Jump to content

Technological Advancement in Fantasy


Stubby

Recommended Posts

Why not?

Because you haven't read the parts of the series we are takling about.

When someone says "The thought processes of the 10,000 year old guy don't make sense" and you saying "Yes, they do" is only relevant if you've actually read that part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

No one is saying you can't contribute to this topic. Just that your Malazan specific comments are meaningless.

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.

So, if I go to a Bakker or Abercrombie discussion and say they're both writing crap, after reading 5 chapters from their books, my opinion is valid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

That's a completely irrelevant argument. We're not talking about a normal character, and it's a plot-necessary assumption that an immortal doesn't degrade like a normal person, since that's called age and age is what they don't do. With Kallor it's even less relevant because although, technically, he is normal, we know why he's still alive despite being technically mortal and we're also shown explicitly how it is that he keeps his physical and mental faculties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is saying you can't contribute to this topic. Just that your Malazan specific comments are meaningless.

I don't think that's the case. The only comment I think this fella's made that's not really relevant is the one specifically talking about how Erikson's immortals seem alien having had only very limited exposure to their PoVs. Everything else seems kosher enough to me, he's not arguing specifics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that's the case. The only comment I think this fella's made that's not really relevant is the one specifically talking about how Erikson's immortals seem alien having had only very limited exposure to their PoVs. Everything else seems kosher enough to me, he's not arguing specifics.

What about there being no revelation of the history of the world since the first empire except in minuscule amounts? Saying that isn't a bother after two books has no meaning to people who've slogged through seven more and still are as clueless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a completely irrelevant argument. We're not talking about a normal character, and it's a plot-necessary assumption that an immortal doesn't degrade like a normal person, since that's called age and age is what they don't do. With Kallor it's even less relevant because although, technically, he is normal, we know why he's still alive despite being technically mortal and we're also shown explicitly how it is that he keeps his physical and mental faculties.

That's not the point. I'm merely saying that barring any explicitly discussed magic that prevents it, Kallor's mental abilities would have changed. Its not like he was in limbo. The man has actually experienced all his years, and has seemingly moved from civilization to civilization. That has to make a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kallor is hardly a good example of anything, considering the things that make him what he is.

I've never really been bothered by the Malazan world's lack of technological advancement, mainly because this is not the case at all. There are several continent spanning civilizations that have more or less been completely wiped out in the history of that world. The whole process is cyclical, and quite logical to my mind considering that individuals can be born with the destructive power of several nuclear missiles.

The comparison to Rome and the dark ages is quite apt, though more appropriate if it continued to happen on a regular basis.

For instance, one of the major reasons for the Malazan success was their technological superiority. This is made particularly clear in Reaper's Gale, but also shine through here and there in the earlier books.

Not to mention the K'Chain Che'Malle who utilize aircrafts, nanobots and anti-gravity technology.

So, in a high fantasy setting where individuals can destroy cities, or even continents, lack of technological advancement makes quite a lot of sense to me. It seems less likely in low-fantasy settings, but then China is a good example of technological stagnation lasting for a long long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

barring any explicitly discussed magic that prevents it, Kallor's mental abilities would have changed.

I'm not sure what you mean. We have explicit magic preventing his aging or degrading any more than he already is, and we have no idea if a person who lived for that long with no degradation would change mentally. You say it "has" to make a difference, but it's an assumption on your part. You could just as well assume that the mind evolves coping mechanisms that keep him more or less as he is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you mean. We have explicit magic preventing his aging or degrading any more than he already is, and we have no idea if a person who lived for that long with no degradation would change mentally. You say it "has" to make a difference, but it's an assumption on your part. You could just as well assume that the mind evolves coping mechanisms that keep him more or less as he is.

So, according to you, degradation is the only form of change the brain knows? That is wrong in so many levels...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about there being no revelation of the history of the world since the first empire except in minuscule amounts? Saying that isn't a bother after two books has no meaning to people who've slogged through seven more and still are as clueless.

I believe what I said was that it MAY start to bother me, but that generally speaking I can go on and roll with a story as presented, and don't need all the details, or even a LOT of details, of the history of that world fleshed out for me. I'm usually pretty good about just "going with it" and accepting the world as it is, rather than dwelling on the hows and whys.

If the author says this world has been living in a feudal society much like medieval Europe for the past 10000 years, even though the middle ages only lasted a few hundred years on our world, that doesn't really bother me. I see where you guys are coming from when you say that it does, but honestly I don't see it as a flaw in the author's story telling or logic, and I don't think they need to even present a REASON for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never really been bothered by the Malazan world's lack of technological advancement, mainly because this is not the case at all. There are several continent spanning civilizations that have more or less been completely wiped out in the history of that world. The whole process is cyclical, and quite logical to my mind considering that individuals can be born with the destructive power of several nuclear missiles.

The comparison to Rome and the dark ages is quite apt, though more appropriate if it continued to happen on a regular basis.

For instance, one of the major reasons for the Malazan success was their technological superiority. This is made particularly clear in Reaper's Gale, but also shine through here and there in the earlier books.

Not to mention the K'Chain Che'Malle who utilize aircrafts, nanobots and anti-gravity technology.

So, in a high fantasy setting where individuals can destroy cities, or even continents, lack of technological advancement makes quite a lot of sense to me. It seems less likely in low-fantasy settings, but then China is a good example of technological stagnation lasting for a long long time.

All of this is valid evidence of technology developing. That's not the problem - the problem is the timeline. If the history of the world was more believable, then all of that would be totally fine. The fact that this all remained stagnant over tens or hundreds of thousands of years is the issue.

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?

Tormund has the right of it.

You cannot speak of internal consistency when you create civilizations that will progress in technology and/or magic then suddenly stop for millenias. I can buy that people would not invent, say, airplanes, if they got the convenience of flying magic/teleportation for everyone, or really any venue easier than technological flight, but that never seems to be the case. Where are the the mage-transportation companies, the telepathy phones, the telekinesist stonemason's teams, the ice-magic refrigerators, the phoenix-summon powered stoves and heaters, the schools of magic excellence, the R&D teams on magic applications or fundamental laws?

Actually, where is anyone trying to create anything new or better in fantasy? All there seems to be is grunts and heroes trying to put things back as they were before at best, or just reacting to whatever fell on their neck at worst. Either way, nobody turned towards the future. The humans probably eradicated their race of savant monkeys just after it gave them steel and agriculture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the character of Kallor was handled very well in TtH. From his POV you can learn that he has repressed his emotions like love and affection as a protective mechanism against the inevitable grief that comes from losing the loved one. Kallor has convinced even himself that he is a cold and unfeeling villain when he really isn't, deep down. He just acts that way because he cares too much and it's the only way he can go on, and Kallor is nothing if not persistent. That's why he's still alive.

As for the differences between an adult and a child and how that relates to immortals, you have to remember that a child's brain is still growing and they also have a lot more to learn about the world than an adult. Small babies learn and develop very fast, children slower, and adults yet slower than that. The difference between a 1000-year-old and a 100-year-old is going to be a lot less than the difference between a 10-year-old and a 1-year-old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wanted to add my two cents to the original post. (I can't really talk about Malazan cause i've only read Gardens of the Moon and didnt find that book particularly interesting.)

We definitely should be able to compare humans in a fantastical setting to humans here on earth, because, in the end, they are still humans. No matter how much dragons, witches, fairies, or demigods you throw in the mix, the core of the story is (and IMO should) be about human emotion. I think the quote GRRM uses sometimes, from William Faulkner is accurate here: the human heart in conflict with itself is the only thing worth writing about .

Fantasy may be fantasy, and sometimes the protagonists aren't literally a human, but im those cases they still do feel human emotion.

A story about aliens who have are just completely.. alien to us so that we wouldnt be able to relate to anything they do, I dont think many people would want to read that.

Of course, this is fantasy. You can do pretty much anything you want, write about everything you want, make up everything you want. But there still are certain rules for a good story, and those are shared by all genres. To some degree, there should also be external consistency (where it concerns human emotions), in addition to internal consistency within the story itself.

So yes, I think that most people in fantasy books will really just be humans, like us. And that means progression as well. As many people have argued it doesn't make sense if a society stagnates for 10,000 years and then suddenly develops a lot in the following 1000 years, without any reason. Then again, a major historical event can have a huge impact on how society develops itself.

Definitely think that this can be done a lot better in a lot of fantasy books. It's usually just a lack of worldbuilding / not enough thought spent on the subject by the writer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, according to you, degradation is the only form of change the brain knows? That is wrong in so many levels...

That seemed to be what you were implying with your example of the old geezer. If you're saying that Kallor's brain should continue to develop beyond ours then maybe, but there is no reason why it should. And if we're saying that simply living for that long would give one an alien way of looking at things, it's again a reasonable assumption, but also by no means the only one you can make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, I am not speaking about Malazan-level timescales, but it seems illogical to me that a medievalesque society would necessarily progress into Renaissance and Industrialization at RL speeds or in fact at all. Most iRL cultures just stopped independent development at one technological level or another and stagnated/ were destroyed. Why should we assume that the way things progressed in post-medieval Europe was anything but a lucky fluke? For that matter, the origins of civilization seem to be pushed ever further back by archeology research. IIRC, by now the eldest townships discovered have been dated at 10K BC or even older.

Who cares what the fire-ball toting wizard wants? Everyone else wants it.

Actually, trying to use powder against a fireball-toting wizard would probably make it much easier for said wizard to get one killed. So, I could kind of see why existence and availability of such magic would choke this line of technological progress. However, powder existed iRL for a very long time without regular military or economical application, so... Steel also was forgotten and re-invented several times during human history.

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.

And that's my point - they were ahead of Europe, but due to various factors they didn't make the next leap and slowed/stopped instead. Just because a civilization has achieved certain level doesn't mean that it will continue to evolve, leave alone at the same or accelerated speed.

So, yes, I'd say that ASOIAF timeline is exaggerated as presented initially, but given the later hints that the time-scales were inflated by factor 2 or so by chroniclers, I don't find them implausible anymore. Yes, slower than RL Europe during MA, but given all the differences, why not? Certainly on the same scale as other iRL civilizations.

Non-integration of relatively abundant and reliable magic in any facet of society but warfare (and often not even that) in fantasy is another thing entirely and one of my pet peeves. But it has relatively little bearing on the timescales debate IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admit that I have wondered in the past why so many of the fantasy novels that I read do not ever seem to have a level of technological advancement that I would recognize as similar or close to our own.

To some extent, the types of books and authors whom I read probably have a large amount to deal with that.

I am wondering if there isn't a possibility that might not be taken into account in the discussion, however; and, to be fair, this argument is one that exists or can be applied to practically any given topic about books.

The author is, presumably, writing about what they find interesting. However, even with this in mind, there are two possibilities as to what I think happens in the course of writing something.

The first option is that the author is going to research the daylights out of something, and get the story as accurate as they possibly can. Despite their best efforts, however, if they are dealing with fiction, at some point they could arrive somewhere that hasn't happened historically, and they have to wing it.

The other possibility, and the one I think more likely, is that the author might simply not give a damn about specific aspect X of the story/plotline/world. The author might simply think that, between plotline, characterization, sentence structure, dialogue, language, length, continuity, et al.; that they have to draw the line somewhere as to what they care about the most.

It has been mentioned in this thread that humans are going to be humans. Which is all well and good; but I think that it is more complicated than that, with all respect. I think it is also important as to whether or not the setting, or world, is like ours. For example, if humans on fantasy planet X haven't explored the entirety of the planet, who is to say that they will have found all of the natural resources necessary to make the advances that we have? Or, for that matter, whether the planet even HAS those resources in the first place? Obviously if the author is giving us every indication that the setting is an "alternate earth", then the question becomes one more of, what time frame do we think the story is in compared to ours?

There does not seem to be any lack, judging from this thread, of books that do not follow what some people believe should definitely be a more accurate representation of technological advancement. This is what leads me to believe that the second option is more likely, but I could very well be wrong. I am hardly the most well rounded of individuals when it comes to having exposure to multiple authors; it may very well be that there is a larger number of authors who do write novels involving technology and magic coexisting logically together than I realize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're not talking about small differences, Maia. India was at worst a couple of hundred years behind Europe in terms of technological advancement. And that's setting aside the fact that without some of the advancements of India and other places such as the Greeks, us Eurocommies wouldn't have had things like mathematics handy, and would've had to invent all that before going to town with it.

Technological advancements in a fantasy setting certainly don't have to be a precise match for our own, but unless you have a terribly clever reason why not, it does need to be fairly similar to make any kind of sense. We can swallow a couple of thousand years here or there, things happen that make the events unfold differently, magic might be a factor and so on.

But 150,000 years of people sitting around twiddling their thumbs for no other reason than Because Fuck You, That's Why? That's poor writing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...