History in Fantasy

[Quokka]

Originally Posted by 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?

How many historically important or famous people acted without knowing the full story? I think sometimes not knowing all the reasons at the time helps to create a feeling of urgency for the reader, encourages them to empathise with the characters and it can lead to nice moments of revelation later if things become clear later down the track. Of course there's always a certain amount of things that anyone who lives in a place would be expected to know and that's sometimes hard to reveal to the reader in ways that are original and consitent with the story.

Personally I'm a bit over world building at the moment but so much of it is decided by the individual story and done well it's great. I love the feeling of depth that books like the Malazan series, Dune etc have but it's all to easy to go overboard and have the reader get lost in dozens (or hundreds) of side characters and events happening miles away from the protagonist/s, again it's a book by book thing. Robin Hobb's Six Dutchies and Live Ship Trader series kept a fairly tight focus on the characters actions and yet imo you're still left with a good impression of the world as a whole.

It's such a balancing act but personally I'm finding at the moment that I'd rather read about a character's personal experiences then the events that shape countries and worlds.

One thing I think is really important whether you're writing an epic or a one man show is consistency, I love books that have little comments and clues through them that tie everything together and help create the feeling that even though you're only seeing one view of it there is a very real world around them. It's the sort of thing that really stands out, and can add a lot of enjoyment to, going back to reread a story. So even if the world building is research that doesn't always get into the book verbatim it can still add a lot to a story.

[Hilarious Joke]

Yeah I agree with you Quokka.

Though in the story I'm writing with a friend, I just started a bit of an info dump section. This is because so much has happened already I think the reader needs some background. I'm worried though about how well this will work, but inspired by Hobbs little excerpt from the start of each of her chapters in the Assassin and Tawny Man trilogies.

And on a side note, writing without a history is a bit tricky sometimes, but writing without a map seems even harder!

[JoanDrake]

I didn't read all 4 pages here as I don't have time so I'm very sorry if I repeat what someone else has said.

Theodore Sturgeon once said that the way to describe in a story is to see the setting the character is in very thoroughly in your mind's eye and then just go ahead with the action. That way you should naturally put in just enough of the right description when required. (Well... it worked for him, but then he was talented)

I think this might work for world building in a way. See the world very thoroughly in your mind's eye and then move your characters about in it without worrying about description as such.

Incidentally, I thought this thread was about combining history with fantasy. I just love that.

[ushumgal]

Originally Posted by nightwalker

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.

Many people share this attitude about history, and I think it's created by the way history is usually taught in schools, with a clear focus on dates and battles as the important info to know. As others have mentioned, that can't be blamed entirely on teachers - they are, after all, usually obliged to stick to a curriculum largely created by politicians - but I've had my share of terrible history teachers.

History taught right is quite another matter - history is full of interesting people and interesting events, and it should be taught in such a way to let these personalities shine through. Some periods in history make this easier - for example, all the classical authors allow us to come up with pretty nuanced pictures of prominent people of the era, but in my period, ancient Mesopotamia, the records tend to be much more dry and impersonal. But read with due care, plenty can be gleaned even from that.

There's also a common refrain saying that history is all about men - this is not true. Histories tend to be *political* histories, and since, in most cultures, women did not play nearly so prominent a role in politics as men, we naturally hear more about men's actions. It is a product of the cultures that we study, not of the biases of the historians who write about it. Indeed, when female rulers show up, such as Hatshepsut, Semiramis, Cleopatra and the like, historians often play is up as something novel.

Anyway, I'm all for world building. A well-crafted and believable world as a backdrop adds much to the richness of a story. But it must never overpower the story itself - it should remain just that, a backdrop. And the characters should be true to that world. I've always been a touch annoyed when authors assume people 500 or 1000 years from now will necessarily think and act just like modern westerners. They should consider that westerners of only 100 years ago had a vastly different civilization...so how much is it likely to change in future centuries?

I think the best example of mixing history and fiction are the novels of Patrick O'Brian - yes, they are very detailed, but they make the past seem to come alive, rather than just dumping modern people in an extinct society.

[chopper]

Originally Posted by Hilarious Joke

And on a side note, writing without a history is a bit tricky sometimes, but writing without a map seems even harder!

hell, yes.

that's the first thing to happen, for me - i'm lost without the map....

[Rosemary]

I have usually enjoyed most Historical Fantasy books. Favourite authors would have to be Edward Rutherfurd and Ken Follett.

These stories do not use too much history but mainly to set the storyline.

One thing I don't like is getting an historical fact wrong.

[Lioness]

I also love historical fiction. Edward Rutherfurd is excellent imo, and I also enjoy mediaeval fantasy/fiction.

Fantasy story wise. I like the worlds to have some history, it adds depth to the story and makes it seem more realistic.