I am an atheist, but I still have a great affection for our heritage and history, much of which is religious. Why the hell would I want to change BC and AD other than through some petulant and pointless anti-religious foot-stamping?
Your analogy is ridiculous, and you appear to have missed the point (becoming a habit for you), however others in the thread seem to have understood it so I'll continue the discussion with them. Thanks for trying.
The use of the CE abbreviation was introduced by Jewish academics in the mid-19th century because Jesus was not THEIR Lord. (That's 1850-ish.) If Jewish people were upset with the abbreviation then, why not try to be respectful and understanding of their belief systems? Why is it considered "anti-religious foot-stamping" to show respect for another persons beliefs?
Jews do have their own calendar, but often use the Gregorian calendar. From about 1825, the abbreviation VE (Vulgar Era) was used among Jews to denote years in the Western calendar. Common Era (CE) notation has been in use for Hebrew lessons for over a century. Though, some Jewish academics were already using CE and BCE. An example is in 1856, when Rabbi and Morris Jacob Raphall used the abbreviation in his book Post-Biblical History of The Jews. Would you prefer it if we adopted VE?
Because it is an established and standardised term that does not need to be changed other than as a statement. The act of changing it is showing disrespect to the religion from which it stems; we reject all of your history and heritage because your religion is wrong and ours is right. It is mudslinging of the most tedious and base variety. The expression "Common Era" can be found as early as 1708 in English,[7] and traced back to Latin usage among European Christians to 1615, as vulgaris aerae,[8] and to 1635 in English as Vulgar Era. At those times, the expressions were all used interchangeably with "Christian Era", with "vulgar" meaning "ordinary, common, or not regal" rather than "crudely indecent". Since the later 20th century, use of CE and BCE has been popularized in academic and scientific publications and more generally by authors and publishers wishing to emphasize secularism and/or sensitivity to non-Christians.[9][10][11] because it does not explicitly make use of religious titles for Jesus, such as "Christ" and Dominus ("Lord"), which are used in the BC/AD notation; nor does it give implicit expression to the Christian creed that Jesus was the Christ.[9][12][13][14][15] Stop cherry-picking your arguments. Believe it or not, everyone here can use google.
I just make up my own term when world-building. Using AD/CE or BC/BCE makes my fantasy and sci-fi stories look a little too much of our world. Granted, if my sci-fi is about futuristic humans, or my fantasy is a fantastical version of our Earth, then I use it. As for fantasies not being about warring kingdoms and politics? Same here. I'm writing out a fantasy that isn't about world wars or political strife.
Personally, I'd like to see more stand alone novels. Shared universe and characters are great, but it would be nice if the story would actually be finished at the end of the book, and not leave you waiting who knows how long for the sequel.
Exactly, I don't mind a series of stand alone novels featuring the same universe and characters but making it into a series risks dragging out the story to the point where it's unwelcomed or, worst yet, remaining inconclusive because the author died. Stand alones have the nice cushion of, "Oh, you didn't like that particular story? Don't worry, just pretend it was a fevered dream because this next one will be better! I hope. And if I die, well, then my recently released stand alone fantasy novel will be the last one in the series. Ta-ta."
Similar to this, but maybe a broader point: I'd like to see in-world history not be quite as clean-cut and/or important. It seems like every high fantasy setting has to have, like, 10,000 years of history, with which all of the characters are familiar, which has never been lost or altered or mis-remembered, and is never argued over or re-interpreted. I think this is a case of the author being excited about all the world-building they've done, and wanting to use it all, even though it isn't necessary (or can be left as subtext). Anyway this strikes me as a problem for 2 reasons: 1. Knowing what we do about human nature (and, even in fantasy, human nature informs most of the characterization) how much of our lives are influenced directly* by, say, the Saxon Heptarchy, or the Investiture Controversy? I feel like in a lot of fantasy settings the characters go around feeling very personally invested in stuff that happened hundreds or thousands of years ago, which just doesn't seem like how most people would spend their day, even in a fantasy setting. 2. Both the definition and content of history change over time. In Middle Ages Europe, "history" was basically the stories of the Bible, and God was the primary actor. Once secular histories started emerging (beginning in the Middle Ages) history began to include secular actors, first individual monarchs, then dynasties, nations, etc. Finally in the 20th century we started seeing social history and an emphasis on commoners, slaves etc. and other types that never would have merited a mention in earlier eras. But changes like this never seem to happen in fantasy settings, despite the passage of many centuries or millenia. Instead there's just one historical chronicle (referenced either by the characters directly or implicitly by the author), that seems to capture everything that happened in that time using the same basic methods. I guess maybe this is just an offshoot of the generally static character of fantasy societies, where there's never any technological progress, societal arrangements never break down over time, etc. This way of treating history has just gotten so stale, IMO. If you've read it, China Mieville's Perdido Street Station is an excellent example of the kind of thing I'd like to see more of--he builds this incredibly well-realized, almost tactile universe (in a highly fantastic setting) with just enough reference to its past to let you know that it has a history, but without the Voice of God-type exposition that so many fantasies have to refer to in order to set their scene. *Sure, you could say these things influenced our lives in the same way that all of history has somehow influenced our lives, but we still don't go around talking with our friends about them every day. Unless our friends are medievalists.
I was referring to culture, climate, technology and geography, I do understand the difference between Historical Fiction and Fantasy.
I'm going to echo something that @Steerpike often says and say: Less segregation within the genre as regards what is and what isn't fantasy. I've started to get into reading it, having always been an ardent Science Fiction fan, and I'm discovering through recommendations and reading author interviews that, just like in Science Fiction, what the readership sometimes feels is missing from the genre has much less to do with what's actually available and much more to do with people limiting their own selections.
True, I always think of fantasy as elves and dragons and some tediously macho-camp warrior type. I enjoy Neil Gaiman, but I never really think of it as fantasy. I've never read what @Steerpike suggests. What is the brief synopsis?
Gaiman gave some great reviews to Kiernan for her early work. I'd recommend Daughter of Hounds, for example. With The Red Tree and The Drowning Girl she goes more literary. I'll post a blurb in a sec.
The Red Tree is also great, but Daughter of Hounds is my favorite of her early, more accessible work.
I'll check it out next time I'm at the book shop- looks interesting. I was also thinking that The Dark Materials are some of my favourite books of all time, not only are they fantasy, but also YA/ childrens.
Geez. I posted that back cover from my phone. Didn't realize how freaking huge it was on the desktop.
Maybe I can work one into my fantasy... *edits* Done! There is now a scantly clad ginger woman running around in my fantasy novel. Now just have to figure out how she fits into the plot... Wait, do you want her to be the main character, or are you OK with her being a side character?
