[Alucard]

What do you think of history's role in fantasy? And I'm not speaking of our actual history being used as parallels in stories or anything like that. I'm talking about the history that authors incorporate into their tales.

For me personally, whenever I come across history in fantasy novels, it usually tends to bother me. Authors seem to use this as a tool to help their worlds feel more fleshed out and realistic, but in my opinion, it's really not much of a help. Often times, whenever the characters begin rambling about history, I tend to get bored. More often than not, the history in fantasy novels has little to no effect on the actual story and just feeds you a plethora of names you'll never remember and stories you'll forget soon after you've read them. It doesn't seem to do any more than hurt the pace.

Now, when history is handled correctly, it is explained when it effects the characters or is necessary for you to better understand their heritage or motivations, but not just for the sake of "detail". And even so, history should be used sparingly, as an aid to the tale, not as a filler to give some fantasy world credibility. If a world is described well and explained thoroughly through the characters, I don't even find the history all that necessary. I find more credibility by being immersed in a world's setting through the characters, not by reading page after page of some conjured up history. I'm usually not so taken by a setting in a fantasy novel that i want to know every scrap of information I can get my hands on. I usually just care about the stories involving the main characters. So whenever i see those tedious sections of the battle of whatever that was fought three thousand years ago on some renamed hill, I can't help but cringe. Because the majority of times, it has no effect on the story whatsoever.

In the end, this is all just my opinion. I actually enjoy reading about history of our world, it's always been one of my favorite subjects. But reading about some feigned history in a fantasy novel has never seemed to spark my interest.

But what do you all think? Does reading about a world's history actually boost your enjoyment, or hinder it?

[Bardos]

I like "random" references to a world's history inside a story. That offers more relism and depth, imho.
Though, I don't like to read about one character lecturing others on the world's history for 10 pages. I think you all know what I mean.
But, if even the author does not refer to history, s/he must know it, so, if it ever comes up, s/he will be able to make a quick reference, when the situation is right.
E.g., just think how many people in the "real world" compare others to Hitler. So an imaginary tyrrant, say, would be fun to be compared with people in a fantasy world. Or a very brave hero, etc.

[Eventine]

History is good when what happened in the past has a bearing on how people behave today, and when it has influences of the events of today.
But...
Only when it is revealed bit b y bit, making you wonder what happened in the past as much as what is going to happen in the future.

A great example of this is A Song of Ice and Fire. A whole heap of events that happened a generation ago are affecting the characters of today. We are only finding out what those events are bit by bit however.
Another example is in Janny Wurts Wars of Light and Shadow. Bit by bit she reveals pieces of the past that have shaped the characters to who they are today.

[jbcohen]

I quite agree Eventine. When it helps us understand what the characters are doing in the present. Similar to my response on the Sex in Fantasy topic - as long as it supports the tale.

Dragon Lance is at the extreem end of this spectrum. Dragon Lance tends to get a bit carried away with the history of the tales. Entire 300 page volumes have been written about the history off the world in these books.

[Eventine]

Also on the topic...

Those familiar with Stephen Donaldsons Thomas Covenant books will be familiar with the back history there, which is important to the story as a lot of the characters believe he is a hero of old come again.
I remember reading an interview with Donaldson once, where the interviewer asked him if there as any chance of him writing a prequel for the Mordants Need books:

So you would never consider writing the prequel to Mordant's Need? The story of Joyse becoming King?

No. And we can say the same thing for Covenant. I would absolutely under no circumstances ever consider writing one, because that is the way my brain works. I'm interested in a kind of hierarchy, where you move this point forward to this point and what have you learned? I don't want to go back to a previous point and figure out what they learned to get to the starting point in the first place. I already talked about that: I didn't do it in detail but I did already tell you the story. Why am I going to do it again? Was I lying last time? Was the truth something else? Or, am I coasting now and just doing it because it's easy? That's not going to happen.

That interview is pretty old and can be found at: http://www-theory.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~aaa/SD.html


[This message has been edited by Eventine (edited December 14, 2001).]

[Cadfael]

Take a look at Stephen King's Dark Tower, we have no history at all, and yet we are 'easy' with his world... it is because he is so vauge that I like the books. I have argued on this forum that King's world is a future earth, and had a bloody good argument back that it is not!

I like the other side of the coin as well, but it depends upon the book, if an author decides his world has an 'history', and he/she does it well... great! if not... I can still live with, providing the book is entertaining me. http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif

[JohnH]

When done well, the back history in a novel can be as fascinating as the current plots.
Jordan is fantastic at mentioning history in a way that leaves you begging for more. Especially since he incorporates 100 and 200 years old events within his current plottings.

Without making the history an integral part of the ongoing action is tends to weigh the action down and seem like useless filler.

[Warewolf]

I agree with JohnH that, if used correctly, the history of a fantasy world can add immensely to the story. Even more so than Jordan's Wheel of Time, Tad Williams' Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn was rife with historical references. What happened in the past played an important part in how things played out in the present day.

And, of course, who could ever forget the amount of history that Tolkien developed for Lord of the Rings! Would that series been even half as good without it?

[Alucard]

Well, warewolf, tolkien was one of the main reasons I brought up the subject. His use of history to detail his world ruined the pace and muddled the story into a painfully slow read. I'd say that coupled with his characters, which didn't appeal to me in the slightest (except for Gandalf) is why i never finished the lord of the rings. But of course, this is just my opinion (and I'm sure you'll have no difficulty finding people who agree with you http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif)

[mundanemies]

There are books meant to be savoured and enjoyed slowly. Not everything is fast-fast-fast, here now, gone today. Tolkien has his own, enchanting rhythm.
Like Eddison. Worm Ourobouros just lingers in my mouth. It's slow going, but ever so rich and beautiful.
Or Dunsany... Oh my ghod how poetic.

Krhm... As to history in fantasy-books: I'm happy with or without that. If it fits, OK.
But sudden info-dumps, naah. The main thingye is, that if the Author knows exactly what's going on or has went before, everything is OK. No matter even if two characters have different views or ideas of same things. That may be a difference of opinion and at the same time, richness to the book.
To me the history in LotR is one giant piece of the whole delightful puzzle. The different histories, the intricasies in the Silmarillion and other "ME-histories" are also work of a true historian.

History or no history in a fantasy-book, as long as the book is good.