you are free to study yours. Better to contribute what you know than what you think you know (and don't really)
BTW it was alauda that brought up the subject of the Jews.
From Khan to Cohen. Turko-mongolian schemes to ripping people off with few realizing it has become a high artform, perfected by ... turko-mongolians again like Geithner, Bernanke, et. al.
From Khan to Cohen. Turko-mongolian schemes to ripping people off with few realizing it has become a high artform, perfected by ... turko-mongolians again like Geithner, Bernanke, et. al.
BTW it was alauda that brought up the subject of the Jews.
Mentioning the jews is always relevent when the topic involves marxism, international finance, or illicit human organ trafficking among many other subjects.
Um, no I didn't. He brought it up when he was talking about "how awesome Christian Europe was and how bad it really was in Arab Spain."
Doesn't have to be true to real history, but it does have to be internally consistent. Also has to be aware of human nature, how it has played out over the ages, aware of archetypes and themes common to culture (at least the one you are used to).
Want to have a kingdom of Amazons? Be prepared to explain how they reproduce and how they are able to stand toe to toe with men on the battlefield. Perhaps more importantly, explain why they should want to live that way.
Considering the difference in aggression and upper body strength, the Amazons are almost going to have to be a different sub species of humanity. Either that or some really radical set of environmental/cultural/magical circumstances have to be in place to make it possible.
It has to make sense internally. Dragons are less fantastic than Xena the warrior princess.
And by the way, history doesn't repeat itself, it stutters.
He said Christians and Jews... you focused on the Jews.
Also, he never said that Christian Europe was awesome, just that Arab Spain was not all that tolerant.
Muslim Spain was better for the Jews than Visgoth Christianity which proceeded it.
When Almoravids took over Spain it was bad for all non muslims
The Catholic Christian Reconquista was briefly good for the Jews (as there were Jews on both sides of the conflict) until the forced conversion and expulsion in 1492.
I suspect that the Muslim conquest of India was pretty bad for those Hindus who ended up dead as well. Not to mention all those Greek boys in Constantinople after 1453.
Is it really the case that the Jews only think about what is good for the Jews?
It was a far sight better than anything else in Europe.
Is it really the case that the Jews only think about what is good for the Jews?
No, that is not true. Was that a serious question?
Rapey McRaperson?
Dude, you about broke my funny bone.
I hope Wangsty got a chuckle out of that...
Alauda said: It was a far sight better than anything else in Europe.
That is correct.
This is probably more relevant to today.
When I first heard this back in 1976, I did not realize that it foretold the future (of 2008).
Fantasy...historical...it's all fiction. Whether or not a book is worth reading depends on the merits of the author. However, readers who prefer fantasy fiction over historical are more easily pleased, I'd say.
Fantasy/fiction transcending into reality?
What published work, gives not only the bibliography (listing), but the entire bibliography (page for page)?
and
Some science fiction, transcending into science fact. Stargates and flying disks anyone?
"It was a far sight better than anything else in Europe."
Two questions: The Bukharan Jews; and the fatwa against Sunni Mongols by Sunni theologian (and a bin Laden ideological favorite) ibn Tammiyah - were (and are) these aberrations within Islamic countries, or is there a recognizable pattern here.
"So, it seems that it was not rampant inflation brought on by an instant oversupply of money (or even some inflation), but rather, refusal to use the new-fangled type of money that was the problem."
The early use of paper money was in China. Perhaps the Muslims didn't use it because they heard about the massive inflation in China.
There are roughly three sorts of medieval fighting woman, although all are extremely rare. There are aristocratic widows (Jeanne de Montfort, Mathilda of Tuscany, Aethelflaed of Mercia); there are women who fight in defence of their homes (the most organised of which are the Hussite peasant women of the Bohemian Crusades); and there are the exceedingly rare cases of multi-sex judicial duels (although the man in such a duel usually had a physical handicap to make the fight fairer).
The problem of fighting women in pseudo-medieval fantasy isn't that they didn't exist, it's that they're misunderstood - by and large because the feminists, by their nature, want women to be men; and the Devil take biological, historical or social realities.
Which is why I prefer to stick to reading my Alfred Duggan novels.
Vox nailed it. One of the reasons I don't enjoy fantasy as much anymore is that you end up with humans not acting the way humans act.
Warrior queens don't last long. Neither do warrior women. Our current denial of human nature is an oddity, not the new norm. Projecting it to the ages before is maddness.
Roundtine said:
"So, it seems that it was not rampant inflation brought on by an instant oversupply of money (or even some inflation), but rather, refusal to use the new-fangled type of money that was the problem."
The early use of paper money was in China. Perhaps the Muslims didn't use it because they heard about the massive inflation in China.
I need to look at the Chinese example you point to, but I suspect that the problems the Muslims had were more to do with tradition and etc.
In any event, it might well provide better support for the general claims.
It should be noted that any currency system, eg, coins with precious metals in them, can be debased and cause inflation. The Romans did that over time.
It is just that paper currency makes it so easy.
The problem really is government itself.
I know everyone here knows this, but it bears repeating anyway. Women are a lot weaker than men. It often takes a year of training for a woman to squat her body weight, and many women will never bench their body weight. Most medieval fighting men (never mind women) couldn't effectively use a military-grade bow. Fighting with men in field armor with heavy field weapons is inconceivable for a woman.
Guns are something of an equalizer, of course, as are foils (though women are still significantly slower and weaker and foils aren't a medieval weapon.) But overall, the "medieval warrior babe" is really an insane modern idea that can only exist in the minds of people who've never been punched in the nose.
But overall, the "medieval warrior babe" is really an insane modern idea that can only exist in the minds of people who've never been punched in the nose.
In addition to being weaker, less effective fighters, one might say that women were too valuable to waste on fighting. At least historically speaking.
> The problem really is government itself.
The problem is really human nature, as manifested in government. :)
> ...one might say that women were too valuable to waste on fighting.
Bingo.
In addition to being weaker, less effective fighters, one might say that women were too valuable to waste on fighting. At least historically speaking.
That gets to another problem with historically incompetent fiction. You can't just change one aspect of society and have everything else stay the same. A society with medieval european mortality rates and modern european birth rates would die out pretty quickly, even if there wereen't neighboring hordes ready to invade. Shoot, places like Italy and Japan face cultural extinction even with modern mortality rates.
Other aspects of society change too. Look at American culutre before and after Women's suffrage.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home