History in Fantasy

[brian]

Here's a curious question - the nature of Fantasy writing in itself is escapism, so realism can easily become discarded. But how real should be the worlds that are constructed?

For example, I remember well reading the Dragonlance novels in my teens, and consciously noting that the world being fought for had absolutely no culture of it's own - it lacked any form of identity that you may find in the real world - there was no history, no art, no religion or philosophy - no general sense of culture whatsoever. And Terry Brooks has published a handful of letters on the internet where he applauds himself for not bothering with world building.

Now, there are other writers out there who make an attempt to give their worlds an identity - time is taken with the world-building. But the question is, how much should be revealed to the reader?

In other words, how much of a novel should mention anything about a history or culture of the world being explored? Especially when the direct application of such knowledge may not be immediately apparent to the more immediate plot?

Just asking...

[dwndrgn]

Well, in a word, enough.
In order to understand who, what, why and where you have to have the background. Of course, there are those authors that go overboard and lose sight of the story for the background (ie: Robert Jordan)

[brian]

Personally, I'd love to be able to go overboard and include lots of my own world history for my writing.

History, properly told, is more incredible, more stimulating, more exciting than any novel. Truth really is stranger than fiction.

[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.

[brian]

LOL! My girlfriend says similar things - says that's what set her against caring about the subject in school. I only really developed an interest in the subject when tracking down historical realism for my own writing. I agree, though, that there's too much emphasis on political history.

Humans are more complicated than that - I lvoe seeing and reading about daily life. There's also cultural history, such as the arts and society and religion - all of that is what I try to put into "Chronicles of Empire". Even still, I've probably over done it a little. No doubt a lot will be snipped. Hopefully not too much.

[teddyrux]

History and background and detail in a story is great, if it's done right. It has to be necessary in most cases. I know there are exceptions and let's agree not to discuss them. There are history books by fantasy authors: "The Silmarillion" and David Eddings has one. They read like history books.

What needs to be in the story, is enough to make it seem real. I don't care who the third king on the Soo Dynasty was, unless it's important to the story. However, it doesn't mean that you don't have to know it. It might be important.

Everyone does world-building of some sort. You don't have to draw a map or have detailed notes about the history, but you do have to know that Town X is the capital of Country Y and is located on the Eastern shore of Continent Z. Your can't rename your towns in the middle of the story without a good reason. Even this little detail is world-building and Terry Brooks does it. He just doesn't consider it world building. He does an outline and probably keeps all his milieu information in the outline.

[chronicles]

Personally, I love seeing history ni a book. But then again, I like reading non-fiction history. Not the dry essays (though I have, inadvertently, read some) - no, I like the sort of history that makes another world come alive. Anything on daily life, culture, politics, art, theology, etc.

[Arch]

I've with Teddyrux on the need for a balance. History can feed a plot line -- or kill it. I prefer the feed.

[Pluvious]

[quote author=nightwalker link=board=2;threadid=145;start=0#msg2050 date=1053634728]
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.
[/quote]

I agree! I think we should learn about people who sat around all day and didn't even try to be famous. Ambition is wrong. Actually, there is quite a bit of recent emphasis in learning about famous women.

I would prefer an author have a very detailed idea of the world created, including any history that may be pertinent to the plot or characters. Adding a little snippet of the past here and there can also add to the realism of the world. This is very important to many readers, even if they aren't aware of it. I know if I see a writer "add in" details about the past I have more faith in his/her ability to produce a truly complex world and story.

Besides this a fantasy book often deals with "world" events. If you are reading an epic it only makes sense that the past be taken into account in some way. Epics and fantasy are fairly common, and if the characters are to change the world the reader should (logically) know something about what came before this change.

[brian]

Hi there, pluvious - and welcome to the chronicles-network!

My personal theory is that, for realism, details are everything. By that I don't mean info dumps - just the common everyday little snippets of information that we take so much for granted. That's one of the hardest things to do in world-building - weaving the construction into the everyday reality of the story, IMO.

[dwndrgn]

I agree, to be realistic you have to understand how the characters are reacting to their particular culture. I also enjoy a good 'alternative history' that takes portions of our 'real' (I've quoted that because we don't know completely what the world was really like in the past - we can only make educated guesses) history and makes a major change. These what-if stories are fun to follow.

[brian]

Personally, I actually love reading history in real life - Xenophon, Thucydides, and Suetonious, are great reads. However, I can appreciate that not everybody wants to read such material. :P

[dwndrgn]

Reading usually keeps me awake - unless I pick up somthing that was written to inform. I don't know why it is. Maybe some sort of defense mechanism. All I know is that if I've got insomnia all I have to do is pick up any informative, non-fiction and the snoring begins...the only exception is art history. I can read art history until the alarm goes off.

[brian]

Btw - does anyone here read around the background material for a particular world? For example, with Tolkien - anyone actually read the Silmarillion, and other words, after LOTR??

Is the story enough, or do people thirst for more information about the world after? Or after the last page is turned the world closes with the book?

[Twelve]

I try my best to limit myself from becoming too absorbed by a book. It's dangerous for me to do so. I don't like letting myself get too much into the pure imagination of other people...it's not reality.

HOWEVER...

But I do find myself looking at the appendix, maps, and character histories of the characters in George R.R. Martin's A CLASH OF KINGS. That hasn't happened in a long time.


12