History in Fantasy

[littlemissattitude]

History is boring. Its male politics and war and fame. That doesn't interest me as reading material. Real history would be about normal people.

In my view, history is the ultimate soap opera. It all has to do with who did what to whom and why. I think it would be interesting to know (if we had the records) just how many pivotal events in history happened the way they did because someone was feeling spurned by a lover, or because someone had a headache when he or she had to make a decision, or because someone did something out of spite or just to show that they would do it.

And, the thing is, all those people who made history (the famous, the infamous, and the anonymous) were real, normal people. They all put their shirts or dresses on one arm at a time, they all had to go to the loo (or the outhouse) a certain number of times a day (sorry, but it's the truth ), they all loved and hated just like you and I all do. Okay, so some of them had the power of life and death over many others. Some of them had more material possessions than you or I could even begin to imagine.

The problem is that history classes, and many history books, have a hard time communicating this well. It is partly a problem of available time and space. Especially in survey classes, the instructor has to cover certain names and dates and concepts in an hour's time a few times a week for a semester or a term. And no author can cover everything within the pages of a particular book. But part of it is just the difficulty of imagining people who lived long ago and cultures that were in some cases very different from the ones we live in as being real. Get over that hurdle, and history becomes much more interesting very quickly.

Edit: for clarity.

[kiwimac]

History is fun!

We live in a world defined by history. Yesterday's politics informs tomorrows world and we ignore that history at our own peril, ISTM,

After all we can only learn from history if we take the time to be informed about it, eh?

Kiwimac

[dwndrgn]

I agree that history is a wonderful tool for learning, unfortunately quite a bit of history is interpreted by people differently and that makes it difficult to tell what actually happened, what actually caused it to happen and so on. We can only assume so much. And furthermore, our ideas and thoughts about history keep changing as new information is found.

As far as using history in novels, the reader (at least this one) only needs enough to understand the motivations of the characters. Too much more and you feel as if you are sitting in a classroom listening to a lecture. Some authors get this and others don't.

Surprisingly, for being such a verbose author, Robert Jordan does the history bit well (IMO) in the Wheel of Time series. He should take a lesson from himself for the rest of his story...

[brian]

Something I need as well isn't simply the history behind character motivations, as much as an actual world history that explains why so-and-so events are actually occuring.

and rarely does any history have a single immediate cause. Which is the precise conundrum for an author plotting a proper history - to what degree do you reveal the overall picture?

[littlemissattitude]

To the degree, I think, that it leaves the reader informed but still asking a few questions. Yeah, I know, it is hard to know quite where that is. But the thing I like best is being given just enough historical information that I can speculate on cause and effect chains and on what might be going on in the future of the plot. I don't want to know everything, but just enough to wonder what else there is to know.

I don't know if that makes any sense. Sorry.

[Wiglaf]

Personally, I think that just enough history to make characters actions understandable is the best starting point. If you have the skill, you can make allusions to a few other "historical" events to convey a sense of depth. For example, "Eventhough the sword was dull and rusty, brandishing it made him feel like Gwarond, slayer of the seven dragons." Gwar has nothing to do with the story. All we know is that he apparently killed seven dragons but, he provides a sense that there is a whole world beneath the story as well as providing an example of a hero the protagonist can identify with.

[Who's Wee Dug]

In some of Moorcocks Von Bek books the history behind it alludes to the 100 hundred years war in Europe.

[Manarion]

Reality is taking a turn for the worse. That's why books are out there.

Personally, I'm not really sure if history DOES have its place in fantasy. Maybe to a very limited amount it does, but like I said, reality is taking a turn for the worse. Why write something as far out there as fantasy if you're going to bother making it realistic in ANY aspect?

[ice.monkey]

Well if you don't do your own world building and don't have any history for the backdrop of your fantasy then, in effect, you're world stealing. Brooks says he doesn't world build and that's obvious as the settings for the books I've read of his are completely unoriginal and, in truth, stolen from someone elses efforts. This was the main reason I only read a couple of his books when I was in my early teens and then went looking for original fantasy, not plagarised.

If you spend time on the history of your world it does show through in the book even if you don't info dump. Your vision is clearer and the level of detail can be higher which makes for a more immersive experience for the reader.

Like a lot of things, you don't have to go to the effort of building your own world and creating its history. But it'll show through if you don't and from my own experience I've found books where the author has spent some time creating his own world, mythos and history far better than those that don't.

[pyan]

Hi, IM! Nice to see you back! *waves across the Water*

Originally Posted by ice.monkey

Brooks says he doesn't world build and that's obvious as the settings for the books I've read of his are completely unoriginal and, in truth, stolen from someone elses efforts.

To be fair, he does admit this, unlike some I could name (C-r-s-o-h-r P-o-i-i, anyone?), and he has made an effort to develop his world from the early Tolkienesque beginnings.

Originally Posted by ice.monkey

Like a lot of things, you don't have to go to the effort of building your own world and creating its history. But it'll show through if you don't and from my own experience I've found books where the author has spent some time creating his own world, mythos and history far better than those that don't.

Absoluteiy, IM - the more you put into the framework, the more solid the final edifice, and the more you and your reader will believe in it. Stories with a back history always seem more realistic to me.

[Jigoku Neko]

History is an integral part of any story and it has to pop up sooner or later. i don't mean that on page 237 the author should kill the action and start prosing about the 1000 generations of glorious royalty and the 100 wars of the past. it would be enough to insert some little facts that would convince the reader that the people in the story did not just drop out of the sky; they were molded by the environment around them which in turn was shaped by the current world's history.

the same goes for culture. in many stories the general populace seem to be lacking in artistic pursuits. that sounds like a boring place to be, sort of like an ecomonic symposium for middle management. there should be renowned storytellers, famous stories and bits of gossip, paintings and/or sculptures, buildings and whatnot.

if the author cannot be bothered to prop up a decent background for his/her story then i'm sure s/he'll muck up the rest too.

[Manarion]

Originally Posted by ice.monkey

Well if you don't do your own world building and don't have any history for the backdrop of your fantasy then, in effect, you're world stealing.

Which is why I said that history might have a limited place in fantasy. True, a world completely without may look plagerized, so it could-and usually IS-a good idea to provide SOME background about the land. Too much, however, draws away from the plot and, frankly, could put a reader to sleep faster than Valium.

[ice.monkey]

Hi, IM! Nice to see you back! *waves across the Water*

*waves back* Thanks Py. It's good to be back...again!

Too much, however, draws away from the plot and, frankly, could put a reader to sleep faster than Valium.

Couldn't agree more Manarion. Divulging the history, or any other aspect, of the setting should be avoided if it does nothing to forward the story. If you want to provide the reader with the history then there are appendices (if you can get away with them these days) or bring out a book titled 'The History of..'. If you've got a fanbase, it'll sell.

[Alurny]

I always found Terry Brooks good at incorporating the history through the various druids.

I think history greater immerses the reader in the world. I enjoy getting a nice background as to why an event is so significant etc.

[Manarion]

Originally Posted by Alurny

I always found Terry Brooks good at incorporating the history through the various druids.

I think history greater immerses the reader in the world. I enjoy getting a nice background as to why an event is so significant etc.

Personally, I prefer character development to draw me into a story, and it's also my strong point during writing. My backgrounds and history usually aren't worth crap, but I think I do fairly well with character development. Which probably explains why I've fooled people into thinking I was a girl for over three months on Materia Magica...

No, I WON'T go into that.