Stock Fantasy Settings and Change

[Clement Rage]

So, in another thread, we were talking about coding societies and stock medieval fantasy settings before we got sidetracked. I picked out some relevant posts, if I missed any, feel free to slot them in.

@Obsidian Fire
@Cat on Mars
@anyone else that cares

Well, "fantasy is always some kind of fauxEuropean medieval land" is a trope for a reason, right?

Tangent: Y'know, this also bothers me a bit. Because people complain about it a lot, but, like, there's no god of writing forcing you to write that if you don't want to. Publishing houses gatekeep, yes, but hey, I've been self publishing fanfic on the internet for fifteen years.

A lot of works are so proud of subverting the formula by actively defying the tropes as though they're somehow bad in themselves. For me that's like following someone else's blueprints to a tee and then complaining about how bad the plans are.

Why didn't you just do something else, then?

Oh, right. Actually building something new from the ground up is hard.

One of the best examples I can think of for subverting the "fauxEuropean medieval land" setting is the Codex Alera series by Jim Butcher. The culture, politics and military are all heavily Roman in nature, but they've got nature spirits everywhere that everyone interacts with that feels like it's something a medival fantasy novel would have.

The entire series was written by Butcher to prove it was possible to write a good (or at least decent) book based on two not-so-great ideas. The ideas in question being the "Lost Roman Legion" trope and pokemon.

Is that subversion, or just doing something else?

I know I have problems with story blurbs that are 'like this, but with a twist'. I like seeing stories sold on what they are, rather than what they aren't, but when you're selling work, you have to make your work stand out from the crowd.

I've read occasional articles lamenting how samey this becomes, but no one forces anyone to write within a genre. It's harder not to, but genres become genres because somebody writes something new and sells it.

Thoughts, anyone?

 

[Cat on Mars]

The thing is, you can't appropiately describe something for what it isn't. Try it, it's frustrating.
Same with a story. Many times authors don't know what their story is, just know what they don't want it to be, and the result ranges from "not very good" to "fucking terrible".

Regarding my statement "fantasy is fauxEurpean medieval land", I'm going to explain it in really simple terms: the reason the trope is considered an exhausted mine nowadays is because people are copying from a copy, instead of looking for ideas they'd want to work with.

This stems, imho, from the idea that Europe is a cohesive continent and "medieval Europe" is what people see in fairs.
Now I'm going to talk about the XV century onwards because the creation of Spain under the banner of Catholic Monarchs Isabel de Castilla and Fernando de Aragón is often considered the first "modern" state. In reality, Europe wasn't homogeneous at all, and every country has its own local cultures and languages. This is extremely complex in the case of countries subjected to previous invasions and blood mixes, and it's often overlooked because many authors think that they already know what Europe looks like but in reality they don't, they're repeating clichés feed to them by media and they haven't read any history book to understand why the Gothic didn't happen at the same time in Europe, for example.
This doesn't mean you have to write historical fiction genre, but in my opinion fantasy has become boring because people don't understand how complex and rich History is and they understimate how diverse the political, societal and religious landscape of any period was.

 

[Obsidian Fire]

The reason I brought up the Codex Alera series is because the first novel happens in the country-side and there's not that much that is majorly different from a standard "peasant kid figures out they are actually something special" origin story that a lot of "fauxEuropean medieval land" stories start with. There's some Latin-based terms for things, but there's not so much that I didn't think it was more than the standard "Latin is the lingua franka" that so many fantasy stories default too.

Then you get to the second book with goes way more into military and politics and it turns out that nope, it's definetly not a medieval-based setting. Instead of knights and sieges it's the Romanesque Legions and long drawn out military campaigns. Instead of a king with a decadent court surrounding him... it's essentially a Ceasear (named Gaius Sextus!) who is dealing with a Senate who is planning on undermining him. Mainly because he's ridiculously good at playing them all against each other and his son, Gaius Septimus died before an heir (yes, the name would be Gaius Octavius if he existed) could be born!

It very much felt like it the first book had at least tried to downplay the roman stuff in favor of a "traditional fantasy setting" and then all the books after it pushed the roman setting hard. So yeah, I would call it a subversion.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

Gay Gavriel Kay wrote a fantasy novel set in an alternative-history China, called "Under Heaven". I really enjoyed it, but found the sequel was a bit of a dud.

I read "The Grace of Kings" by Ken Liu which also has a Far Eastern setting. It was gripping, but a bit meandering.

I think there are a huge number of fantasy novels that don't have a faux mediaeval setting, but they tend to get labelled as something else, eg cyberpunk. Who has read Mortal Engines by Philip Reeve? Or the His Dark Materials series by Philip Pullman? As soon as fantasy steps outside of the European middle ages, it tends to shelved under science fiction.

 

[Cat on Mars]

Eh, the fauxmedieval trope isn't the problem, it's the lack of passion for the story and using the most common backdrop for it. JRR Martin made it work because he really, really, wanted to write abour royal incest and banquets and realized he needed to add more depth and variety to his world in order to draw people in.
Pity he lost the plot, but still.

Shit stories are gonna be shit no matter the genre.
Arthur C. Clark makes me rage and yell "WHY NOTHING IS HAPPENING SINCE CHAPTER 1" and Larry Niven's Ringworld made me stop reading (!!!) because it's utter shit, I resumed the lecture just to know if something interesting happened (like the insufferable Gary Stu self-insert MC dying), but fat chance. Maybe if the writer knew how humans work it would have been bearable.

I don't have a lot of time to read these days, so I'm taken aback by the very suggestion of picking anything up just because it "subverts" things.
What takes me to my next point: ¿what's with this "subverting stuff" in lieu of proper descriptions?

I blame tv tropes but I'm interested in knowing what you think.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

It takes a clever, well-informed, and talented writer (or artist, or playwright, etc...) to apply subversion in a meaningful way. Subversion for subversion's sake is pretty easy to do, though, and can easily serve as a substitute for real creativity, talent, or fresh ideas.

I think it might also have something to do with anti-spoiler culture + social media. When you have thousands upon thousands of fans all predicting where your series is going to go next, the temptation to subvert their expectations and provide a "surprise" is strong. But the thing is, very few people enjoy a surprise that exists for no other reason than to surprise you, especially if it makes nonsense of everything that came before (characterisation, plot, world-building, etc...).

I often read the wikipedia summary of a film or series before I watch it. That way, I can enjoy the artistry of the production rather than always wondering what happens next and how it all ends.

 

[Glaurung]

For me the setting is just an accesory, and I try foccusing on the story instead. Sadly, I haven't much time either for reading nowadays, but I enjoyed authors like Roger Zelazny (which ranges form the fantasy setting to the mundane with a bit of magic, to scify) and Stanislaw Lem (especially because I grew up with his books). If you are curious, George R.R. Martin has a good stock of space opera short stories and light novels, on which he actually has a plot. They are really good. Theodore Sturgeon is another interesting author, but his novels are almost always set in the mid 20th century.

I don't pick novels based on publicity stunts or how much they sell. I have a personal anecdote on which my godmother gave me as a present a book from a national author that her daughters liked very much.

It was the most insufferable brick or paper I've ever touched.

Plot twist? This woman doesn't put much care on her presents, so the next year she came with the same book, on March (because she kept postponing the visit for one reason or another. Quite understandable and I'd never be mad at anyone for that. Heck, I don't even demand presents from anyone, I'm happy with just a good wish over the phone), and inside the book they had forgotten the ticket, dated well after Xmas and during January sales.

Yeah.

I have a personal grudge against that particular book, so imagine my horror when I saw that, years after that, it had spawned a trilogy. As Guybrush Treepwood said once: "Why does it always have to be a trilogy?"

So yeah, picking books is hard

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

I can never predict myself what I will like. I thought I'd like Terry Pratchett, but I found his Discworld books almost unreadable. People said I'd like the "Wheel of Time" books but I could never get into them. When I was a kid I was given The Hobbit because I loved the Narnia books so much, but I hated The Hobbit because there were no girls in the story.

 

[Cat on Mars]

I think it might also have something to do with anti-spoiler culture + social media. When you have thousands upon thousands of fans all predicting where your series is going to go next, the temptation to subvert their expectations and provide a "surprise" is strong. But the thing is, very few people enjoy a surprise that exists for no other reason than to surprise you, especially if it makes nonsense of everything that came before (characterisation, plot, world-building, etc...).

I like this explanation. I agree with your assessment that surprise just for the sake of it doesn't make something good, and people tend to give unwarranted importance to "plot twists" and spoilers, because surprise is nice but I appreciate the progressive build of tension, the small twists and turns, the odd dead ends and the gaps where the story may meet or not my expectations. I'm the kind of person that doesn't get discouraed by spoilers, because I don't want to know what happened in a story, I want to know how did it happen.

Sometimes I think my standards are crazy high and I'm a difficult reader to please, but I read things like Ernst Jünger's On the Marble Cliffs and I realize nowaydays writers are simply lazy psychophants with no understanding of human nature.

I thought I'd like Terry Pratchett, but I found his Discworld books almost unreadable. People said I'd like the "Wheel of Time" books but I could never get into them. When I was a kid I was given The Hobbit because I loved the Narnia books so much, but I hated The Hobbit because there were no girls in the story.

Oof. I was looking forward to read Terry Pratchett and Wheel of Time asap because they're been in my "to read list" forever but now I'm worried my reaction would be similar to yours.
Oh, funny story: when I was a child, I read a lot. A LOT. Hundreds, thousand of pages per week. I used to borrow three books from the local library on fridays and return them the next friday but I always was left without anything to read by wednesdays. One friday, I resolved to find the longest book I could find, and whatdoyouknow, I found LOTR complete in a weighty tome. I didn't know what was about but I liked how heavy it felt and how small the print was so I brought it home.
That was a mistake.
Genealogy, poems, overly verbose characters, female characters didn't exist even as background props, too many detailed descriptions of a Hobbit's home I had little care for and the nagging feeling of a larger mythos I wasn't privy to (don't laugh, I was 10-11 and naive).
I made it to The Pracing Pony and returned it and picked up Flowers to Algernon instead, ashamed of myself because I never left a book unfinished until then.
Many years later, after Peter Jackson's movies, I gave it a try and I liked it just enough. My boyfriend lend me his copy of The Hobbit and I loved it.

Unpopular opinion of the day: The Hobbit is better than LOTR. Fight me.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

I think you should try Discworld and Wheel of Time, because after all, millions of readers love them!
There's a fantasy writer I love whom I very rarely see mentioned: Sherri S Tepper. Her world-building, her imagination, is just off the charts, and she writes fabulous female protagonists. She never subverts for the sake of it, and yet I find I can very rarely predict where her plots are going to go. I strongly recommend "Grass", "The Gate to Women's Country" and "The Awakeners".
I don't often say this, because I hate complaining "the patriarchy!" every time a woman hasn't received her due - but I honestly think that if Tepper were a man she'd be a legend.

 

[Cat on Mars]

My "to read" list keeps growing! I'm all for short stories, I think they're a good measure of any author's body of work.
@LicoriceAllsorts I'm looking for her works in Amazon but all the digital books are in English and only one of her works has been translated to Spanish and no digital copy available!

I enjoy creating settings for my stories: climates, architecture, art, what do people eat and what raw materials have available and trade routes and well, you get what I'm talking about. I decide on what technology they have available for story purposes.
I know some people like to outline all the parts of their stories and then decide on the setting but I'm the polar opposite of that; I can't even fathom what charaters would want or need or why are where they are if there isn't a world where all that is happening.

In other worlds, everything I write takes ages to be done because I must create the universe before I can bake a pie!

ETA:
I purchased a kindle copy of Grass even if my kindle is so old Amazon can't recognize it lol. I'm enjoying it so far on mobile.
And Good Omens was in my list since forever. I swear, in my deathbed I'm going to mourn all the books I never got to read lol

 

[Glaurung]

Try Diskworld, @Cat on Mars, I did and loved Terry's irony and sarcasm, through I could only finish the Rincewind saga (it's 41 books total!). But you have to try and form your opinion.

Another writer I like is Neil Gayman. Less scathing than Terry, but also good nonetheless. American Gods is good, very good. Btw, Neil and Terry's collab "Good Omens" is a treat.

 

[Clement Rage]

The reason I brought up the Codex Alera series is because the first novel happens in the country-side and there's not that much that is majorly different from a standard "peasant kid figures out they are actually something special" origin story that a lot of "fauxEuropean medieval land" stories start with.

That's just a stock heroes' journey trope, you're as likely to find it in a high school anime. It's rarer than people think.

I loved Discworld when I was younger, cooled on it a bit when I got old enough to start catching the references.

I don't like recognising the world in the stuff I read. If the physics of the world is different, the culture would be different too.

Westeros was too recognisable to work for me. If your lieges have dragons, warfare would change to accomodate them, but they're still using pike formations and cavalry charges.

Nobody can build a whole world, but the closest I've come is Malazan, written by two archeologists who used it as their RPG setting for a decade or so. So we get in depth cultures of different continents gong back hundreds or thousands of years.

What really bothers me is when characters point out how subversive they are being by not 'following the trope'. That's just not how people act.
'I'm going to wear my helmet in battle, unlike the stories'...Of course. The only reason you would think otherwise is by watching movies that your universe doesn't have.

"I'm going to win by not following the rules". I'm sorry, sir/madam, but you did not invent the concept of cheating.

 

[Cthulhu]

I think a few things.

First, it's hard to deny that Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and the associated worldbuilding has been one of the most influential pieces in the fantasy genre as we know it. Tolkien's English, and based his work off of what he knew, his country's history, the area he grew up in, the stories he's heard and read, and his particular experiences in e.g. WW1. But even with that he's been able to do a lot of what is considered original work, new ideas, cultures, languages, etcetera, which have been adopted by thousands (?) of other authors, books, and media.

For modern fantasy, a lot of people will point to GRRM, who has made a very medieval-English story and setting - but that's because the guy is basically a historian specializing in the War of the Roses and other late-medieval English history.

We've recently finished The Last Kingdom on Netflix, also based on a book series by Bernard Cornwell, who is also a historian and that story is based on the actual history of early England. Also TIL another book series he wrote, Sharpe, has been turned into a TV show as well starring Sean Bean,

I've read / tried to read The Witcher books and the game, which was written by a Polish fellow. The setting is still distinctly medieval or approaching renaissance, but because of the author's origins, the stories and whatnot relate more to Slavic myths and history - which is just as rich as English if not moreso, but it's underrepresented in western media to the point where I don't even know what I'm talking about here, lmao.

Recently I've been reading a book by Murakami, a Japanese author. It's a book set in a contemporary setting, but it has Japanese folklore influencing the story and its events by a lot. A lot of Japanese games contain a lot of Japanese folklore, e.g. monster designs, etc. Sekiro is also a good example of that (I think, based on a complete lack of understanding of Japanese culture and history)

And I suspect you'll see the same depending on where the creators are from. Very long story short, I personally believe it's perfectly natural for authors to have a setting close to what they know, where they're from, what they grew up with. If they can come up with something well outside their comfort zone (say, Dune, which is probably problematic as fuck), more power to them, but I won't slag them off for sticking with what they are most comfortable with.

 

[Clement Rage]

There's never a problem with using any particular setting. It's what you do with it. If you're writing in English, you are inclined to look back at UK history, because that's the easiest thing to do. (and the likes of Australia and the USA are relatively young countries that never really had a medieval era. (Well, they did, but the history is not as accessible.)

Creating new cultures from scratch is difficult, and using too much of an existing one has potential to be fraught because of realworld issues. If you move beyond the US and UK, you run the risk of getting tangled up in historical issues or cultural appropriation. US written villains tend to randomly become British, because that's the 'safe' accent to use.

You make mistakes about US and UK history, they're mistakes. If you do that accessing a culture beyond your own, that's potentially insulting to people.

LOTR often gets accused of things that are not actually in it. There's no 'teenager suddenly coming into his power', there's no 'happily ever after', there's a return of the king, but Aragorn's like 80, it's not a random uneducated teenager. Nobody has to like it, but I don't like the badly informed parodies.