Technological Advancement in Fantasy

[Stubby]

I'm setting this up as its own thread, so as to not derail the Malzan v WOT thread. Points were made (rather forcefully by some) criticising Erikson for ridiculous timelines - and the (lack of) technological advancement - based on our own history.

Why do some readers judge fantasy worlds by Earth standards when such worlds are clearly not Earth?

The Malazan world is clearly not Earth. It doesn't have to play by Earth's rules. Why should it? It has sorcery on a massive scale, gods walking among men, uber-powerful individuals etc etc. None of that exists here.

If the author sets her story on Earth, at any stage in the future or past, then it is correct to judge the events by Earth standards. If the author creates his own world, as long as the events and history in that world are internally consistent, I see no problem.

We have no problem believing, for the sake of the story, that a world can exist with 14-year seasons. We have no issue accepting any form of magic system. We take on board ideas about philosophy, anthropological structures, life forms that metabolise in a way totally different to ours etc. We are happy to accept that trees can be sentient, inanimate items (such as weapons and armour) can be infused with souls or spirits. Ridiculous things happen in fantasy and sci-fi all the time. Thats why they are fantastical.

I don't get it. Why does the history thing and lack of tech advancement bug people so much, when we are so ready to accept other things more central to the story?

[The Evil Hat]

While I'm still unusre precisely which side I fall on with the Malazan debate, I think that the problem is exactly what you said: these things aren't central to the story. In a fantasy book, we accept that reality is changing in certain specific ways. Past that, however, we expect it to be the world that we're familiar with. In fact, the existence of magic makes it almost more important for the mundane elements to tie together. Imagine if, at the end of LotR, the volcano had become some sort of sentient dark lord. It would've been absurd. Just because the author violates reality in one way doesn't mean that they can do whatever they want (and still expect to make some degree of sense).

EDIT: I think The Long Price Quartet did one of the best jobs I've ever seen with technological progression.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Part of the problem is that magic is never employed in any economic fashion or to the betterment of society's quality of life. We rarely to never see magic being employed to even operate a similar role as technology. The society does not necessarily have to follow the same rate of advancement as our present society, but the evolutionary nature of human beings increasing societal complexity and organization should advance life at a fairly decent pace.

[Shryke]

I don't get it. Why does the history thing and lack of tech advancement bug people so much, when we are so ready to accept other things more central to the story?

Because magic is less ridiculous then the other.

The existence of magic, in whatever form, doesn't change humans being humans. It doesn't change the fundamental ideas of societal evolution and advancement.

[DrownedCrow]

Part of the problem is that magic is never employed in any economic fashion or to the betterment of society's quality of life.

This is an important point. The presence of magic is often used as an excuse for a lack of technological advancement. And yet about 99% of all applications for magic in fantasy novels are military in nature. In many series, magic has no civilian uses at all (PoN for example). I know that warfare stimulates innovation, but it isn't exactly the sole reason for inventing new things.

The other thing is that delayed innovation is so tiresomely common in fantasy. Major historical events can't seem to ever have happened just a couple hundred years ago. No, it has to be thousands.

[pika]

I always sort of thought that advancing to Industrialization seems to drag along with it a departure from Romanticist Ideals towards Enlightenment ideals. Meaning bringing it closer to being "Reality" rather than "Fantasy". Which at least for me defeats the whole point.

Maybe its because of the connotations I have with early industrialization. Strip mining, work houses, I tend to immediately think, well, Mordor.

[Stubby]

Because magic is less ridiculous then the other.

This is what I don't get. Its easy enough to say that - but why is that the case?

There is no such thing as magic here. We cannot chuck balefire at the bad guys. We have never been able to lift rocks by dint of will alone. We cannot give birth to shadow babies. These concepts are ridiculous, when viewed through the Earth lens.

The existence of magic, in whatever form, doesn't change humans being humans. It doesn't change the fundamental ideas of societal evolution and advancement.

Do you mean fundamental in the Earth sense? Humans here on Earth follow one set of advancement and rules, based on the environmental, societal and physical rules on Earth. This doesn't explain why history, tech issues and/or sociological development couldn't be different elsewhere. Again, why does it have to be the case that tech advances at the same rate as we did?

I'm quite happy to put comparisons with Earth aside when I'm reading fantasy. I don't need to have some sort of Earth-based humanity benchmark to judge things against. Its what makes reading fantasy entertaining.

It seems to me to be an odd thing to point out in a criticism of a writer. As long as the way the tech issue is kept internally consistent by the writer, shouldn't that be enough?

[Shryke]

This is what I don't get. Its easy enough to say that - but why is that the case?

There is no such thing as magic here. We cannot chuck balefire at the bad guys. We have never been able to lift rocks by dint of will alone. We cannot give birth to shadow babies. These concepts are ridiculous, when viewed through the Earth lens.

Because of exactly what I said:

These people are still HUMANS.

They can do crazy shit sometimes, but they are still humans and that means certain things. Like shitting from their butts and not spending 10,000 in medieval cultural stagnation.

There's still a TON of basis for comparison here.

[figment]

I would only say that if there were a technique to make a blade that can cut through anything or keeps a durable edge. Someone is going to find a way to use that to make money in other ways that just for swords. Be that change how stone masonry is done or advancement of manufacturing or whatever. Like any resource, humans will find a way to exploit it. If its unlimited or near about, you can believe it will be exploited for good or bad but things will not stay stagnant for long.

Having said that, I dont really care if the author wants to make a simulation or just tell a good story. I myself tend to prefer logical consistency whatever it may be and abhor deus ex machina type explanations for things. At the end of the day its up to the author and if I dont like it then I will just end up reading someone else.

[polishgenius]

It is pretty undeniable that the lengths of time in Malazan are OTT. I'm an avid fan, but I tend to skim the precise dates and I honestly hadn't realised quite how old Kallor was supposed to be - 100,000 years? Seriously. There's nothing in the words of the story that implies that either he's that old or that the CG's been around for that long- he could have made that number 10,000 with absolutely no effect on the story, probably even less. There's nothing in those years that explains the lack of change in them.

And that's people's problem with it. It's not the lack of advancement out and out, it's that Erikson's isn't always believable. There are some instances where magic or outside interference is specifically cited as a reason for lack of advancement, but not the whole world.

[Stubby]

These people are still HUMANS.

They can do crazy shit sometimes, but they are still humans and that means certain things. Like shitting from their butts and not spending 10,000 in medieval cultural stagnation.

Tell me if I've misinterpreted you.

• The author says these people are 'human'.
  
• They can do 'crazy shit' with magic, gods and demons or the like.
  
• He or she says they have 100,000 years of history at a similar level of technology to medieval Earth.
  
• That means the author fails because these people did not advance past medieval stage as we did.
  

If that is correct, its the step between point 3 and 4 that I don't get. Why, in a fantasy setting plucked from someone's imagination, does tech advancement have to parallell ours?

All I'm saying is I'm cool with it if an author sets up an alternate timeline, if thats what they want to do, as it is their work. Its not a 'fail' for the author to do that as long as they keep the story consistent with their own ideas.

And FTR: I'm not specifically targeting Malazan with this thread, but fantasy in general.

[jurble]

If humans are still human, and if humans have comparable population levels to equivalent Earth time periods, then technological advance has to occur. In populations numbering in millions, the amount of geniuses born tends to get pretty high, and innovation occurs. Like, the minimum population required for a nation to make an atomic bomb is something like 30 million, since with that amount you'd have the right number of geniuses. Australian Aborigines never developed technology because they never developed agriculture and large populations.

[MattL86]

Hmm, I think most people who have a problem with technology not advancing have a poor view of history. You can't assume technology and mankind always go forward. Hell, we still can't reproduce the Egyptian Pyramids. The dark ages are clearly a lower point in mankind's development than the classical period in virtually every field (engineering, art, warfare, health and hygiene, etc). Technology doesn't go forwards or backwards because of some natural law, it is influenced by major historical events. The loss of knowledge associated with the dark ages was the result of the fall of Rome. The eventual rebirth of society was the result largely of the Reformation (and other factors). For the last 500 years, technology has steadily advanced. But imagine what would happen if the Cold War had ended in nuclear war and mutually assured destruction? Technology and society would have taken huge steps backwards. This is all just basic stuff everyone already knows.

So I would say I have more of a problem with technology standing still. If the world is much the same for several millenia, it does seem a bit unbelievable. Typically though fantasy is set in a period of decline (WoT, ASOIAF, etc), which for me is totally believable. It actually is in keeping with most fantasies being based on Medieval Europe, a period of technological decline.

[TrueMetis]

Hmm, I think most people who have a problem with technology not advancing have a poor view of history. You can't assume technology and mankind always go forward. Hell, we still can't reproduce the Egyptian Pyramids. The dark ages are clearly a lower point in mankind's development than the classical period in virtually every field (engineering, art, warfare, health and hygiene, etc). Technology doesn't go forwards or backwards because of some natural law, it is influenced by major historical events. The loss of knowledge associated with the dark ages was the result of the fall of Rome. The eventual rebirth of society was the result largely of the Reformation (and other factors). For the last 500 years, technology has steadily advanced. But imagine what would happen if the Cold War had ended in nuclear war and mutually assured destruction? Technology and society would have taken huge steps backwards. This is all just basic stuff everyone already knows.

So I would say I have more of a problem with technology standing still. If the world is much the same for several millenia, it does seem a bit unbelievable. Typically though fantasy is set in a period of decline (WoT, ASOIAF, etc), which for me is totally believable. It actually is in keeping with most fantasies being based on Medieval Europe, a period of technological decline.

That "loss" of knowledge was localizied in europe everywhere else kept advancing. The real problem with these types of books is that the whole world is stuck in a drak age, which never happened.

[jurble]

Hmm, I think most people who have a problem with technology not advancing have a poor view of history. You can't assume technology and mankind always go forward. Hell, we still can't reproduce the Egyptian Pyramids. The dark ages are clearly a lower point in mankind's development than the classical period in virtually every field (engineering, art, warfare, health and hygiene, etc). Technology doesn't go forwards or backwards because of some natural law, it is influenced by major historical events. The loss of knowledge associated with the dark ages was the result of the fall of Rome. The eventual rebirth of society was the result largely of the Reformation (and other factors). For the last 500 years, technology has steadily advanced. But imagine what would happen if the Cold War had ended in nuclear war and mutually assured destruction? Technology and society would have taken huge steps backwards. This is all just basic stuff everyone already knows.

So I would say I have more of a problem with technology standing still. If the world is much the same for several millenia, it does seem a bit unbelievable. Typically though fantasy is set in a period of decline (WoT, ASOIAF, etc), which for me is totally believable. It actually is in keeping with most fantasies being based on Medieval Europe, a period of technological decline.

Uh we could reproduce the Pyramids, their architectural design is a geometric solid. I don't think anyone wants to. It'd be expensive, and pointless.

The Dark Ages were European. The rest of the world marched on. The Reformation didn't ->Renaissance, the plague, the collapse of feudalism, increasing trade, reurbanization, European intellectualism increasing with dudes such as Aquinas and Islamic Spain-Reconquista, and the fall of Constantinople was the cause of the Renaissance, as Greek writings flooded Western Europe from two sides. The Reformation was AFTER the Renaissance. But regardless of the state of Europe, pre-Renaissance, the Chinese, Arabs, and Indians would be very offended to hear you say no progress was made.

The Middle Ages were not a period of technological decline. Maybe it slowed a bit, and went back in some places in Europe, but Gothic Architecture would disagree with decline.

If the Cold War ended in MAD, we'd all be dead. Not backwards in tech, dead.

[Erik of Hazelfield]

Jack Vance did this in a beautiful way in his Dying Earth novels. The magic is hinted at being nothing but extremely advanced technology half-forgotten, but there's no real order to it, just random spells very difficult to remember. The wizards are eccentric, bickering old men living luxurious lives in great mansions, trying to impress each other.

I have no problems believeing a very long lack of technological advancement in such conditions.

[Ski the Swift]

Over the course of Raymond E Feist's Riftwar series's there is technological advances.

[MattD]

These people are still HUMANS.

Are they? Did the humans of most secondary-world fantasy evolve through the same twists and turns, set against the same competitive and environmental pressures, as homo sapiens did, creating the same set of instincts, the same neurological baselines, nevermind the same physiology?

A good portion of secondary world fantasy deals in divinely-created humanity on divinely-created worlds with no evolution at all, so pretty much anything goes there; most of the rest ignores the question of how credible it is that humans would have evolved in a given setting. But if you're looking for internal coherence, that's really where you'd need to start. And frankly I don't think you'll find it: if you start with homo sapiens and try to work backwards, there are probably not too many possible paths other than the one we took on Earth.

That said, what I enjoy about fantasy is precisely that it allows you to take impossible things and juxtapose them for symbolic and aesthetic effect. And I'd suggest that is what humans in any secondary world are, including humans in a static world.

[Old Nan]

Are they? Did the humans of most secondary-world fantasy evolve through the same twists and turns, set against the same competitive and environmental pressures, as homo sapiens did, creating the same set of instincts, the same neurological baselines, nevermind the same physiology?

Most people are dualists, and there's nothing about a human soul that necessitates a human body. It's a commonplace that people in fiction have more or less identical faculties and requirements as people in day-to-day life unless explicitly noted to the contrary; it's very difficult to create non-human characters that yet maintain verisimilitude.

if you start with homo sapiens and try to work backwards, there are probably not too many possible paths other than the one we took on Earth.

But this is simply untrue; there are an infinite number of paths possible, and the likelihood of one path or another to a stated position varies depending on the applicable laws.

[Datepalm]

Are they? Did the humans of most secondary-world fantasy evolve through the same twists and turns, set against the same competitive and environmental pressures, as homo sapiens did, creating the same set of instincts, the same neurological baselines, nevermind the same physiology?

Maybe they don't, but if thats the way the author intends it, then they're asking rather a lot of their readers in getting them to empathize with their characters. If it quacks like a human, I do expect its social structures to be consistent with being human. Which is a great many things, but not 10k years of technological stagnation - at a level just shy of the rennaissance without good reason.

I think its just authors giving in to teh epikness and tagging on a zero on everything for the symbolic hell of it a lot of the time. Even ASOIAF is kind of guilty of it, but the storytelling there is much less focused on factual worldbuilding, with a lot of it being conveyed via general tone or the characters (flawed) perceptions, so the 8000 year history of the NW for example gets a raised eyebrow in passing, but its not something that the story really dwells on and brings to the forefront. OTOH, if its a book thats focused on its detailed and consistent world building, then these kind of numbers just become silly.