fantasy: worlds / settings without humans!

[iansales]

Courtship Rite, Donald Kingsbury

[ice.monkey]

And we're a lot closer to spiders than we'd be to something that evolved on another planet (or, most likely, in another dimension). There may be some similarities, but they would be limited to fairly basic things connected to survival; once you get into the complex emotional stuff they're likely to be vastly different.

Now as we've yet to encounter life from or on another planet, this is a huge assumption to make. It could be just as likely that they'd resemble us as not. And why would they be vastly different emotionally? Although some would like us to believe that our emotions separate us from animals, more recent research shows that animals can and do feel many emotions as we do. Why would that be a quirk unique to this planet?

Why would they be limited to fairly basic things connected to survival? You could argue that that is also true of us!

Having no humans in a setting would allow you to explore motivations, emotions and themes in a way that you couldn't necessarily do if humans were there. But, they could still be close to humans. As Lenny noted above:

The body of the main character is but a shell. With writing, it doesn't matter what shape, species, race the main character is - if it's developed in a way that we can understand (ie we read their thoughts, their emotions, see them change through the book as they go into situations, leaving them as a different 'person'), then the main character can be a Cthulu, and no-one should care in the slightest.

[iansales]

I think it's in John Brunner's The Whole Man that he proposes (jokingly) that spiders could be alien since they cause an almost universal fear and horror among people.

[iansales]

Which reminds me... I don't think Colin Wilson's Spider World novels feature any humans. But I may be wrong. I read one years ago, and it was pretty forgettable...

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by ice.monkey

Now as we've yet to encounter life from or on another planet, this is a huge assumption to make. It could be just as likely that they'd resemble us as not. And why would they be vastly different emotionally? Although some would like us to believe that our emotions separate us from animals, more recent research shows that animals can and do feel many emotions as we do. Why would that be a quirk unique to this planet?

Why would they be limited to fairly basic things connected to survival? You could argue that that is also true of us!

No, it really isn't a huge assumption at all. It's simply the outcome of a different environment, something which is more likely to be the case than not. The chances of having a) an earth-like environment; b) the various events that produced life here coming together in exactly the same way there; c) the various events that led to the dominant life-forms developing the same emotional associations, thought-patterns, and reaction-response patterns as we have ... not to mention the different biochemical and genetic patterns, all of which play a part in psychology ... the probability of all these and other factors coming together to produce something like human emotions, as complex as they are, is basically nil. Animals have analogous, but not identical, feelings. They are close enough for us to see similarities, but they are NOT the same. They do not have the complex overlay of the higher brain functions that modifies them the way our emotions do, for one thing. I've long been a proponent of the fact that animals do have emotions, feel pain, etc., and should be treated with respect accordingly... but they really are not the same emotions. And where they are closest to us tend to be areas which are very basic, coming out of either survival or pleasure/pain responses. Yet they evolved here on this planet, exposed to many of the same influences and pressures as we were. A lifeform evolving under circumstances even slightly different will have a vastly different set of experiences and pressures than us; the emotions would differ accordingly. Who and what we -- and the other lifeforms that share our planet -- are, is the result of very specific and local causes, including the makeup of our planet itself, its distance from the sun, the type of sun we have, the amount of atmosphere, etc., etc., etc. All of which influence the development of brain-and-gland functions such as thought and emotion. (And, on a physical level, this is one of the major flaws with fantasy set on different worlds: horses, cows, etc. The likelihood of humanoids, or of any of the creatures we know from our little planet, evolving elsewhere to exactly such forms, is so vanishingly small as to be ludicrous. But various writers have set them there, nonetheless.)

This is one of the problems with presenting realistic alien life-forms: getting inside the head of something that is alien. We (quite naturally) anthropomorphize, as human reasoning and human emotions, human motivations, are what we understand most easily, and in fact all we can really understand (on any more than a very vague abstract level) emotionally. When it comes to emotional responses, any reading we give to other creatures is filtered through our own emotional coloring; our own bias, if you will. Presenting a truly alien creature, as was long since proven, would be impossible; we are simply not capable of imagining something we haven't encountered in some form. All our imagining is a distortion of some experience we've had; our minds simply aren't capable of anything more than that; which is why nearly all fictional aliens are so easily understood. They really are only humans with a few tweaks emotionally, no matter how alien their appearance -- and even there it is something that relates to things we know. Try imagining a genuinely alien appearance... something that has nothing whatsoever to do with anything you've ever encountered. It can't be done. We combine, we transpose, we alter... but at base, it's something we know. The genuinely other is beyond our abilities to imagine. But life, if it exists out there, is as likely as not going to be of such an alien sort... so much so that we very well might not realize it was life at all -- yet that would not in the least mean that it isn't; just that we're too limited to see it.

Now, that's why I made the statements I did about the problems with having non-human characters. If you want to know the advantages and drawbacks, then this is one of the drawbacks. It's one that's popular, as the majority of readers do anthropomorphize; it's more comfortable. As for Lenny's statements... they really reinforce my statements: we tend to "humanize" non-human charaters. His choice of Cthulhu is a particularly infelicitous one, as Lovecraft's (not his imitators') creations are seldom human in motivation. There is so little common ground that we don't understand their motivations, their emotions (if they even have such, which is debatable), their psychology, any of it. Since we see them through the filters of other characters' emotions, the narrators often assign motives to them, but even there this is done quite shakily, and -- like the mythologizing of his alien beings -- done to show how we can't reach beyond our own experiences to truly grasp the alien. This is why Lovecraft's creations are never characters -- they are phenomena that the human characters encounter, but they remain removed from us emotionally and psychologically at all times.

This is not, however (as I indicated) to say you can't do fantasy with non-humans. You can people the stories with any form of life you like, whether it be animal, vegetable, or mineral; you can make some accommodations for the difference in form so that their responses aren't quite what most people would have to any given situation; but at base the reactions will still be human. That's a long-accepted convention of both sf and f. Exotic such lifeforms may be... alien they really are not. And, if you want your work to be successful, that's almost certainly better so. As I said above:

So I'd base it on whether or not you're wanting the prototypical fantasy creatures, or something of your own. Either way, you can have them react in understandable human terms, but it tends to be more successful with those we've learned through the millennia to accept in that way; a new creation would need much more of the difference to make it believable -- and that opens up other story possibilities, as the reader gets to understand the psychology of this species enough to feel comfortable in their skin.

It really depends on what you want to achieve -- the more traditional type of fantasy, or something a bit different. Either way, the motivations and emotions will be humanocentric; but I think it's wiser, if you're going to avoid using elves, dwarfs, trolls, giants, gods, etc., to attempt to have something a bit different emotionally where you can, to set them off from the stereotype. It also opens up, as I say, more storytelling possibilities, as your readers become aware of these new creatures, and learn to live inside their skin -- one of the attractions of sf and fantasy (think of the way White did with the lad's training in The Sword in the Stone, where he became different creatures; or the Moties in The Mote in God's Eye, etc.). This also makes them more memorable (if done well) because they are exotic, they don't blur into the thousands of other creatures peopling fantasy, but stand out on their own. So base it on what your story needs, and go from there. But as for your argument about life elsewhere likely resembling us... no. Possibility? Yes. Probability? Zero.

[ice.monkey]

j.d.

I want to start off by stating that I really don’t want this thread to become a debate on science vs. religion, or on the validity of psychology, etc. I just want to expand the outlook a bit; broaden the horizon!

The chances of having a) an earth-like environment; b) the various events that produced life here coming together in exactly the same way there; c) the various events that led to the dominant life-forms developing the same emotional associations, thought-patterns, and reaction-response patterns as we have ... not to mention the different biochemical and genetic patterns, all of which play a part in psychology ... the probability of all these and other factors coming together to produce something like human emotions, as complex as they are, is basically nil

What you say above is all well and good if you’ve bought into the current ‘think’ on where emotions, etc. come from. However, it has yet to be proved categorically that this is the case, so you’re then making assumptions about life on other planets based on the theories noted above. There are other theories as where emotions come from; one being that you are more than just a body and are, in fact, a spirit. This is you and this is where emotions come from. Others believe in a higher being that has had a hand in the manufacture of this universe. Therefore, it’s composition isn’t as random as science would have you believe and the likelihood of ‘aliens’ being similar to us increases.

So you can’t categorically state that the chances are nil. Heck the psychologists, etc. can’t even categorically state for you exactly what causes emotion. Not long ago it was all due to chemicals in the brain, but recently a lot of that has moved over to genetics! Who can say they've got it right this time?

Animals have analogous, but not identical, feelings. They are close enough for us to see similarities, but they are NOT the same.

Again, actually an assumption with no hard evidence. If you knew my two dogs you’d be hard pushed to prove that their emotions aren’t the same as our. Fear? Looks the same to me!

Presenting a truly alien creature, as was long since proven, would be impossible

Nowhere has it ever been proven! For one, no one can say what a truly alien creature is!

But as for your argument about life elsewhere likely resembling us... no. Possibility? Yes. Probability? Zero.

Again, you’ve based your conclusion on the current theories presented by contemporary science, but these are incomplete. Based on the information you have, I can see why you came to that conclusion. However, science has a good history of proving itself wrong and a lot of the current ‘think’ on our origins, etc. may well be overturned in the future. My point is not that they don’t make a good case, but that it isn’t absolute; it hasn’t been proven fully. So if you factor in the possibility that they might be wrong, it changes the whole outlook. Plus SF and F is the greatest medium for exploring the unknown and possibilities! And we may have to agree to disagree here.

As for your comments in your final paragraph (last sentence excepted!), you’ve given me food for thought – thanks!

[Lenny]

Originally Posted by JD

[Lenny's] choice of Cthulhu is a particularly infelicitous one

I just picked a creature out of nowhere, to be honest. I've never read anything by Lovecraft.

So, of course, I have to pick one of the creatures that has very little in common with humans.

I'm sure you know what I meant, it's just that my example of a creature was way off.

[j. d. worthington]

Yes, Lenny, I rather thought that was the case; I picked up on it because it is a good example of the other. No offense intended.

ice.monkey -- I hadn't intended to pull the thread off-topic so badly. That second post was addressing your comments, rather than the original thrust of the thread. While I'd love to debate the issue, it really isn't all that germane to your original question. Again, my apologies for pulling things 'way off the beam!

And, as I said, it really depends on what you want to do with your story as to what sort of creatures you use. My main point in bringing this whole aspect into the discussion was to point out possible pitfalls and also some options on how to go with non-human creatures as characters; ways that may help make them more memorable because they are rather different in their reactions, while still being understandable and empathetic. Just be careful not to make them "second-class humans", as it were; give them their own individuality apart from, and I think it would make a lot more sense and also be more in tune with such an environment and story ... otherwise, you may as well be using humans. (I don't think that you were going that far with it from your other comments; this is just a general observation.)

At any rate, I don't think it's a bad thing to not have human beings as characters, or not to have any humans involved... for telling a story, it can and has been done countless times in sf, and no few in fantasy. Best of luck with it, however you proceed!

[pyan]

Originally Posted by Lenny

I just picked a creature out of nowhere, to be honest. I've never read anything by Lovecraft.

So, of course, I have to pick one of the creatures that has very little in common with humans.

I'm sure you know what I meant, it's just that my example of a creature was way off.

To coin a phrase, yer can say that again!
And if you're having Redwall, I suggest The Tale of Jemima Puddleduck!

ice.monkey: the Chanur books, which are basically a telling of the reaction of an alien culture to the discovery of the existence of humans, are possibly closer to what I perceived as the original thrust of your thread than some of the other suggestions made, which can tend to the substitution of "aliens" into human roles, rather than being alien in themselves: certainly the k'nnn and the t'ca in them truly think in a way completely different to humankind.

[ice.monkey]

j.d.

ice.monkey -- I hadn't intended to pull the thread off-topic so badly.

You actually hadn't pulled it off 'so badly'. However, the route that our discussion was taking could've! So I just wanted us to say our piece and return to the main thread, so thanks for abiding by that request!

I got the main thrust of your posts and they've given me something to think about, so thanks for the replies.

And thanks to everyone else for their input. It would appear that having a lack of humans in a setting is no bad thing - you've just got to take care in how you're going to present your non-humans and how they're going to 'think'!

[chrispenycate]

Ah, if I'm allowed science fiction; I thought I was restricted to "fantasy" in the traditional sense. Off the top of my head , there's a Sawyer series starring dinosaurs, and a Brunner (the tides of time?) with inflatable lifeforms, neither of which have any contact with humans whatsoever. Simac's City (post human) implies the past existence of humanity, and I've read a fantasy where dragons debate the nature of a long extinct human race, but all that requires a potentiality of humanity at some point.
And which Hal Clement has no humans? Thinking through the "case of gravity","cycle of fire" etc list (yes, I could have looked them up, but was feeling lazy) they all have their token human, the contrast.

But fantasy is less into stretching our minds far enough that we can tie them in a bow round our necks, and more into consequences of actions, so, on average, it's non-human characters are symbols of either humans or (like Johnathan Livingstone Seagull) particular human aspirations or characteristics; a long and honorable tradition going back to the dawn of the very humanity you're trying to exclude from the stories.

[High Eight]

I don't think there are any humans in Brian Aldiss' Heliconia trilogy.

[GrownUp]

There are a few fantasy books, for both children and adults, that are set in a world of cats. There are humans about, in the periphery, you know, the same whay there might be trees in the distance.

Like Tad Williams' 'Tailchasers Song'.

I keep bringing that book up in different threads for different reasons. I'm going to have to think of more examples.

[Steffi]

The Edge Chronicles don't have any humans in them.

[littlemissattitude]

Raptor Red, by Robert T. Bakker. All the characters are dinosaurs.

I haven't read it, but it got some good reviews, I believe. And, as a palaeongologist, Dr. Bakker surely knows his subject.