History in Fantasy

[Citadel]

I am into world-building. Over the last few years I have been creating an indepth world, (in my few free moments). I can see why it is often ignored, or just written over allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions on what the history of the 'world' is. World building is hard. It takes great lengths of time to set down and build up the gods, the religions that in the book itself may clash with the character whereupon changing the whole map the writer has in mind, making up times sheets and wars and harsh winters that evolved the world, plague years or perhaps famine or too much rain that killed the spice trade on the east coast that then killed the villages on the west- I mean, setting down and building history is an enormous and complex task. I could go on.
TSR has stumbled upon some of this problem itself. At the first, it was easy to just start somewhere in the life of a cleric and take that flashpoint of his TIME and Era and just write it in. But, as more and more writers have travelled the same world, the same highways, the same seasons, and their wars and triumphs have overlapped the fringes of other writers, the stories are now going back and writing about the life of these present day adventurers and saying that it is now time to see how they were earlier on.
Writing in the sharedworlds is a dream of mine. Someday, I may send them a query again as I did like nine years ago. My favorite writer of all times was once a writer I once hated-R A Salvatore. He has taken the painstaking tale of the Dark Elves and written every breath that their people have ever really taken. The tale of Drizzt caught me and I could not put the The Dark Elf Trilogy down for a year.
History makes a story if the artist takes the time to delve into it.

[Giovanna Clairval]

The Black Elf trilogy is a good example of excellent world-building. The reality of the setting makes it one of the best YA fantasy novel I have ever read. Every person to whom I lent the books (aged from 12 to 22) came back for more—and was disappointed by the following installments (but this is another story).

Salvatore delved into every area: the strange geography and eerie beauty of the caverns lit by phosphorescent fungi, the gigantic lizards, the different species living in the dark, the social system (a horrible and hyper-violent matriarchal society—well, it's a guy's fantasy…) and the cult of a vengeful spider-goddess. The whole is perfectly believable in its consistency.

No info-dump there, only details brought to life when needed, and allowing the readers to imagine themselves in the new world. Never too much, just brushstrokes.

This is the secret: leave the readers—just a tiny bit—hungry for more information.


And the world's history gives depth to the plot. Once, the black Elves…

[bruno-1012]

One of the examples i give to non-readers of why fantasy/sf writing is so much more challenging is the need to incorporate geography, history and socio-political make-up into a story and make it interesting.

You do need these elements to round out a world and make it believable. Add in the logic of magic in that world and you have a lot of background to give.

History can be used to describe the reasons for allies and enemies being created and the interaction between countries and people.

[brsrkrkomdy]

History is fascinating when you learn something you've not heard before just when you thought you got it all figured out. But mythology is far more fascinating than history.

For several reasons, history is dry, clinical, far too precise evidence-wise, and it's often not without bias. You've all known the story from the conquerors. It's the story from the conquered that's more interesting. In other words, truth is relative in regards to one's, namely the historian's, interpretation of the facts.

Legends, folklore, and mythology don't bother themselves with facts and figures too much. All it comes down to is a good story. And yes, there's often nuggets of truth found in the stories, if you know where to look.

World building is all well and good when drawing up a whole new mythology but let's not get bogged down on the story that's striving to get told. A reader like myself doesn't want to see useless details cluttered up between book covers.

Just my two idjits.

[yellowbird2525]

it really depends on the story; The Dark Elf Trilogy is an excellent example; So is Dune & so is Anne MacCaffrey's Pern series with the dragons. On the other hand, the dragonlance books were good as well; So is Gene Wolfe's style of writing which is decidedly different from all of the above & I like them all; So***in response to your question: if the story is good, who cares how much history or non history is involved in the story?

[Hilarious Joke]

I'm thinking of starting a brand new story without any planning, just going straight in and writing. I intend to flesh out the details about the world, characters, history, culture, etc. as the story requires it, and making sure I keep track so that my story is consistent.

Anyone tried this approach? Or am I crazy?

[Manarion]

Originally Posted by Hilarious Joke

I'm thinking of starting a brand new story without any planning, just going straight in and writing. I intend to flesh out the details about the world, characters, history, culture, etc. as the story requires it, and making sure I keep track so that my story is consistent.

Anyone tried this approach? Or am I crazy?

That's how all mine go....huh, maybe that's my problem....but I've tried planning and outlines and those never get off the ground as I never seem to be able to start a story from them....

[Hilarious Joke]

Lol, Manarion you were the last person on when I left yesterday afternoon and you're the first person on I see when I arrive this morning. I respect that!

[Sar]

Originally Posted by Hilarious Joke

I'm thinking of starting a brand new story without any planning, just going straight in and writing. I intend to flesh out the details about the world, characters, history, culture, etc. as the story requires it, and making sure I keep track so that my story is consistent.

Anyone tried this approach? Or am I crazy?

I think that is a great idea. History, cutlure, language, ect. will naturally have to come out when you are telling a story. You'll have to be patient though, because it will take a lot longer to write a story without the background already thought out.

As to the initial question: There has to be balance. If a story lacks history it is boring just the same as if it has too much history.

[Hilarious Joke]

Hey Sar, good advice!

[The Procrastinator]

History is really the study of everything, or it should be. I see history as the flesh and bones of a character. If you describe a person you won't be describing those inner parts but you should be aware of them, because they will inform all the movements that character is capable of. I'm talking about personal history here, but also the larger scope of the development of a civilisation and culture, which touches us all whether we know it or not. Everyone comes from somewhere and has been influenced by certain things - good characters will have this kind of depth, and a good backdrop needs these touches of "reality" - I think a good writer can get this across without raving on ad nauseum. It is a matter of balance, and on the whole I think it rewards subtlety - you are writing a story after all, not a history.

[Tobytwo]

I think it depends on the skill of the writer. Many bad fantasy novels are simply the same deck of cards shuffled a bit and then badly described. In bad fantasy novel X elf-king Y uses magic sword Z to defeat... and in bad fantasy A dwarf-king B uses magic axe C to defeat... that sort of world building I don't care about, as it's usually as interesting as the Warcraft manual.

However, when done properly and with skill it can be really interesting. I'm quite happy to see a good deal of real world history creep in, even if caricatured. A well-created history that mirrors the attitudes of the characters can be extremely interesting, even if it is fairly generic (Tad Williams' stuff springs to mind). Good history used sparingly gives a book a sense of being solid and real, even if that reality contains magic and dragons.

[chopper]

Originally Posted by Hilarious Joke

I'm thinking of starting a brand new story without any planning, just going straight in and writing. I intend to flesh out the details about the world, characters, history, culture, etc. as the story requires it, and making sure I keep track so that my story is consistent.

Anyone tried this approach? Or am I crazy?

yep. to both questions.

that seems to be my M.O. too, i'm afraid. as i'm writing the New Epic i get flashes of ideas and bits of history/culture/geography spring up into it. the bugbear of that is making sure its all consistent all the way through. and i'll bet even Terry Brooks had to go back & do that at some point, when his editor said "about this bit that doesn't make sense..."

[Hilarious Joke]

Phew, for a second there I thought I was sane .

By M.O, do you mean modus operandi? I should use that phrase more often.

Yeah consistency is tricky. I'm writing a story with a friend (we're up to 9000 words) and we sort of had a hiatus from it and are getting back into it and its been tricky for me to make sure I'm being consistent.

[ironvelvet]

On the rare occasions when the ideas leave my head and make a bid for freedom via a keyboard I always grind to a halt over the petty details of whichever world I'm dreaming about.
For instance- the naming of days and months. Ours have various roots, usually from Greek/Roman/Norse mythology. When the story is about a fantasy world why would the days have the same names? Why would days last 24 hours. Why would there be a moon or moons and if they exist why would they affect the tides. Why need rocks be heavy or water wet. Why do characters eat and sleep? And what words do they use to curse and why?
Naturally I grind to a halt once this destructive pattern sets in, so too much attention given to context can definitely be death to creativity.

However the posts that have smugly referenced character development as their preferred fictional driving force are winding me up.
Dis-ingenuous naivety is annoying
Why are the characters developing? Because stuff - political, economic, social 'events'- are happening. QED

Also I don't know why Terry Brooks is being name-checked so much. Tolkein lifted alot of his context from old and middle english sagas and even the great original Terry Pratchett references eastern religious creation myths - Hindu I think.

Ultimately to be gripped by a story the reader has to be given enough history/context to be able to identify with the characters and their travails. Writers can't afford to be too original or they'd never sell.