Grittiness, realism, honor, and the life in the middle-ages

[williamjm]

Anyway, that doesn't answer my 2 questions. What are good accessible books to learn more about medieval life (It seems Pillars of the Earth is quite accurate in this respect)?

I thought Pillars of the Earth was a reasonably entertaining read (particularly the cathedral-building bits), but if you're hoping for a book showing the Middle Ages that isn't full of murder, rape and incest then I think you'll be disappointed. To be fair, I don't remember any incest in it but Follet seemed unable to write a chapter featuring the main villain without having him rape someone. It does feature some historical events in it, but I'm not sure the portrayals of the Battle of Lincoln or the murder of Thomas A Becket are really what you're looking for if you want a non-violent medieval novel.

[Darth Richard II]

So, we want a non violent fiction medieval novel that is historicaly acurate? o.O

[Bolivar]

Ivanhoe.

[Green Gogol]

So, we want a non violent fiction medieval novel that is historicaly acurate? o.O

Not at all. Just wondering if the argument that gritty is more realistic is true. From my point of view, no. But then i haven't lived in medieval time.

[Bolivar]

That's why I mentioned Ivanhoe. Not only did it inspire ASoIaF, it was able to capture the complexities, contradictions, and character of medieval life without being any more violent than, say a Disney movie.

[SeanF]

I thought Pillars of the Earth was a reasonably entertaining read (particularly the cathedral-building bits), but if you're hoping for a book showing the Middle Ages that isn't full of murder, rape and incest then I think you'll be disappointed. To be fair, I don't remember any incest in it but Follet seemed unable to write a chapter featuring the main villain without having him rape someone. It does feature some historical events in it, but I'm not sure the portrayals of the Battle of Lincoln or the murder of Thomas A Becket are really what you're looking for if you want a non-violent medieval novel.

Ken Follett is a very entertaining writer. But, in general, his characters are late 20th century Men and women in medieval costume.

Prior Philip is the exception and his chapters are best.

[dietl]

Not at all. Just wondering if the argument that gritty is more realistic is true. From my point of view, no. But then i haven't lived in medieval time.

The world is a pretty diverse place. You have ugly things like spiders, poo and those things they put into fast food. There is violence, hate, lies and betrayal. Those things are realistic. But is iit more realistic than friendship, love, compassion? No. Because its not about what is more real, but where you lay your focus in your story.

Many fantasy books show just one side of life. "Good" people doing "good" things and "bad" people doing "bad" things. People got used to this over time and want to try something new. Showing "good" people being forced to do bad things and bad people turning out to be not so bad after all. There is nothing more to grimdark. It's a trend to show another aspect of life which some feel has been neglected before in the genre. The realism argument is most of the time only cheap excuse.

I don't really know what you are looking for in history books. Some acknowlegement that you are allowed to dislike gritty if it isn't realistic or you have to concede that its a good book if its resembles certain events in history? You don't need a reason not to like a book, just as you don't need an excuse to like one. Be honest to yourself and say it if gritty is not your thing. Everyone with more than half a brain will respect your likes and dislikes and won't call you a sissy for not having the stomach for scenes with detailed rape, torture, blood, shit, black semen or whatever.

[Ouroboros]

Ivanhoe.

Walter Scott used a lot of what would be considered outdated information today when writing Ivanhoe. A lot. It is not a bench mark for realism.

[Green Gogol]

It is not that I dislike gritty. I have enjoyed the first three books of asoiaf. Not so much the two last but it had more to do with the books going nowhere imo. No it's just that i find gritty to be not particularly realistic, but i saw it being justified because it is more realistic. And I want to find out if it is really what it was like in the middle ages or if it is mostly based on urban legends abot the middle ages.

[Darth Richard II]

Ivanhoe?

I love that book, but its about as historicaly acurate as The Sword in the Stone.

[Ouroboros]

If you're looking for straight history books I know of a few that are good starting points.The High Middle Ages by John H Mundy. Very readable, entry level book that covers a broad spectrum of peoples and places. One of the few that doesn't dwell too much on big 'events' and Great Man History in favour of looking at broader concepts and society. It's a tad dated in place, but still mostly accurate.

Do keep in mind that the term 'middle ages' really covers a huge tract of history, and that there is a clear divide between pre-12th century 'middle ages' and post-12th century. Mostly due to a huge influx of information brought about by the Crusades, creating massive trade networks the connected the Arabic world to the European. Also the Black Plague was a major catalyst for change, arguably beginning another distinct era and shift in what we call the 'middle ages'.

Also its well worth studying as many different cultures as you can, just to remind yourself that the laws and customs are radically different based on region as well as period. The laws of medieval Venice are radically different from those of Aquitaine or Scotland. Europe has never been a cultural monolith. It has always been a very diverse place. Kingly dynasties comported themselves in different ways, had very different relationships with their vassals and the 'common folk'. Very few if any were what we'd call an absolute monarch.

[Errant Bard]

Since you read french, you might be interested by this interview of a known medievist, the comments have a good number of good book references on the subject that interests you.

[Happy Ent]

_{I just have trouble believing that morality is a modern discovery and that before our own fabulous age, life was unimaginably horrible.}

Morality is not a modern discovery. The morality of our ancestors valued things like loyalty, honour, and strength. These were good things. Read the Old Testament for many examples of this. Mind you, there are plenty of societies left today that still cling to those values.

But the big picture is that these values become less and less important, and are replaced by values like restraint, openness, compassion. These are modern values.

I just finished Pinker’s The Better Angels of our Nature, which contains a very comprehensive historical overview of how these values have changed over time.

Some of us don’t like literature where modern values appear in pre-modern contexts, because it hinders our suspension of disbelief. (For some reason, dragons and magic aren’t a problem for us.)

Others like reading about modern values in other contexts. I can’t see a problem with that preference either. It’s a valid literary preference (that I just don’t share.)

Still others like reading about pre-modern values that don’t lead to pre-modern societal outcomes. For instance, we like reading about honourable Ned, but don’t like the idea that his job was to kill his sister (who slept with somebody else than the man he betrothed her to.)

[Richard]

Just wondering if the argument that gritty is more realistic is true. From my point of view, no. But then i haven't lived in medieval time.

You don't need to. Just book yourself on a flight to Syria.

Then ask yourself how impressed you'd be with a rip-roaring adventure novel set there called Assad - Sword of Truth, in which a courageous President stands firm to protect his ailing nation from evil invading hordes.

See the problem?

[SeanF]

It is not that I dislike gritty. I have enjoyed the first three books of asoiaf. Not so much the two last but it had more to do with the books going nowhere imo. No it's just that i find gritty to be not particularly realistic, but i saw it being justified because it is more realistic. And I want to find out if it is really what it was like in the middle ages or if it is mostly based on urban legends abot the middle ages.

Two novels I'd recommend are The White Company and Sir Nigel, by Conan Doyle. GRRM is a fan of both.

[Lord of Rhinos]

Still others like reading about pre-modern values that don’t lead to pre-modern societal outcomes. For instance, we like reading about honourable Ned, but don’t like the idea that his job was to kill his sister (who slept with somebody else than the man he betrothed her to.)

Have never heard that interpretation of the Tower of Joy. That would be quite shocking if it was confirmed in later books.

ETA: I understand you're not necessarily advocating this theory, merely stating it would be a logical outcome of medieval honor.

[Westfold-II]

I don't think grittiness has it wrong, but it's also a judgement, and it's a difference whether you want your story to portray that judgement, or prefer judgments about other though maybe related matters. It's certainly not "the realistic view of the world", historical or otherwise. It has to fulfil a certain quota and type of occurrences, in the author's own voice and with his strengths and weaknesses, in a more or less completely fictional context (imagine).

Looking at something like Beowulf, it seems to me that idealism was a means to cope with the brutality of life, and cope with life it seems you have to, rather than as something which would let brutality catch you unawares. It seems idealism was always a way to advance culture as much as it was causing additional hardship and bloodshed. Of course, the complexities and the grittiness are beginning there, and if nothing else it's a good source for dark humour, but you have to account with human nature in a good or sensible way too, or in a way which is simply not based or interested as much in dramatic action and escalation.

[Ouroboros]

Still others like reading about pre-modern values that don’t lead to pre-modern societal outcomes. For instance, we like reading about honourable Ned, but don’t like the idea that his job was to kill his sister (who slept with somebody else than the man he betrothed her to.)

Why do you think this would be the medieval reaction? Adultery was pretty common in medieval Europe, and not a crime punishable by death - at least according to the non-secular courts. Pre-marital and adulterous activity was certainly a crime during the period (and even today in certain societies) but by no means was it considered grounds for execution. Both canon and secular law punished honour killings quite severely in Latin Christian/Western Europe. It could lead to confiscation of property and a ban of re-marriage or in extreme cases it could lead to execution or excommunication of the murderer. Certainly there was no moral obligation on family to kill an adultress, though they would be encouraged to disown her depending on the period.

A Song of Ice and Fire is actually a really bad example of medieval life in multiple ways, outside the argument on Ned killing Lyanna for adultery. Mostly the fact that Westeros' morality is not based on Christian morality except in the shallowest ways, it is almost entirely secular with religion playing little role in the government and lives of the powerful, excluding 'fanatics' like Stannis and his foreign religion, and religion only really appears as cultural window dressing. There are no powerful bishops or clerics outside the 'pope' stand in, no religious holdings outside tiny estates that have no impact on the plot, for instance. No one struggles with the morality of their actions in terms of trying to maintain both an earthly and spiritual life, which was a moral problem that is discussed at length in medieval texts. Very few struggle with serving two masters, their lord and god, as medieval people often did.

Culturally, Westeros shouldn't be used as an example of 'medieval' life.

This is one of the problems with 'medieval' fantasy, or at least of reading it. It isn't history, it isn't meant to be history, but some readers (not suggesting any people here are in this group) come away from it thinking the events, cultures, etc are applicably historical when in a lot of ways they're not.

Also, in regards to how 'gritty' the European medieval period was. When taken in a historical scale it was actually one of the most peaceful periods in European history. Average life span went up from the Roman period and warfare had the lowest percentage of civilian casualties -ever- in the regions history, that's including outliers like the Crusades, which were probably the bloodiest and most 'remorseless' engagements of the medieval period.

[Green Gogol]

Why do you think this would be the medieval reaction? Adultery was pretty common in medieval Europe, and not a crime punishable by death - at least according to the non-secular courts. Pre-marital and adulterous activity was certainly a crime during the period (and even today in certain societies) but by no means was it considered grounds for execution. Both canon and secular law punished honour killings quite severely in Latin Christian/Western Europe. It could lead to confiscation of property and a ban of re-marriage or in extreme cases it could lead to execution or excommunication of the murderer. Certainly there was no moral obligation on family to kill an adultress, though they would be encouraged to disown her depending on the period.

A Song of Ice and Fire is actually a really bad example of medieval life in multiple ways, outside the argument on Ned killing Lyanna for adultery. Mostly the fact that Westeros' morality is not based on Christian morality except in the shallowest ways, it is almost entirely secular with religion playing little role in the government and lives of the powerful, excluding 'fanatics' like Stannis and his foreign religion, and religion only really appears as cultural window dressing. There are no powerful bishops or clerics outside the 'pope' stand in, no religious holdings outside tiny estates that have no impact on the plot, for instance. No one struggles with the morality of their actions in terms of trying to maintain both an earthly and spiritual life, which was a moral problem that is discussed at length in medieval texts. Very few struggle with serving two masters, their lord and god, as medieval people often did.

Culturally, Westeros shouldn't be used as an example of 'medieval' life.

This is one of the problems with 'medieval' fantasy, or at least of reading it. It isn't history, it isn't meant to be history, but some readers (not suggesting any people here are in this group) come away from it thinking the events, cultures, etc are applicably historical when in a lot of ways they're not.

Also, in regards to how 'gritty' the European medieval period was. When taken in a historical scale it was actually one of the most peaceful periods in European history. Average life span went up from the Roman period and warfare had the lowest percentage of civilian casualties -ever- in the regions history, that's including outliers like the Crusades, which were probably the bloodiest and most 'remorseless' engagements of the medieval period.

Thank you for the info. That's useful information and really interesting. You seem pretty knowledgeable about the medieval period. Perhaps you can give me some more info. Was rape really common? And stealing. How were the serf treated? What about treason and scheming for the nobles? And what about sexism and the role of women?

[Ouroboros]

Thank you for the info. That's useful information and really interesting. You seem pretty knowledgeable about the medieval period. Perhaps you can give me some more info. Was rape really common? And stealing. How were the serf treated? What about treason and scheming for the nobles? And what about sexism and the role of women?

That's a shit load of questions with a whole lot of complicated answers. I'm not a professional, just an enthusiast too. Don't take my words as gospel, go study it.

But rape, that's an easier one to answer. It was disturbingly common on peasant women, so much so it wasn't even classified as a crime or sin a lot of the time. Rape on a higher class woman though could range from being punished with an enforced marriage, a claim of adultery if one of the participants victim or victimiser are already married (which depending on the period would see the woman punished, or the man. This is one that really comes down to the prejudices of the overseeing officer of the court and the popularity of the individuals involved), or just a straight up crime of rape in some places, which had punishments ranging from castration to execution.

There was no single, universal code of law in this period. Again, as I said earlier we are talking about a shit load of places.

Even in a single kingdom like England, laws were often set at the local level so crimes and punishments could vary considerably. 'Strong' monarchs often curtailed this independence - Edward the Third created the office of justice of the peace to try to enforce universal legal codes for his kingdom, which was seen as a gross violation of feudal rights at the time as it gave peasants a second court of appeal above their traditional land owning overlord - it gave them the ability to petition the king (or at least his appointed representative) directly to intervene in local disputes. This was just an enforcement and codification of earlier efforts by British monarchs to move towards a unified legal code, primarily those set forth by his grandfather Edward the First.

Stealing could be punished with anything from immediate execution via hanging, removal of a hand, or being marked with a 'thief's brand' across the back of the thief's hand or face. Social ostracization was used as a legal punishment a lot of the time. People would be publicly shamed or marked for their indiscretion. In the most extreme cases they would be marked an 'outlaw', which actually means they are outside the protection of the law, making them free game for anyone to attack or perform otherwise illegal acts on. You cannot commit a crime against an outlaw by the very nature of their status.

A lot of these questions are very much dependent on time and circumstance, so there are a lot of answers, some of the contradictory because we are talking about time spans of hundreds of years between one example or another.

Women is a tricky subject. Different cultures treated women different. However, there has always been a strong tradition of female mystics in western Europe. Women had some freedoms of vocation, some knightly orders permitted the membership of women. We know of women who were educated at some of the most elite universities of the period. Female medical practitioners, poets, warriors, philosophers. The study of women in the middle ages is an ongoing effort that is revealing more and more stuff.

Again, using A Song of Ice and Fire as an example, we are probably seeing a more restricted world in regards to women than is true to reality. Our preconception of the middle ages as an oppressed society of suffering women isn't necessarily incorrect, but its only the fraction of an image. There were many independent, celebrated female minstrels and troubadours for instance. I can name several women who held political offices that had military authority in France and England, and women who played direct, combat level roles in warfare.

Female life was never restricted to just popping out babies and doing what they were told, with a side order of beatings if they disobeyed. Barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen wasn't the order of the day. They were encouraged to become educated, to get involved in mental, martial and physical activity, even if at the end of the day they were considered the 'weaker' sex. It was no doubt a very uncomfortable life for women who wanted real rather than just nominal independence, but they could and did walk a fine line to achieve something close to it in the frame work of those societies.

In the history of the crusades an Islamic commentator makes note of how forthright and bold 'Frankish' women (Frank being the catch all term for western European, though they start to distinguish Germans in later chronicles) are in their behavior. He also makes note of the women they found among the soldiery, taken as prisoner on the field or only found to be so after the corpse was stripped of arms and armour, which horrified the Muslims on discovery. This is of course speaking primarily of noble women, though I'm sure many of the female soldiers in the crusades may have been common born.

Really, people spend their entire lives studying this stuff. Trying to pack as much as I've learned into one discussion is a bit much and I'm generalizing a lot. You're better off doing your own research and coming to your own conclusions.