[Ruggiero]

I've been reflecting on a number of books/series I've read which draw in varying degrees upon history in constructing plot, setting or characters, and trying to decide whether this technique improves or diminishes the book in my estimation. No doubt the answer depends on the book, so a few examples merit consideration.

Guy Gavriel Kay seems to quite blatantly and intentionally model his alternate worlds off of specific periods in history, and even specific historical figures. Some time after reading The Last Light of the Sun (and concluding a book can not be based solely on characters feeling poignant emotions) I read "The Birth of Britain" by Winston Churchill couldn't help but recognize that King Aeldred was King Alfred, though the three main ethnic analogues of Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, and Celts were obvious from the start. The events were so similar to historic events (minus a superfluous telepathy side-plot and the odd faerie appearance) that I couldn't help but feel that this book didn't differ sufficiently from history to make it worth writing. Kay fans tell me The Lions of Al-Rassan is his best, an analogue of 15th century Spain. The question is raised in my mind: why not simply write historical fiction if you are paralleling history so closely. Even the occasional faerie or bit of magic can be crowded into historical fiction - just look at the Mists of Avalon.

Others like George R. R. Martin draw loosely on historical plots and settings in constructing their worlds, the Lannister-Stark houses vaguely resembling the Lancaster-York houses of the wars of the roses. Westeros is similar in many ways to England (Dorn = Cornwall, the Ice Wall = Hadrian's wall), but beyond these superficial similarities, the story is entirely original. Given that he clearly didn't require an historical analogue, I wonder why he even adopted the little he did. This is in no way to disparage his work - merely curiosity.

The Prince of Nothing series, is clearly modeled after the first crusade, even down to details such as crusaders making agreements under pressure with the Nansur (Byzantine) empire to return reconquered land. I saw the first crusade parallel as a useful narrative tool to explore the mindset of religious fanaticism, and how easily manipulated and controlled it can be by a Nietzschean ubermensh like Kellhus - especially today when religion is so often used as a tool of violence and domination by the few. I'd say the series wasn't harmed by modeling it after the first crusade, but, when I discovered it was [it became glaringly obvious while reading "The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Crusades"], my opinion of it certainly wasn't elevated. It seemed less original.

That brings me to the Malazan series which seems less motivated by any historical background than anything I've ever read. At least in recent history anyways. The presence of Neanderthals reflects the authors archaeological background, and perhaps a loose comparison can be drawn between the Malazan and Roman empires. But frankly I like it best of all I've mentioned, in part because of its originality.

So what do you think? Is a fantasy novel improved or diminished by drawing on history? Is it a matter of how deeply it draws?

[ChrisW]

bugger all.

If it's writen well and a good story it doesn't matter. Same for cliches etc.

[Bluestar]

History is a tool a writer can use. It can be used well, it can be misused, it can be overused. Some people really like stories inspired by our history. Some don't. I wouldn't say it's either good or bad.

[Simen]

All stories are influenced by past stories, insofar as all published authors read lots of stories. It can be done well, it can fail totally, but I think that's entirely dependent on the story, not how much or little historical parallels are in it.

So I'd agree that in and of itself it's neither positive nor negative. (Just like "fantasy" isn't of itself a positive or a negative label to slap on a book.)

[manephelien]

Indeed, it depends quite a lot on the book. Let's face it, most fantasy, especially epic fantasy, is set in a quasi-medieval European setting. This has been often lamented, perhaps as one of the less successful legacies of Tolkien's influence on modern fantasy. However, it's also quite natural given that most published fantasy authors (and I'd argue readers) are either European or of European descent and it's easier to write what you know - or more accurately think you know - than something completely foreign. Making it a fantasy setting doesn't change that.

[Bond]

It depends on what you mean. I think a fantasy story is generally enhanced by being able to call upon history. The danger I think is when history ends up substituting for the creative imagination of the writer. It's hard to say if it actually hurts the writing though since there is no way to know how creative a written work would have been if the author hadn't drawn upon history for inspiration. Did history crowd out the author's imagination or did it supplement it? Because of the question you raise though, I tend to hold authors who display a lot of invention in their storytelling in higher regard than those who merely show dexterity with a sentence.

[Stevenator]

I usually like it when authors draw on history because it can give an extra tinge of realism.

[Macklyn]

Unless the historical usage is really obvious I don't think most readers even notice. I'm a fairly well read person, but I have to admit I know very little of world history, but for the major events.
I haven't read any of Kay's works so I can't comment on them, but I have read the other works mentioned. Bakker's usage of the crusade was obvious, but other than the crusade ideal it was a fairly original story.
Martin uses historical patterns, certainly, but his strength as a writer falls almost solely on his characters. Even his plots are only hinted at.
In short, I think it's fine to use historical patterns or settings so long as the story and characters are original.

[saintjon]

It seems to be more likely that a story that draws on history will have more meat to it. There are exceptions, of course, but some writers get all crazy and make up nations and structures of nations that make no sense.

I think if you want to decide whether a writer is just drawing on history or relying on it as a crutch ask yourself if they could create an excellent story without doing so. I think it works in reverse too.

[FangOWolf]

It really depends on the writing. Jack Whyte's twist on King Arthur's tale I found very interesting. Even though you know the story, it interesting how he works it in to his version.

The first half of Douglass Clegg's Priest of Blood is pretty much a peasants view of Brittany at the time of the Children's Crusade, then he drops into the fantasy and rolls it out.