Medieval Settings, The Fantasy and Reality

Discussion in 'Setting Development' started by Mask, Jan 31, 2013.

  1. Mask

    Mask New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2013
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    The church had laws for punishing priests, and lords. They also made laws for what penalties lords were allowed to enforce upon their serfs. Not coming to work on the lord's field on the day you're supposed to had something like a hay-penny fine. Getting married without asking the lord's consent also had a fine of a similar amount. In an example with the church laws, there was one church which became extremely rich, and it made them cartoonishly corrupt--gambling, drinking, girls (likely prostitutes), extorting people for money, etc. Can't remember the details, but it was quickly put a stop to.

    As for violence in the middle-ages, sure, there was plenty. If you committed treason, the punishment generally involved castration and being quartered, if not a host of other tortures as well. Of course, this varied a lot with the King, the times, and the country. I remember reading about how the Norman King William the Conqueror, when he came to power in Britain, introduced a new punishment for treason, which involved all the limbs being removed as well as castration. The way the article was worded, it was clear this punishment was far more brutal than the original one for treason, though they didn't describe what it used to be.

    We have to remember also that part of the reason lords raping women and the like happened as much as it did back then, was the lack of technology. I mean now, it's easy to end up on camera, or for doctors to take DNA evidence and prove it. If we took away all our advancements, we'd probably find a lot more important figures abusing people and getting away with it, since it's simply hard to prove even with what we have.

    The idea of corrupt, foppish lords is far too prominent in fiction relating to ancient periods. Many of them had tough upbringings, and were ready to die defending their land and people (specifically theirs, most often). There are plenty of battles which can attest to this fact--the French noblemen of Argincourt were insanely brave enough to get most of the government of France wiped out.
     
  2. jannert

    jannert Retired Mod Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    Messages:
    17,674
    Likes Received:
    19,889
    Location:
    Scotland
    I own a really good, recently-written book that might be just the ticket here. It's called "The Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval England," written by Ian Mortimer. (I believe this guy has written other similar books.)

    Basically, it's a topic-by-topic social history of what it was like to live in England during the 14th century, written mostly from the perspective of ordinary people. You get chapters entitled: The Landscape, The People, The Medieval Character, Basic Essentials, What to Wear, Travelling, Where to Stay, What to Eat and Drink, Health and Hygiene, The Law and What To Do.

    It's an excellent resource.
     
  3. cazann34

    cazann34 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    42
    Location:
    Scotland, UK
    They don't call them the 'dark ages' for no reason. Alot of what happened in the medieval times was never written down, unless of course it happened to a king or some other kind of nobleman.

    What fantastic elements do you mean? I'm intrigued.
     
  4. Mask

    Mask New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2013
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    @jannert: Will have to look into that one.


    @cazann: Much of what was written down was by monks who focused primarily on history. Men of local churches also kept records, of marriages, deaths, and little things like if someone had been fined.

    As for fantastic elements, I'm referring to fantasy elements which are associated with the medieval, such as dragons and trolls.
     
  5. AVCortez

    AVCortez Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2013
    Messages:
    390
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    I agree, fantasy writers are often world-builders. The places they construct utilize aspects of medieval life, but for the most part are completely removed. Nowadays I write fantasy set in a world with a medieval tech-level (to use a gaming term), but in no way is it intended to be a representation of medieval earth... Not to mention a perfect representation of medieval life would be intensely boring to most people.
     
  6. Mask

    Mask New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2013
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think you are confusing a story with accurate historical detail, with one where nothing happens.

    Being historically accurate is a nice bonus--but if your book is boring, it'll be a boring book which makes for good homework (though still less efficient than a textbook).
     
  7. AVCortez

    AVCortez Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2013
    Messages:
    390
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    That's true, I am to a degree. Mainly because I'm talking in black and white terms. The broader market of fantasy readers, do not have an in depth knowledge of the medieval period. So a lot of behaviours and language, especially gestures, would likely be lost on them. To explain the meanings of everything, I think, would make the text very dry, and difficult to follow. But I could be wrong.

    I should also mention that "historical accuracy" changes over time.
     
  8. Mask

    Mask New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2013
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not throwing too many strange details at a reader is part of being a skilled writer. Fantasy and sci-fi writers regularly make that mistake. You can get around throwing too many by being a little vague about some details at first, by starting off with a situation more relatable to the modern reader. You can also describe a detail so that it is immediately understandable, without need for further explanation. "He did X, as was the greeting of their land" as a lazy example.

    It's not wise to work your story off historical material which is not yet solid. Often, the public are fed rather exaggerated versions of history, so the changes which occur from new discoveries seem more radical than they sometimes are. It's good to talk with historians, since they can give you a more accurate starting point than popular media, and can steer you way from questionable stuff.
     
  9. AVCortez

    AVCortez Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2013
    Messages:
    390
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    I was more referring to speculative nature of history in general. Surprisingly little of what we know about the middle ages is actually concrete, even aspects of life in the early 1800's is somewhat murky. When Stephen Hawking concluded that time travel into the past is probably impossible he said something like: "A disappointment for dinosaur hunters and a relief for historians" which I think sums it up nicely. You are quite correct in that media outlets like the history channel tend to go overboard and make some interesting claims. Watch their series on aliens (the one that features the fellow with the puffy hair who has since become a meme), they claimed that dinosaurs walked less than thirty thousand years ago and had some pretty convincing evidence to back it up. I don't know either way, I'm not a palaeontologist, but it's a good example of how lost you can get in history.
     
  10. sunwave

    sunwave Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2010
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    4
    ON TOPIC:
    i think that a lot of people think that medieval humans were dumber because they can't understand the difference between intelligence and knowledge. Yes, we have a lot more complicated stuff around, but we also have a lot more schooling and a longer life because of all the knowledge we have built up in the years. Because of that, we can accomplish more and understand more. If you would take a group of random (young) people out of the Middle Ages and put them in this time and day, together with a group of young people from our own time, and educate them identically, I don't think they'll end up differently.

    JUST ME RANTING:
    Actually, it makes sense. In the beginning, everyone is pretty decent except for the ones plotting stuff and the ones finding out. Then, war breaks out. Fields get burned and towns get destoryed in fights. When an army comes through, most of the food supply is drained. That happens in reality as well.
    Then, because of the food shortage, there is more crime. Poorer people die, people with more power (soldiers with weapons, for example) take the food they can. Others disagree, fight back, bad things happen. I know only three really fucked up characters/groups:
    - The Mountain (he's always been a psycho)
    - The Company of Mummers
    - The Bastard of Bolton (dunno his name)

    I don't know any other groups that are totally crazy. Yes, they fight and kill, but they don't do unneeded stuff. Not the Lannisters, not the Horsepeople, not the Starks. Some are a bit resenting against one or two particular people, but they are not aimlessly crude.
     
  11. jannert

    jannert Retired Mod Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    Messages:
    17,674
    Likes Received:
    19,889
    Location:
    Scotland
    Well, said, Mask. This is a REALLY important concept for every writer to grasp. The info-dump happens when writers don't understand how to be sparing with detail at the start of any story. Start with something the reader can relate to immediately, then work in the 'odd' details as gradually as you can. It also helps if you can filter as much detail as possible through the eyes and feelings of your characters. You get opinion in there, character development, etc. Never pass up a chance to do a couple of things at once.
     
  12. Mask

    Mask New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2013
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    Considering all the legends of dragons I've read, I wouldn't object to the idea of dinosaurs being around with humans.

    While it is impressive what details historians can miss (and how much speculation ends up in a thesis), it is also impressive how as to much detail we do have. There are periods where we are familiar with all the pieces of kit certain armies' soldiers had, due to a lucky find or documentation. Illustrated recordings of the way trees were felled and shaped, on how the Vikings made their ships, have given us wonderful facts on very interesting procedures. There are groups and communities building Viking ships, and castles, and practising swordplay, all in the ancient style and method based off the findings we have, which is further improving our understanding of the documents and archaeological discoveries.

    Some things will change. But how you make a Viking boat--we know how. There might be details missing, which require speculation--and I would not champion them in a book under most circumstances if so.


    Character in Game of Thrones are not aimlessly crude. They are crude in a way designed to be appealing to readers/watchers with how edgy it is. The way they curse in Game of Thrones is extremely modern in feel and execution... that combined with its excessiveness creates a very fake atmosphere.

    As to the points of what happens in Game of Thrones being anywhere near historically accurate... In a vague sense, yes. There are examples of people and events similar to what happens in the stories. Martin has evidently been inspired by the most savage and depraved events in history and popular culture--throwing in everything from incest, child rapists, castration as a common punishment, to enough prostitutes to storm Mordor. Game of Thrones isn't considered historically or realistically friendly, due to certain details ("straight swords are great because they can stab right through plate armour"), and a setting which conspires to shock the audience whether it's plausible or not.

    I'm sorry, that might've turned into something of a rant. I don't hate Game of Thrones (I like the parts with Tyrion quite a bit), and hope my post does not come across as overly critical (I'm often critical of things which get my interest).


    I doubt there was a show of charisma or intelligence in my speech, but you are very correct in agreeing with the principle, which I feel all authors should share.

    Achieving several tasks with one line of text (characterizing, exposition, advancing the plot, foreshadowing, etc.) is probably the most advanced technique a writer has at their disposal. I hope that one day, I can say with confidence that I am able to use this technique to effect.
     
  13. sunwave

    sunwave Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2010
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    4
    Jannert:
    "Well, said, Mask. This is a REALLY important concept for every writer to grasp. The info-dump happens when writers don't understand how to be sparing with detail at the start of any story. Start with something the reader can relate to immediately, then work in the 'odd' details as gradually as you can. It also helps if you can filter as much detail as possible through the eyes and feelings of your characters. You get opinion in there, character development, etc. Never pass up a chance to do a couple of things at once."

    This is, I think, what the whole "creation of a setting" is about in any genre. Trying to give only the *needed* information when possible without resorting to infodumping, and instead giving clear and CONCISE details in converstations, events, characters' thoughts or other "happenings". Reading about a fiction setting should not be like reading a schoolbook, learning the rules about "words, grammar and pronounciation" of the setting as described in the lists. It should be fun instead, where you hardly even notice you're learning new stuff while following the events/characters in the story.

    @Mask
    No offense taken about GoT, haha! I like the books, but I can still see the flaws you're mentioning.
     
  14. Poziga

    Poziga Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    581
    Likes Received:
    300
    Location:
    Slovenia
    So, what do you think? I think if you are writing fantasy novel and you like history, you can find a lot of inspiration from different textbooks/books. I think medieval ages and different ancient stories/mythologies are very interesting even for the kids (i mean who didn't have wooden swords and pretend to be a warrior when they were little). There were many different things going on in the "dark ages", from religious wars and crusades untill the War of roses. Medieval age is one big interesting chapter of human history that can be used in many different ways. If history is really something that interests you, you can find lots of informations reflecting your type of world and just twist them around, so by the time you're done editing, those informations are unrecognizable and look like you have "invented" them yourself...
    I'm quite young and new to this forum and writing society in general, but I'm writing fantasy novel based also on medieval ages and that's one of the ways i work. Just wanted to share my opinion :)
     
  15. La_Donna

    La_Donna Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    11
    I accept Game of Thrones and quite enjoy it because it is amongst the most impressive world building I have ever seen. It's also a fantasy, so I can forgive it for the overly aggressive violence, the swearing and the sex which would just not have been tolerated in true medieval society (Church Courts, Canon Law, the most basic of basic rights).

    If what happened in GoT was used in a historical fiction I would not like it. I think there is a fine line about violence that you have to stay behind in historical fiction to stop it being ridiculous. For example, "Pillars of the Earth" by Ken Follett contains violence that could have feasibly happened (rape, town burning, mutilation) but because of it's context during a civil war, "The Anarchy", and the fact there are several characters who don't condone the violence and actively campaign against it means that violence in the medieval period is presented in a very believable way as there are vastly different human reactions to it, from the psychopath antagonist William Hamleigh to the pacifist Prior Philip.

    This is in contrast to the hammy, unbelievable, ridiculous portrayal of violence in a historical fiction I have ever read, "Wideacre" by Philippa Gregory. Wideacre is all about how women were oppressed during the eighteenth century, and so the main character, Beatrice, goes to ridiculously violent lengths to get hold of Wideacre, her family home. She arranges the death of her father, tricks her sister-in-law into poisoning her mother, has two children with her brother, sends innocent boys to the gallows and transports some to Australia, makes her husband an alcoholic and accuses him of being insane and gets him locked in an asylum and traps her ex-boyfriend in a mantrap so he gets his legs cut off all in aid of trying to blackmail her brother into giving her the house. It is ridiculous, outlandish and when other characters find out they are not nearly shocked enough. It was just not subtle nuanced, and it was obvious throughout what she was doing. I absolutely hate it when violence is treated like this in a historical novel, or any novel to be frank.
     
  16. ReptilesBlade

    ReptilesBlade New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2013
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Overland Park KS
    This is a really cool post. Based upon my own studies of religion I agree with it. Everything was slower and much more centered around the growing of food and not starving in the winter. They lives our ancestors lived and the ones we live today are night and day in difference. Compared to those who came before we are living gods, or at least demigods.
     
  17. ReptilesBlade

    ReptilesBlade New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2013
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Overland Park KS
    I also love Game of Thrones for the reasons you listed and my reaction to the violence is the same. It is just too brutal at times.

    Pillars of the Earth is one of the best books I have ever read. i bought it at a school book fair in 9th grade and it opened my mind to a whole new world of possibilities of what books could be like. I still have that copy someone where and have been looking for it after my recent move because I want to reread it and introduce it to my wife. i am certain she will love it. To this day one of my personal favorites.
     
  18. La_Donna

    La_Donna Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    11
    I love Pillars of the Earth! I still get every Follett book that comes out in the hope that it will stand up to POTE, but in my opinion he has just been recycling plot lines that he used in this epic. There are so many reasons I love this book:
    1) It offered a human interpretation of medieval people: not all of them were religious nuts who desired power.
    2) The beautiful way he describes the architecture of the period.
    3) That he has such a wide range of characters from all social backgrounds: priors, paupers, kings, lords, knights, men, women, children.
    4) That he introduced me to I think the villain who I have held up every villain I have read since in terms of evilness: William Hamleigh.

    It was this book that introduced me to the historical epic, and it is still my absolute favourite genre.
     
  19. heal41hp

    heal41hp Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2013
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Oklahoma, USA
    First off, love this thread. I love history and was only able to take an introductory course in college, which covered about a thousand years and didn't really go into any details. I enjoy the medieval era and use it as inspiration for a lot (all?) of my non-urban fantasies. And with that over with, I will also say that I have three more books I need to find one of these days (Pillars of the Earth, Wolf Hall, and Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval England). They all sound fantastic. :D

    Next I'll try mentioning a few things I believe are misrepresented/misconceived by or unknown to today's general populace regarding the medieval era. I look forward to being corrected if I'm wrong on any of these. :)

    The life expectancy of people was very low compared to today. I want to say 30s were considered middle age. This was what sparked a lot of the "early" marriages. Also, the mortality of children was incredibly. Only one in... four or five?... children survived to adulthood. Not sure on the exact numbers there.

    Language was very different back then. Find any text in Old or Middle English and tell me what's going on. I muddled through half of Beowulf in Middle English and managed to get most of it, along with a wild headache. There was also a period in the 11th(?) century where there was a huge influx of French into Britain that changed our language (one of the reasons Old/Middle English is so foreign to us now). We now call cow meat beef, pig meat pork, and sheep meat mutton among a vast array of other changes. It's why we have so much Latin-based stuff in our language and why German and other actually related languages seem so different from ours. (I love linguistics if you couldn't tell :))

    When knights duked it out on the fields, they rarely killed one another. Instead, it was far more lucrative to capture rivals and ransom them off. I believe I found this on the knights page of Wikipedia.

    One of the things I did learn in my history class was that serfs were treated as property. If land was traded or bought/sold between nobles, the serfs went with it. So they could wake up one day and find they're under someone new. Not like that changed much I'm sure. :)

    This might have been more for the Renaissance but I remember reading (also in my history class) that monasteries actually did business. They produced goods or performed services for the nearby community so they could get food and other supplies.

    This was actually recently in the news (as in some months ago). King Richard the Lionheart, when he died, had vital organs removed, preserved, and shipped to the edges of his kingdom to mark his territory. I remember it saying this was common practice. I found the article but I am way too tired to read it again at the moment. http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/28/17133165-how-king-richard-the-lionhearts-heart-was-preserved?lite

    And that is all I have to offer at this godforsaken hour. :) I look forward to this thread continuing.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice