Jump to content

Technological Advancement in Fantasy


Stubby

Recommended Posts

The reason technological stagnation makes no sense in fantasy is because the societies have obviously advanced technically for thousands of years.

They aren't sporting about in loincloths pointing sharpened sticks at each other are they? They've developed advanced architecture, agrigulture, refined iron ore into steel. Developed sailing ships that can cross oceans, and then...stopped?

90+% of the population engages in agriculture and they have invented no labor saving devices in 10000 years, after seemingly easily progressing from hunter-gatherer to heavy cavalry?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can think of two series that defy this basic premise.

The Imager Profile has a magic based economy and guns. The imagers actually seperate and purify aluminum as an income source.

The Multiverse Series has a technological society come in contact with a magic based society. The tech society was nerfed to steam age. But the interplay between the two groups and their differing origins was compelling.

Who is the author? Not interested in the second one, that i know is David Weber.

Never mind, found it L. E. Modesitt Jr.

Pity i hate his books too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, so the last 1000 years in which we moved from living in shit to building orbital stations is somehow the standard against which all the other epochs should be measured. What about the Mediterranean civilizations of antiquity which existed virtually unchanged, except for an occasional massacre, for at least 2000 years prior to the first Medieval Renaissance, which by the way was cut short by the little ice age.

What the hell are you talking about? The Little Ice Age was in the 1700's btw, and it didn't cut any thing short. Hence, George Washington crossed the frozen Delaware. Are you talking about the Carolingian Renaissance? That was cut short by political fracture.

Also one brilliant scientist is not enough to make something work; the Greeks new how to make a steam engine, but never went any further than a novelty toy simply because there was no need for it. Maybe if brilliant scientists like Aristotle and his likes instead of talking and writing bullshit about natural world actually paid attention to it and invented Calculus and the laws of preservation of impulse and energy in closed systems we would be zipping around the stars by now, or more likely poor bastards would be burned as sacrifices to some god or another because people of the day didn't want to know that shit. Hell if Pope of the day didn't take pity on Galileo Newton and Leibniz wouldn't finalize Calculus and all the technological advancement of the last 300 years would be spread over a much longer period of time.

No, Hero's steam-engine was probably never even built. They didn't possess the manufacturing capabilities to build anything awesome back in Antiquity, since everything was artisan-based. Moreover, they didn't have the fuel. We used coal for our steam engines. They didn't have coal. Burning charcoal to power a steam engine would inefficient, and useless. Aristotle was interested in living shit, he wasn't a mathematician. There were SHIT TONS of Greek mathematicians, to whom we owe a lot. But you can't get Calculus if you haven't invented Geometry (Greeks), and Algebra (Arabs). Mathematical development actually occurred at the fastest rate it probably could occur given education levels. And wtf does the Pope and pity on Galileo have to do with Newton and Leibniz? Galileo was interesting and all, but Newton was interested in all sorts of shit to begin with, he'd chance upon gravitation anyway.

The point is technology is about time, place and people willing to use it. If you have a fireball toting wizard who doesn't want development of gun powder, I know I wouldn't want it if I was one, there will be no gun powder. No gun powder means those alchemists would be still trying to transmute lead to gold by sprinkling it with mercury instead of experimenting with different formulas for making boom as a byproduct of mass black powder production and early artillery arms race, no artillery arms race means no push to hand held boom sticks, which leads to no research in metallurgy to make those things stop exploding, or at least explode predictably, which would stop all things of military nature at the level of charging knights. Also no gun powder weapons means no ballistics research means law of gravity would never be formalized simply because no one would give a damn.

Who cares what the fire-ball toting wizard wants? Everyone else wants it. And those Alchemists were the dudes who invented gunpowder in China. And Alchemists effectively tried to brute-force chemistry by trying every possible combination of materials, just to see what would happen. Hell, Gun powder was invented in the 900's, it was the domain of Alchemists for 700 years after that. And metallurgy progressed all throughout the Middle Ages.

Also if technical progress depended on the size of population chinese and hindus would be terraforming Venus by now instead of making crappy copies of someone else's products.

You realize China and India both had comparable populations to Europe, right? China didn't start to pull ahead of Europe until relatively recent times, with the introduction of intensive rice-agriculture. India's population boom was even more recent - the past 200 years or so. Moreover, India was politically fractious in the near-past, and it was AHEAD of Europe until the Mughal Empire went into decline. China's technical progression was hindered by Neo-Confucianist traditionalists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

By this argument, why do characters have to be realistic? Why do they have to develop at all? Why don't we ay that stilted dialogues are okay because these are "fantasy" people in a fantasy world, so they can talk as they like?

The simple reason is that unless the author makes the effort to keep things internally consistent, and has explanations for why things are different, no one is going to give her/him a pass.

You have a 100,000 year old character? Fine, but then explain why his thought process is no different from a 50 year old's. Or else, be clever and actually give him an alien way of thought.

Same with the history of men. They've been around for 150,000 years and had a vast and well advanced civilization at that time? Then explain why they currently have middle-age technology and how their language has magically survived intact for all this time.

There may be no real example of the remains of a 150,000 year old human civilization. Doesn't mean that when you introduce such in your story, you ignore all logic and simple write in what you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simple reason is that unless the author makes the effort to keep things internally consistent, and has explanations for why things are different, no one is going to give her/him a pass.

You have a 100,000 year old character? Fine, but then explain why his thought process is no different from a 50 year old's. Or else, be clever and actually give him an alien way of thought.

Here's my thing, the stories are INTERNALLY consistent. They just have long human history and a rate of technological advancement INCONSISTENT with what has happened in our (real) world.

Why isn't a 100,000 year old's thought process different? I would argue that it is. I'm not very far into Malazan, but some of these super-beings have very little regard for human life and care not a bit about using people to further their own VERY LONG TERM agendas. Some are incredibly empathetic, hate themselves and cherish life to a degree far beyond what the normal "human" characters do.

I don't think age changes the WAY you think, it just changes the way you view percieve the world around you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my thing, the stories are INTERNALLY consistent. They just have long human history and a rate of technological advancement INCONSISTENT with what has happened in our (real) world.

Why isn't a 100,000 year old's thought process different? I would argue that it is. I'm not very far into Malazan, but some of these super-beings have very little regard for human life and care not a bit about using people to further their own VERY LONG TERM agendas. Some are incredibly empathetic, hate themselves and cherish life to a degree far beyond what the normal "human" characters do.

I don't think age changes the WAY you think, it just changes the way you view percieve the world around you...

Actually they aren't internally consistent either, but that's besides the point.

And yes, they must be in some way consistent with our world because the people in a fantasy book are still human. And this means they should still act like humans. The fact that, despite all the differences and magic and shit, the people in the book are still in some sense human creates a very real basis for comparison between the work and the real world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my thing, the stories are INTERNALLY consistent. They just have long human history and a rate of technological advancement INCONSISTENT with what has happened in our (real) world.

That is total BS. 150000 years ago, there was an advanced human civilization. The whole situation with the di'vers destroyed that. Then, humanity was shitting around till iron weapons were used again a thousand years ago in Quon Tali (I'm right about this, I think. I remember that iron weapons are very recent, at least)?

Then, in the next thousand years, they have steel weapons, huge ships, some form of surgery, huge, stable empires that rely on their military might (over the use of magic), a developing trend against religion and advanced military tactics, but no calculus, steam engine and printing press? That is not internal consistency.

Why isn't a 100,000 year old's thought process different? I would argue that it is. I'm not very far into Malazan, but some of these super-beings have very little regard for human life and care not a bit about using people to further their own VERY LONG TERM agendas. Some are incredibly empathetic, hate themselves and cherish life to a degree far beyond what the normal "human" characters do.

Since it is clear you haven't read much of Malazan, exactly how can this debate proceed? Wait till you read Kallor's PoVs in book 8, then we'll get back to this.

I don't think age changes the WAY you think, it just changes the way you view percieve the world around you...

What does this even mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason technological stagnation makes no sense in fantasy is because the societies have obviously advanced technically for thousands of years.

They aren't sporting about in loincloths pointing sharpened sticks at each other are they? They've developed advanced architecture, agrigulture, refined iron ore into steel. Developed sailing ships that can cross oceans, and then...stopped?

90+% of the population engages in agriculture and they have invented no labor saving devices in 10000 years, after seemingly easily progressing from hunter-gatherer to heavy cavalry?

This.

I said it in the Malazan/WOT thread and I'll say it again. The problem to me is the knee jerk reaction that magic hinders technological development when such is clearly not the case within the story. The best example is military technology in Malazanworld, where the thinking was that the presence of strong magic on either side of the battlefield precluded the development of things like advanced weaponry and surgical techniques. However, the fact that both sides have powerful magic that essentially cancel each other out means that the people who actually decide the outcomes of battles are the soldiers, to whom technology matters a great deal.

So, mages cancel each other out militarily, and guns (or better tech of any kind, including medical tech) would give soldiers a huge step up. Military tech trickles down, and society would advance.

Here's my thing, the stories are INTERNALLY consistent. They just have long human history and a rate of technological advancement INCONSISTENT with what has happened in our (real) world.

Why isn't a 100,000 year old's thought process different? I would argue that it is. I'm not very far into Malazan, but some of these super-beings have very little regard for human life and care not a bit about using people to further their own VERY LONG TERM agendas. Some are incredibly empathetic, hate themselves and cherish life to a degree far beyond what the normal "human" characters do.

I don't think age changes the WAY you think, it just changes the way you view percieve the world around you...

Age absolutely changes the way you think. Do you think the same way now that you did when you were 12? If you're 50 (just a random number, I have no idea how old you are), then that's a fifth of your life. If you're comparing 100 to 1000 year olds, then that 100 years is an even smaller part of the life. The combined experience and perspective gained by such a long period of time would change thought patterns in unimaginable ways.

And the cultures are not internally consistent. There's 100,000 years of basically empty, stagnant history that is totally unexplained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wheel of Time's technological decline and then the new renaissance during the books is slightly cheesy (the Illuminators kept gunpowder secret from the entire rest of the planet for three thousand years without a single leak? Hard to believe) but at least Jordan nods at it, plus the sociological conventions are more advanced (18th/19th C. rather than Medieval).

IIRC, the Illuminators have only been around for a thousand years, and maintained secrecy by having only one chapter house till recently.

Also if technical progress depended on the size of population chinese and hindus would be terraforming Venus by now instead of making crappy copies of someone else's products.

WTF?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Age absolutely changes the way you think. Do you think the same way now that you did when you were 12? If you're 50 (just a random number, I have no idea how old you are), then that's a fifth of your life. If you're comparing 100 to 1000 year olds, then that 100 years is an even smaller part of the life. The combined experience and perspective gained by such a long period of time would change thought patterns in unimaginable ways.

And the cultures are not internally consistent. There's 100,000 years of basically empty, stagnant history that is totally unexplained.

It kind of depends on what you mean by "THINK". And that's a hard idea to articulate. Do you mean think as in point of view? Perspective? Opinion? Philosophy? Then absolutely, that changes, and I mentioned as much in my post.

But the physiological act of THINKING? I mean you observe something, and you process it, and you begin to formulate those opinions, perspectives, ideas, etc... The end results will absolutely change as you age, but the method of getting to those results? Still the same. Observe, filter, process, apply...

I took Fionwe to mean that after 100000 years, that process would have changed. That somehow these people should have developed some higher consciousness. Maybe they should, but I don't think it defies reason that they haven't.

As for the 100000 years of unexplained culture, how can we say that they are inconsistent with the story, if they aren't elaborated on at all? If they were somehow contradictory within the framework of the story, that would be inconsistent... frankly, those 100000 years can be anything, consistent, inconsistent, what have you. For me, it doesn't detract from the story. For some peeps, I guess it does...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It kind of depends on what you mean by "THINK". And that's a hard idea to articulate. Do you mean think as in point of view? Perspective? Opinion? Philosophy? Then absolutely, that changes, and I mentioned as much in my post.

But the physiological act of THINKING? I mean you observe something, and you process it, and you begin to formulate those opinions, perspectives, ideas, etc... The end results will absolutely change as you age, but the method of getting to those results? Still the same. Observe, filter, process, apply...

I took Fionwe to mean that after 100000 years, that process would have changed. That somehow these people should have developed some higher consciousness. Maybe they should, but I don't think it defies reason that they haven't.

No, what I meant was that when you read the PoV of a 100000 year old who has seen the world, you should not think "cantankerous 60 year old". But that is just what Kallor reads like, which is just plain ridiculous.

As for the 100000 years of unexplained culture, how can we say that they are inconsistent with the story, if they aren't elaborated on at all? If they were somehow contradictory within the framework of the story, that would be inconsistent... frankly, those 100000 years can be anything, consistent, inconsistent, what have you. For me, it doesn't detract from the story. For some peeps, I guess it does...

Then that too is an issue. We're one book short of series completion. You expect more to be revealed, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, what I meant was that when you read the PoV of a 100000 year old who has seen the world, you should not think "cantankerous 60 year old". But that is just what Kallor reads like, which is just plain ridiculous.

Then that too is an issue. We're one book short of series completion. You expect more to be revealed, no?

Sorry, I haven't really gotten to the Kallor parts yet so I can't really comment on that specifically. I was just speaking in more general terms.

Not sure we need more details revealed. Is it relevant to the story being told? Not sure... It may bother me as I go on and it may not. Historically though, I'm not someone that needs to know the entire back story of the fantasy world I'm reading about. Not that it isn't cool to get that sometimes, but it's not a dealbreaker.

From what I've read in these threads, it sounds like Erikson starts to reveal those details as he feels they become necessary or add to his story. To some that may feel like he's making it up as he goes along. But so far, in the two books I've read, the story telling and construction feels pretty solid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I haven't really gotten to the Kallor parts yet so I can't really comment on that specifically. I was just speaking in more general terms.

Exactly. The first two books contain barely any PoVs from really old characters, so your comments are of absolutely no relevance.

Not sure we need more details revealed. Is it relevant to the story being told? Not sure... It may bother me as I go on and it may not. Historically though, I'm not someone that needs to know the entire back story of the fantasy world I'm reading about. Not that it isn't cool to get that sometimes, but it's not a dealbreaker.

That is nonsense. From the books, it is clear that various characters are aware of the historical events of 100000 years ago, but they seem to be completely blank on what happened a few thousand years ago. Piss poor realism.

From what I've read in these threads, it sounds like Erikson starts to reveal those details as he feels they become necessary or add to his story. To some that may feel like he's making it up as he goes along. But so far, in the two books I've read, the story telling and construction feels pretty solid.

Yes. But since there have been seven books after that, you might want to wait before further comments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. The first two books contain barely any PoVs from really old characters, so your comments are of absolutely no relevance.

That is nonsense. From the books, it is clear that various characters are aware of the historical events of 100000 years ago, but they seem to be completely blank on what happened a few thousand years ago. Piss poor realism.

Yes. But since there have been seven books after that, you might want to wait before further comments?

I'll comment when and where I please. You can address them or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yes, they must be in some way consistent with our world because the people in a fantasy book are still human. And this means they should still act like humans. The fact that, despite all the differences and magic and shit, the people in the book are still in some sense human creates a very real basis for comparison between the work and the real world.

There's a reason its called "fantasy" and not "reality".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your comments on a series you haven't read 80% of don't exactly mean much though.

Why not?

1. I've always been very clear on where I'm at in the series. If I feel like it's an opinion that might change, I always offer that up.

2. I've tried to be very specific in terms of my comments, and address particular statements made in other posts.

3. This thread has to do with the general premise of lack of tech. development in fantasy. I've ready plenty of fantasy, and I've read the first 2 and half Malazan books. So far, the timelines of Malazan don't bother me, and specifically I don't have issues with fantasy - societies not being as advanced as our own, even after longer periods.

And really, is the board policy to discourage commentary and participation? I mean I'm trying to engage here and being told that my ideas are irrelevant and meaningless without any evidence or examples being offered to back that up. That's kinda lame in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think "he doesn't think like a 100,000 year old" is a valid criticism. You could assume that someone that old would think differently, but how would we know?

Okay... Say there's a normal character who lives to be 145. No human has lived so long, so we can't know how that person should look.

But say the author says that on his 145th birthday, the character's mental retardation simply vanished and his brain was as good as a 60 year old's... ould you roll your eyes or just accept it because we have no real 145 year old to compare the character to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...