What is the difference between real history and fantasy history?

[Josh]

If you look at real history, it seems that there's a certain feel to it. Writers often break it down by century, large events, important people, and big empires. It's filled with facts. But most critically, it seems to be getting more complex and multifaceted as time goes on. In particular, it seems that the world is changing.

But if you look at fantasy history you see something different. In general, fantasy history doesn't get more complex, but if anything get's simpler over time. There are fewer events and fewer people, and far fewer cultures. There is usually far less ambiguous activity. A fantasy world is, for the most part, in stasis, waiting for a small change to set things in great motion (where they will stop again!)

This happens for a few reasons, I think. First, a good narrative requires focus, and fantasy authors can (and often do) use the conceit of a rural setting to keep the reader shrouded in ignorance, at least at first. Indeed, one of the great pleasures of fantasy is the process of learning more about the world.

Authors can use idyllic stasis to set off dramatic change, too.

But what is it about the "legendary voice" that differs so strongly with the "factual voice"? What is the special benefit of fantasy stories to the reader?

[Paul]

I think that one of the primary differences is that in the legendary worlds, there are moral boundaries - great events usually invole the overthrow of some 'Dark Lord' or other who is undisputably evil, with no element of ambiguity, So you can make a clear cut choice - side with the goodies or the baddies.

Real life of course is far more complex and wars are usually fought for a variety of reasons - political (winning the next election by invoking patriotism), commercial gain, cornering of rare resources - none of which are particularly noble or heroic.

Every day we are faced with choices in 'real life', and many of these choices involve picking the least distasteful option, or compromising. Everything is a grey area.

In fantasy you can have certainty and peace of mind - at least for a while.

[[deleted user]]

One theme in some fantastic history is that of cyclical patterns. In the real world, we can say that history rhymes or repeats, but this is just the result of our minds making an analogy between two very different events. In fantasy, an author can make the link explicit by referring to a historical cycle that has the force of natural law. In the case of one or more series, one might make the cynical comment that the author has chosen the cyclical model of history in order to stretch out book sales throughout the rest of [real:] history.

Incidentally, many fantasy series have the word "cycle" in the title. I think this can be traced back to the epic cycle of the Greeks, but there may be examples of works where the editor or author chose the word because it works both as description of the content and a claim of poetic stature.

[Jim]

Fantasy is an escape for most of us, I think. The more complex the times, the more relaxing a simple novel & I agree with Josh on the focus. I deal with computers & people all day - more complications in my life, I don't need.

Fantasy history has to have a certain logic to it. Fiction can't be as strange as reality or people wouldn't believe it. Would you believe in a fictional world where the technology was advanced enough to send men to the moon, race from computers the size of buildings to ones with more computing power the size of a book in decades & yet still have issues with hanging chads?

Time is often used in fantasy to set the atmosphere of age/wisdom/mystery. Civilizations &/or people thousands of years old, yet they're static in most ways. Authors don't have the space (or possibly the imagination) to fill up all that time. Look at the tomes that have been written on just one important historical figure such as Lincoln, often with conflicting view points. Any author that tried that would have to write many volumes & runs the risk of losing his audience in explanations, even if they just gave an overview of the high points. "Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell" lost me that way.

[Kathy]

So as I read the start of this discussion, I instantly had Tolkien's The Silmarillion jump in my head. Now I am not a fan of "real" history, which is why I'm in health care, but I think that Tolkien was a fan of "real" history, by virtue of his writing a whole background history of Middle Earth not only in the Silmarillion but also in all the other post-mortem works that Chris Tolkien has refined and published.

I will admit, The Silmarillion was a hard read, and I think that it was because it read like a high school history book. There was a reason that this history was in a completely different book than the LOTR; I agree with Jim that Tolkien would have lost his audience with extensive explanations. Also, unlike "real" history, fantastical history must be simplistic or there would be way too many loose ends to tie up at the end of a book.

[S.A.]

Fascinating discussion. The focus required by fictionalising history in fantasy or in historical fiction instantly puts in the artifice of a beginning, middle and end (well, it's supposed to, I'm not sure I'm very good at it). Whereas real history is a continuous process.

Real history is also a complex chaotic system of interactions not a structured story that knows where it's going. Those creating it usually haven't the first idea where it's going, they are just living their daily lives and trying to feed the children. To identify with fictional characters, and fictional heroes, you have to believe they have some control over events, or at least influence on them - hence the popularity of the quest, or the mighty battle against the Dark Forces. In history, those who have a significant impact on events are few and far between.

The only problem comes if we start confusing the artifice of fantasy history with real history and expect heroes or supernatural forces to rescue us from the consequences of our own actions!

I think also we have a slightly skewed view from the fast-paced 21st century, and perhaps particularly in the States, which is a culture created almost entirely by people driven out (or forcefully removed) from other cultures. It is my impression that more localised and less technological civilisations perpetuated for long periods with very little change, beause there was no driver for change. Things were pretty much okay as they were for the Aborigines until the Europeans arrived. It wasn't a life we would find comfortable or perhaps even enjoyable, but we have inherited a different reality, and a whole different world of possibilities.

Tolkein was a lot smarter than me. He realised all this BEFORE he wrote the stories.

[Chris]

I have something of an interest in history, and of course I'm a fantasy fan. The works of alternate history intrigue me, but I haven't really jumped in and read a lot of it. While tempted to try out some Harry Turtledove, for example, I have a concern.

What if I read his books and then later I confuse his stories of alternate history with the actual history that has taken place? I mean, I'll remember that the South didn't really win the Civil War, and I'll remember that aliens didn't get involved in World War II, but what about smaller details? I think that alternate history is a wonderful thing to let my imagination explore, but I wouldn't want to lose sight of the "real" history....

[Jim]

Chris, my problem with alternate histories is my frustration at my ignorance. I like them best if I read up on the period before reading them. The best parts often hinge on their departure from our reality, but if I don't know what that is, I lose a lot of the story.

As you point out, big things aren't a problem. Stonewall Jackson doesn't get killed at Chancelorville is OK. Common knowledge, but I can never remember what the next battles would have been & where he might have made a huge difference to the outcome of the war. Unless I stop & read up on it, I'll miss a lot of the wonder of the rest of the book.

[Josh]

S.A. I enjoyed your comments. Yes, it does seem like in the real world people are born, they die, and the world keeps turning. Some tragedies affect millions, but even this is a drop in the bucket in the long run. So why is it that we watch a horror movie and worry so much about a couple of terrorized kids? So what if the bad guy wins?

Fantasy can be characterized by individuals with unreasonable velocity through the world. This usually means an unreasonable concentration of power, be it from an (unachievable) level of mundane political/religious/economic organization, to an introduction of magical power.

I've been wondering about this because I've always been interested in the appeal of fantasy (and gaming). But I've also just finished the excellent "The Brief Wonderous Life of Oscar Wao", where the author makes some wonderful parallels between Trujillo of the Dominican Republic and Sauron from Lord of the Rings.

And I'm no historian, but it does seem like the ancient Greeks didn't make any great distinction between their legendarium and their history.

[S.A.]

it does seem like the ancient Greeks didn't make any great distinction between their legendarium and their history.

Josh,

I'm not a historian either, but from what I've gleaned "history" is a modern invention. I looked up the word in my etymological dictionary - it comes from the Greek for "knowing". The word "story" is derived from "history"

Roman history is about justifying Roman glory, very little to do with the facts. Many of the famous men of history were very good self-publicists. Shakespeare notoriously makes free with historical accuracy - but I suspect he would be somewhat bemused by the whole concept of "historical accuracy". He is creating stories - dramas - about themes in human interaction and uses period settings to "protect the innocent" - that is, to avoid political flak from or for his wealthy and influential patrons!

I think it is possible that modern fantasy could do the same thing. Show real truths through a fantasy setting. But then it is no longer escapism and loses much of the typical appeal of fantasy fiction, so I'm not sure how much value it has as a fictional form.

[MB (What she read)]

Chris, I read Harry Turtledove's WW2 novel series a year or so ago. I don't think you will have trouble confusing the events in the books with real history. I seem to remember that the aliens arrival early in the war really changed the situation. From that point on, the "game" was different. It was just the players that were the same (with the addition of the aliens). The hostilities and undercurrents were still there and so were the major personages but the alliances shifted. The humans and aliens fought and allied and fought again and boundaries shifted back and forth. There were lots of interesting ideas and a way to view our history from a different POV.

I don't read a lot of alternate history but I enjoyed those books. The individual alien characters had distinctive personalities, as well as the individual humans, and there was a lot of dry humor scattered throughout.

I liked the second series set later with the space race as well.

If you do decide to read them, let me know what you think. I'm curious.

[Chris]

MB, thanks. I'll keep it in mind. I've always heard good things about Turtledove.....

[Carolyn]

I really enjoyed the WW and Colonization series, but another good place to start with Turtledove is his Atlantis series (2 books out so far.)
Premise is the discovery of another continent in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean - has it's own flora and fauna (think Australia) and is colonized by different European countries. North America still exists, but the Native Americans are much more in control of it.
Very interesting series, a good look at his writing, and not a chance in he** that you'd confuse it with 'real' history. = )
I highly recommend it.

Opening Atlantis A Novel of Alternate History
The United States of Atlantis

[Chris]

Cool....thanks, Carolyn....sounds interesting