The fallacy of basing fantasy on our history

[MatthewF]

As a programmer I'm a particular fan of author Rick Cook's Wizard's Bane (and to a certain extent its sequels) where a Unix programmer is transported to a fantasy world where magic is common. However, only very minor spells work with any safety or accuracy, spell like creating a tiny flame to light a fire or lifting a feather off the ground. Big spells tend to wreak havoc, often backfiring on the caster.

Magic makes very small mundane tasks a bit easier, but has no major effect in the world until this programmer realizes that if you effectively cast the safe tiny flame spell repeatedly and very quickly, boom, you've got a workable, safe fireball.

Fun stuff.

[Antonius Pius]

And as for those of you that do not like Cantor, though i have only looked a short while, i could find no criticisms of the book that i am reading. Please provide some proof that i can look at so i can judge the case for myself. Historians are always pissing all over each other, because most of them spent 30% of the time or more guessing.

I haven't read Cantor, but from the examples given in this thread, he comes across as someone that thinks because he's intelligent, he can intperpret anything, inflect it into his prejudices and still think it's correct because the opinion is his. Badly informed yet very opinionated.

Historians may extrapolate, but they're generally not inventing. Sources are limited, but we still know a great deal. For example, there were rumours that Eleanor of Aquitaine, while on the Second Crusade, behaved incorrectly towards her uncle Ralph, who lived in the east. Modern historians would say something like "there are rumours of such and such behaviour, but the source that reports it was adversarial towards Eleanor, and was looking for a reason to blame the failure of the crusade on", whereas someone like Cantor would say "Eleanor was promiscuous" or "Eleanor was condemned by the church because she dared to take her sexuality into her own hands" and proceed to his next fixed supposition. This is often a flaw in popular history.

[Spring Bass]

That's an especially big issue when reading ancient commentaries about powerful, controversial women, IIRC. Quite often, the sources we have were antagonistic towards them, so they fling all the crap they can, whether or not it's actual truth or mere rumor/gossip/bullshit.

[Antonius Pius]

A lot of that comes from the fact that most histories of the Middle Ages were written by clergy, and the kind of point they were trying to make. If the underlying point is that "people have moved away from God's teaching", it's likely that negative behaviour will be a big focus. And then again, monks could be deeply hostile to the outside world (and mysogionistic), but not necessarily so.

Matthew Paris had huge troubles with the papacy of his day, so he generally took the side of the emperor Frederick II, who was an almost constant adversary of the papacy. Salimbene de Adam of Parma took the papal viewpoint, comparing Frederick with all that is evil and making up all kind of gossip along the way, while also taking the time to describe just how many fancy dinners he had with educated and well-to-do ladies.

[Arthmail]

History changes as soon as new source is found, which is often. What is left is interpretation. Historians will consider an event and work with what data they have, but considering how often that data is corrupted by time and people, there are far too many chances for them to make a mistake. They might accurately say, well this historical figure of the time was biased towards this person or event, so we need to take it with a grain of salt. And thats a reasonble way to handle it, but if there are few other sources then all it leaves is interpretation.

If there's one thing that my history teachers in university taught me, is that they are all trying to teach you their own bias. Which could make Cantor very wrong, of that i have no doubt. But popular does not mean wrong, at least in regards to this book. And like i said, i tried to look for negative reviews to his methodology for this book and could find none. Not that i spent hours looking.

His being right or wrong on this particular matter does nothing to subtract from my original post, however. I think that having the end result of some historical model, withouts its causes, in fantasy is a flawed way of doing things. I mean, as a writer you cannot include every event or you'll never actually tell the story, but you have to consider other factors. For all of his flaws, Robert Jordan is one of the few fantasy authors that gave a solid frame work for why women were powerful in his world. (And thats not to say that women can't be powerful, only that a great many men have been sexist over the ages, and it would take a different view to remove that)

[Antonius Pius]

History changes as soon as new source is found, which is often. What is left is interpretation. Historians will consider an event and work with what data they have, but considering how often that data is corrupted by time and people, there are far too many chances for them to make a mistake. They might accurately say, well this historical figure of the time was biased towards this person or event, so we need to take it with a grain of salt. And thats a reasonble way to handle it, but if there are few other sources then all it leaves is interpretation.

In historian's works, other historians will know where the extrapolation and theorising begins. Notes etc. will indicate what the theory being discussed is based on. Popular history, is a field often used by non-historians who will posit sweeping statements, because they cannot see deep enough into the subject matter to offer a qualified statement. Also, the further back you go in history, the less new data is found. Theories can change, though. See the views about Richard I as an example. A hero to the victorians, an gay absentee butcher in more modern times.

If there's one thing that my history teachers in university taught me, is that they are all trying to teach you their own bias.

That's a very crude statement. We were taught to look at the sources for ourselves, and form our own opinions.

His being right or wrong on this particular matter does nothing to subtract from my original post, however. I think that having the end result of some historical model, withouts its causes, in fantasy is a flawed way of doing things. I mean, as a writer you cannot include every event or you'll never actually tell the story, but you have to consider other factors.

I understand your general point, and I'd agree that most fantasy isn't as thought through. Partly this (it seems to me) is because fantasy is sometimes little more that escapism, and because only certain aspects of history are necessary for the story to be told. Many authors give their characters almost modern sensibilities, but they place their stories in a medieval-like setting, perhpas because swordfighting is so cool, you gotta have that. Most fantasy settings feel far more like early-modern settings without gunpowder. Notable exceptions: GRRM (very medieval-like) and Paul Kearney's Monarchies of God, which feels like Middle Ages + gunpowder.

[Galactus]

Notable exceptions: GRRM (very medieval-like)

Someone did point out that the Seven (which is the catholic church, pretty much) makes little sense in the way it's organized without a very particular situation. We think of "The Church" as a natural thing, but there are only really two examples, one being the catholic church, the other being (arguably) buddhism in Japan. In both cases they are results of strong states with support state-religions collapsing and leaving the church-structure behind. There's no roman analogue to found the Seven.

[Antonius Pius]

GRRM says something like "The Andals brought the Seven with them". It's very much a personal religion if you really analyse it, with hardly any structure to it. GRRM just slapped on a priesthood and that was it. In general you could say "working out" a world is not really GRRM's approach. I think he takes events/aspects he likes, and inserts them into his great tale. A lot he makes up as he goes along, language being a prime example.

Overal though, Westeros does feel like a medieval world, more than any other fantasy I've ever read. Or it does to me.

[Galactus]

GRRM says something like "The Andals brought the Seven with them". It's very much a personal religion if you really analyse it, with hardly any structure to it. GRRM just slapped on a priesthood and that was it. In general you could say "working out" a world is not really GRRM's approach. I think he takes events/aspects he likes, and inserts them into his great tale. A lot he makes up as he goes along, language being a prime example.

Eh, not really. It clearly has an *independent* structure (that is, we're not talking caesaro-papism or sacral kingship or any other of the "the state *IS' the church" kind of ideas) nor does it have the decentralized congregations-structure you might see in eg. Islam or protestant christainity.

I do agree that GRRM manages to get the "flavour" of the high middle ages much more than most others. (I'd say GRRM is as much influenced by Ivanhoe as by LOTR...) but he's not exactly building up a very logical or consistent world.

Then again, the impression of the middle-ages a historian gets tends to be quite different (and much more full of lawsuits :P)

[Ouroboros]

Notable exceptions: GRRM (very medieval-like) and Paul Kearney's Monarchies of God, which feels like Middle Ages + gunpowder.

I'd put Paul Kearney far above Martin in terms of 'realism', probably the best fantasy author I've read that can really make me believe his characters are fully 'pre-modern' in mindset. (whatever that actually means).

The real middle-ages however, feels like it was just as much a bureaucracy as a land of fuedal monarchies. You rarely read about in fantasy (or even most historical fiction) but the sheer amount of paperwork is astounding. Petitions and counter-petitions, manifestos and declarations being thrown around to justify tax hikes, land grabs, divorces and inheritance disputes et all, is almost absurd. There is a reason medieval rulers were often praised for their legal minds as much as battlefield prowess. International law was a tricky business, one misstep could ruin years of political wrangling.

[Spring Bass]

It might be enlightening to examine more of the differences between the Faith of the Seven and Catholicism. One of the biggest is that the Seven Faith doesn't seem to proselytize; at no point do we hear mention of any attempts to spread conversion either into the North (the bastion of Old Gods-worshipping animism) or across the Narrow Sea. It's much more tied to a sense of "Andal" identity.

I'd put Paul Kearney far above Martin in terms of 'realism', probably the best fantasy author I've read that can really make me believe his characters are fully 'pre-modern' in mindset. (whatever that actually means).

Kearney borrows much more directly from real history, though (albeit not as much as Guy Gavriel Kay). It's easier to come up with a more realistic pre-modern society and setting when you do that.

[Arthmail]

In historian's works, other historians will know where the extrapolation and theorising begins. Notes etc. will indicate what the theory being discussed is based on. Popular history, is a field often used by non-historians who will posit sweeping statements, because they cannot see deep enough into the subject matter to offer a qualified statement. Also, the further back you go in history, the less new data is found. Theories can change, though. See the views about Richard I as an example. A hero to the victorians, an gay absentee butcher in more modern times.

That's a very crude statement. We were taught to look at the sources for ourselves, and form our own opinions.

Meh. Believe what you want to believe.

[Shryke]

I understand your general point, and I'd agree that most fantasy isn't as thought through. Partly this (it seems to me) is because fantasy is sometimes little more that escapism, and because only certain aspects of history are necessary for the story to be told. Many authors give their characters almost modern sensibilities, but they place their stories in a medieval-like setting, perhpas because swordfighting is so cool, you gotta have that. Most fantasy settings feel far more like early-modern settings without gunpowder. Notable exceptions: GRRM (very medieval-like) and Paul Kearney's Monarchies of God, which feels like Middle Ages + gunpowder.

I have no idea why people keep brining up this rather silly point.

Fantasy generally ignores history because it's not interested in being historical fiction (and thus story-telling is more important that 100% "historical" accuracy) and because it's often based on previous fantasy works and/or on myth and legends and the like.

No one talks about how the Greeks funded the siege of Troy. They talk about Achilles.

[Sarge]

So, all of that being said, i return to the topic of women in fantasy. Often we want to see reflections of our world in the books that we read. But how worthy a source is that without the institutions around that helped to shape our world. Without a Catholic church, why could women not have found greater independence sooner? If there is magic, why would technology advance the same way?

Because it's fantasy, not science fiction.

[Arthmail]

Because it's fantasy, not science fiction.

You missed the point. But thanks for the tip.

[Grack21]

I have no idea why people keep brining up this rather silly point.

Fantasy generally ignores history because it's not interested in being historical fiction (and thus story-telling is more important that 100% "historical" accuracy) and because it's often based on previous fantasy works and/or on myth and legends and the like.

No one talks about how the Greeks funded the siege of Troy. They talk about Achilles.

Cocaine and HC copies of Abercrombie.

[Antonius Pius]

I have no idea why people keep brining up this rather silly point.

Because there is a lot of fantasy out there that is really crap.

Fantasy generally ignores history because it's not interested in being historical fiction (and thus story-telling is more important that 100% "historical" accuracy) and because it's often based on previous fantasy works and/or on myth and legends and the like.

There is a tendency in fantasy to insert historical aspects in a pick and choose manner. Element A, B and C are welcome (the cool stuff), elements X, Y and Z are ignored. I'm not saying that's good or bad, because the point isn't to have fantasy as historically correct as possible. But it's a trend nonetheless.

[Horza]

A lot of hist fic does the same and I think this has to do with it being really hard to get across to the reader just how utterly bizarre the past is.

[lyvyathan]

That's an especially big issue when reading ancient commentaries about powerful, controversial women, IIRC. Quite often, the sources we have were antagonistic towards them, so they fling all the crap they can, whether or not it's actual truth or mere rumor/gossip/bullshit.

Still happens today. Look at all those Celebrity Magazines that dish out "dirt" on famous women and men.

Imagine if historians 200 years from now - tried to analyze our history using "Hello", "Women's Weekly", etc..

[lyvyathan]

If there's one thing that my history teachers in university taught me, is that they are all trying to teach you their own bias.

Oh wow. Did you also have an altercation with your Uni professor too?

I attended one unit where the professor wanted to teach a history of Europe

1. without any reference to England, or its impact on the mainland

2. and that World War Two ended in 1940 when France fell, not 1945.

3. The only thing you need to know about European history was that the French Revolution was the best thing since sex.

Yeah, why? Because he said so.