Babel Clash

27 Comments for this entry

• 

  Duffy Pratt
  June 15th, 2009 on 6:31 pm

  I have no problems with gunpowder in a fantasy. It only becomes an issue for people who think that magic replaces artillery (big bangs at a distance). Actually, I pretty quickly tire of the false middle ages that prevails in most fantasy.

  As for the language used, I prefer characters that act and talk like people. Much of the stilted language you see in books comes across simply as being fake. To a certain extent, I think that every writer, regardless of genre, is basically writing about his/her own contemporaries. So I have no problem with characters talking more or less the way moderns do. That’s with certain obvious exceptions, For example, I’d be a bit taken aback by a writer in a world with no gunpowder referring to a character as being “shell-shocked,” or having someone say they need to “let off steam” in a world with no steam engines. Or other such malaprops.
• 

  Brad
  June 15th, 2009 on 6:33 pm

  I’ve never thought of Mistborn or Warbreaker as having modern-era characters. In Warbreaker, women’s rights haven’t really progressed all that much, although you do have strong, independent female characters. Maybe I just haven’t read any fantasy authors that write their characters as being socially stunted. Hmmmm…

  Anyway, I think gunpowder is fine, but I think it’s more exciting if the author can create what might have developed in the world in which the author is writing. Robert Jordan sort of did this with “shock lances,” but he also included good ole gun powder (or at least cannons, giving them unique names).

  I think it’s important to include some sort of weapon for the non-magic users in stories. In Mistborn, you have people trained to kill mistborn, but they’re not all that great. Side note: it would be awesome to see a mistborn fight someone with a gun. The mistborn could push or pull the gun, but what if the shooter got off a shot first? Could the mistborn push the bullet away in time? Would the force of the bullet knock the mistborn away? Anyway, I think it’s important for non-magic users to have some sort of way to possibly hurt the magic users. If your magic users are all-powerful, it’s boring whenever they get into a fight with anyone but other magic users because you know how it will end. Mistborn had people trained to kill mistborn (why am I blanking on their name???), so there was some sort of suspense. Warbreaker’s breath system was magical but not so much so that someone with little breath couldn’t still fight (as we see when Vasher gets caught in the palace). WoT makes it clear that while channelers certainly have a huge advantage, non-channelers are just as important in battles and can kill channelers.

  So, I think it has more to do with how evenly you match a magic user with a non-magic user. If you can create some sort of technology or training for non-magic user, then that’s fine. If it has to be gunpowder, then that’s fine too, although it would be much more awesome to create your own kind of technology!

  Annnnd this comment is way too long, but I’m bored, so there ya go!
• 

  Mike
  June 15th, 2009 on 6:34 pm

  I think gunpowder is fine, although I used to be bothered by anything that was too tech-like (especial mechanical devices) in fantasy.

  I think you said it right that gunpowder would not have changed Elantris (still reading Warbreaker), and that is the perfect reason for leaving it out.

  But I remember the Raymund Feist books (Magician series) that had “Fire Oil” in them and not liking it at first, but it became so central to part of the story that I changed my mind and decided it was fine.
• 

  Kavorka
  June 15th, 2009 on 6:43 pm

  So I take it you haven’t written the gun powder scenes for WoT yet. Maybe it was only in the scenes the Jordan completely wrote and you won’t have to. Any comment? (I know, I know.. RAFO)

  I’ve enjoyed a number of books to varying degrees that combine the two. Modesitt’s series aren’t the best written, but I enjoy them. I also enjoyed Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell. While not the fastest paced book, I thought the magic and technology setting were very well done.
• 

  Avi
  June 15th, 2009 on 6:44 pm

  It depends on the setting, and whether it hurts suspension of disbelief. Gunpowder, cars, and magic are mixed very effectively in the Dresden Files. I doubt gunpowder would have improved Elantris or Warbreaker.
  Sometimes the medieval setting can get repetitive if it’s the same in every fantasy series. The Wheel of Time characters have no concept of journalism, and it gets annoying that they rely on rumor and pidgeons, and it seems silly to me that clocks are a luxury.
  It was a little cool to see words like economics and engineering used by Mistborn characters in a credible way. But it seemed less credible when Vasher started talking about spontanous sentient stuff…it was too wordy.
  Gunpowder is okay if it’s used for fireworks or cannons - I’m pretty sure the Wheel of Time is going to introduce those soon. But guns don’t fit in well with swords and dragons.
• 

  Adam
  June 15th, 2009 on 6:46 pm

  Seeing how gunpowder seems increasingly important in WoT, it will be interesting to see how you incorporate it. I always thought it would be a fairly significant piece of the endgame, but it hasn’t played itself out yet.
• 

  Max Lybbert
  June 15th, 2009 on 7:18 pm

  I have to admit I’m not as bothered by gunpowder as I am by a highly literate society. Maybe “bothered” is the wrong word. I would be interested in a story where very few people could read, and very few of the literate characters could read well.
• 

  whome
  June 15th, 2009 on 7:46 pm

  Gunpowder rendered a lot of other technology obsolete. Once a world has guns, methods of warfare are changed forever. So if you want sword fights and jousts, you can’t really allow gunpowder.

  In “The Thief” by M. W. Turner, guns were introduced as an emerging technology, but really couldn’t be aimed well, yet. So it still allowed for swordplay and archery to be the primary modes of battle. But I think you get the idea that things will change greatly in the next few generations. That worked well for me as a reader. But if there are well developed guns in society, swords, lances, cudgels and the like should not be valued as they typically are in fantasy.
• 

  whome
  June 15th, 2009 on 7:51 pm

  Oh, and one thing that I really hate is modern colloquialisms in a fantasy world. I’ll usually give cows and sheep (and sometimes even modern feminism) a pass, but modern slang and swear words should be out of bounds.
• 

  Arherring
  June 15th, 2009 on 9:35 pm

  I think it is great when an author takes the rules and then bends them or breaks them completely. My two favorite examples are S.M. Stirling in his novels of the Change, where mankind has the knowledge but physics has taken a holiday and Karl Schroeder’s Virga series where everything is in low gravity, light is life, certain technologies are prevented from functioning making these things drive the plot in novel ways.

  One of the things that I’ve enjoyed about technology in the Wheel of Time is that it is artificially held back at certain points. This makes some things overly developed in order to compensate, and therefore more interesting, but (hopefully) soon those barriers will come crashing down. It will be exciting to read.
• 

  Kevin P
  June 15th, 2009 on 9:38 pm

  I think it comes down to this: a staple of fantasy is swordplay and other such combat. As soon as you introduce guns, you take a lot of that away.
• 

  yeti
  June 15th, 2009 on 9:41 pm

  Roger Zelazny - The Chronicles of Amber

  This is a masterpiece of fantasy, one of my favourite series, AND it uses modern technology. Gunpowder is still not pronounced, but there is a very good explanation given. And when a gunpowder-like substance finally appears, it comes with, well, a bang.

  I personally have no problems with gunpowder in fantasy works, or any type of modern technology for that matter, as long as it is used in a way that doesn’t dominate the plot. People don’t identify with technology, people identify with people (living characters). What I do have a problem is when the author uses modern technology without having a solid grasp of the way it works.

  I guess fantasy authors avoid modern technology in their works because it makes them so much more complicated without really contributing to the plot. If one uses technology, one has to obey its rules. These rules are not up open to discussion, unless the author is willing to rewrite the physics of his/her world. In that respect magic is much simpler to control because (1) it isn’t nearly as familiar to the reader, i.e. its “cool” factor is a lot easier to achieve and (2) the rules for it are defined and controlled by the author.

  Just my opinion.
• 

  Bethany
  June 15th, 2009 on 11:16 pm

  I used to not like gunpowder or anything that seemed modern in the fantasy that I read. I think it’s something that’s grown on me, though. If the author can make gunpowder work for the story, I say go for it. It all depends on the world. Mistborn is a great example. I’m so used to seeing swords and lances in fantasy books that I thought it interesting that swords weren’t the main focus of weaponry. I think the only swords talked about are the Koloss swords. This really worked to make the book feel kind of like a thriller. It’s a grittier type of fantasy than the usual, and I like it.

  I also like it when the character use modern speech. If the speech is modern for a good reason, if it fits in the world, then I will allow myself to keep reading. I’m curious though, is there anyone who prefers reading fantasy with dialogue with lots of “thees” and “thous,” kind of shakespearian? Or is that too much? Also, is it acceptable to have modern attitudes in the book? For instance, is it all right for a teenager in a fantasy story to act as a modern teenager would, meaning the same body language and the same kind of rebelliousness? (Not that all teenagers are rebellious). I’d be interested in seeing any responses.
• 

  Jarrett
  June 16th, 2009 on 12:33 am

  I am not a huge fan of having guns in the fantasy I read. I agree with whome and Kevin P about how guns change the combat in fantasy. I also agree with yeti… unless something is set so far into the future that you can explain away some cool technologies within reason then you have to be really careful of the use of technology in a fantasy because I, the guy who is buying the book, will be really annoyed if it seems far fetched (if the author is clearly having fun with technology I am fine with that like in Harry Potter or Alcatraz)… My preference though is to stay as far away from modern technology as possible only for the fact that I work in software development(I love what I do) and the whole reason for me reading fantasy is to escape technology and the this world so I dont get too stuck to my computer and crackberry.
• 

  renee w
  June 16th, 2009 on 12:35 am

  Charles de Lent is a fantasy writer in the modern world I have found his books wonderful.. my first read was Onion Girl.. Take a look if you have not already.. I feel it is balanced and blended well of this world now and one that came before it..
• 

  Christoph
  June 16th, 2009 on 1:51 am

  Gunpowder in itself is not bad. Thinking of cannons I can easily imagine archers and swordsmen besides. Guns though, they can really spoil the fun. But still, when the whole warfare depends on swords and sorcery, and THEN comes the bang that revolutionizes the whole thing - that might be interesting again. The bang just mustn´t be too early in the stories progress.
  Guns and magic - that is one aspect that is done well in Robin Hobbs Soldier Son books. The guns are not too reliable and are solely used by the cavalry, and iron disturbs the magic, that is otherwise a more or less sentient force that bends its wielders to its own will.
  To speech I think that it is well inside the bounds to use contemporary language. Too many “thee” and “thou” might disrupt the reading experience, and thus the pleasure.
• 

  Obi
  June 16th, 2009 on 4:53 am

  Gunpowder is fine, so long as the world has been made so that it doesn’t seem out of place. A few people already said that guns pretty much make things like swords useless. That’s okay with me though. Fantasy doesn’t have to have swords. It’s only a problem if swords and guns coexist with no problem (like a few Japanese video games I’m actually rather fond of…). The Dark Tower, for example, is awesome, and about gunslingers rather than sword fighters.

  I prefer characters who are more modern, if only because it’s easier to relate to them. I like reading about characters who I like, not ones with archaic speech forms and a markedly pig-headed view of the world (no matter how historically accurate they may be). I had a hard time getting through LotR in high school because I couldn’t stand the way people talked–plus everyone telling Eowyn she had to stay home and not fight just because she was a woman (but she later pwned face and proved them wrong).
• 

  A. Richards
  June 16th, 2009 on 5:33 am

  Regarding speech and language.
  Unless a story is set on earth, and on a very small portion of earth, the use of thee and thou is in very poor form. Most fantasy is set on OTHER WORLDS. THEY DON’T SPEAK ENGLISH. We are not reading their words; we are reading a translation of their words. The translation from the other worlds language flows through the authors mind and onto the page in English. The only reason to include old English syntax is to contrast one cultures speech with another’s, as Eddings did with one of the Belgariad Societies (I can’t remember the name. They were the knights.)
• 

  annie
  June 16th, 2009 on 8:57 am

  I prefer to understand character’s speech and patterns. As for gunpowder, if it’s relative to the story I don’t see a problem with it.
• 

  Dane
  June 16th, 2009 on 9:50 am

  In terms of guns and gunpowder, I say if the shoe fits, wear it.

  If your main character is a grizzled old gunslinger, he better have a gun. If your character is a grizzled old wizard, then a gun might not be as appropriate (although, seeing Gandalf with twin six shooters might be pretty fun).

  I’m not one for reading books that conform to every rule of the genre, so it doesn’t ruin anything for me when something other than swords and magic are involved.

  To that end, is there such a things as modern fantasy? I know Dark Tower dabbles in it at times, but does the main setting need to be the far off lands of yesteryear?
• 

  BC Woods
  June 16th, 2009 on 11:27 am

  This is actually something I’ve thought quite a bit about, and I think I’ve figured out why gunpowder and other technologies so often seems out of place in Fantasy.

  In most Fantasy, magic is something that exists (or is explained to exist) above and beyond the natural world. Magic isn’t the cause of gravity, lightning, or even getting a cold. It’s a supernatural force in the most literal sense, as something that exists above and beyond nature.

  The problem is, when you posit something that exists above and beyond nature, you’ve posited an entirely different cosmology. It no longer FEELS like you’re reading about a world in which F=ma or a world where you can navigate by the constellations. When someone pulls a gun out of somewhere, it no longer feels like “Oh, cool! A guy with a gun!” it feels like “You have betrayed the central foundation upon which your book was constructed.”

  There are two more issues that exaggerate the problem:

  1. While there are occasionally sudden jumps in technology, those jumps have to originate from somewhere. Meaning, if you have guns, you have to have a society with a basic understanding of chemistry. That means you have a world in which people can prescribe medicines that aren’t completely ineffective (like sulfur pills) and a world where there is a class of people who spend all their time poking around trying to see what “stuff” is made of.

  2. Related to the first: Why now? In most Fantasy technology has been stagnant for thousands of years. Then all of the sudden, for no reason other than that someone needs it they have a steam engine, or a gun, or something of that sort. In our own world, we know that technology comes from massive intellectual movements which later bear mechanical fruits. The Renaissance for example. You can’t have technology without a renaissance and not have that technology read as a Deus ex Machina.

  These are some of the many reasons I love Robert Jordan as much as I do. He created a world with a magic system that was unique at its essence, in that it was not supernatural, but an extension of nature itself. When Rand channels the One Power (I am also astounded by his genius in not calling it magic), I get the feeling that somewhere inside of Rand’s body there is an alignment of genetic material that allows him to channel the One Power.

  Rand may have a soul, but his soul is also made of “something” which doesn’t spring up out of nowhere. When you have substance you have rules, and when you have rules you have the bricks and mortar of world building.

  There is also a reason why Mat would be able to retool gunpowder. There are two cultures meeting each other for the first time in thousands of years, which is analogous to the Crusades that helped jump start the Renaissance. Technology DID exist at one point so no one has to start over from square one, AND Rand has set up a series of schools.

  Thus, when I read about Leyden jars and steam engines in the WoT I don’t get the feeling that the fundamental premise of the series is being betrayed. If Mat needs to make a gun, he can make a gun. He just needs someone to do a few tests and sweat a few gallons to take it to the final step.

  I very much enjoy your writing, and your first law.

  Brandon Sanderson’s First Law: Your ability to use your magic system to solve problems is directly proportional to your characters’ understanding of how the magic works.

  To which you could probably add a second law.

  Brandon Sanderson’s Second Law: Your ability to use technology without contradicting your basic premise is directly proportional to the extent to which your magic system is related to a Natural Process.

  PS I’m a huge fan of yours, and recommend your stuff to people all of the time.
• 

  Miako
  June 16th, 2009 on 1:23 pm

  Okay. Gandalf the Gray Deserves Sixshooters. He is a fire magus, after all.

  The better question is not:”does gunpowder exist” but “does science exist?” … and the underlying question of “does predictability exist?”

  Can you tell I REALLY like Kulthea? (That’s published as Shadow World, and is a great gaming environment).
• 

  Bethany
  June 16th, 2009 on 5:57 pm

  Yes, when I brought up the “thees” and “thous” I was actually thinking of the speech of the Mimbrate knights, like Mandorallen. David Eddings made good use of that for comic effect.
• 

  Chris W
  June 16th, 2009 on 6:29 pm

  Language-wise, A. Richards already said it: archaic speech doesn’t make sense, because chances are that English wouldn’t have evolved in another world. Different races would probably have different languages, and in order for your audience to understand the story, they have to read a translation.
  (Subtitles don’t work so well in books, and I don’t really want to read Klingon.)

  As far as technology goes, it can’t really duplicate something that is done through magic - the need for that technology wouldn’t have been there. But special technologies COULD be developed to specifically counter magicians’ advantage. (At least if magicians themselves don’t have a high enough position in society to suppress that innovation.)

  For instance, I could imagine some sort of advanced slingshot being used to counter allomantic pushes and pulls. In WoT, the tea that clouds access to the One Power is a non-magic-user’s innovation to nullify the advantage… and speaking of nullifying advantages:

  Could an aluminum misting with enough power burn someone else’s metals off too?
• 

  Cale
  June 16th, 2009 on 9:59 pm

  I think it all depends on how the author goes about it. In Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time, he’s introducing gunpowder with what’s her name and Matt. The Guild of Illuminators have obviously had access to gunpowder in various forms for their fireworks. I find how Jordan is introducing it right in the beginning of it’s development in weapons, cannons (or dragons as they’re calling it), very interesting. The whole time Matt was trying to figure out what she needed a bell founder for was engrossing. I just wanted to rip him out of the story and yell the answer at him.
• 

  Derek
  June 18th, 2009 on 6:09 pm

  Gunpowder in and of itself doesn’t ruin a fantasy novel. It was created nearly 1200 years ago, and was available in the medieval world, if not necessarily for weapons as of yet. The biggest thing that ruins a fantasy for me is opening it up and reading about a tank, or a gun, or some crazy spaceship on the moon. That’s science fiction, and there is a distinct difference between Sci-Fi and Fantasy.
• 

  Chris W
  June 19th, 2009 on 1:01 pm

  Sci-Fi vs. Fantasy = Sci-Fi vs. Magic-Fi?

  What if the magic is very scientific, as many of us seem to prefer? I think the distinction is considerably blurred.

• 

• Tags

  Amber Benson Ann Aguirre Anton Strout Ari Marmell Autumn Borders Brandon Sanderson Brent Weeks China Mieville David Moody Devon Monk Dungeons & Dragons epic fantasy Fantasy Genre Horror Joe Abercrombie Karen Miller Kim Harrison Lev Grossman M.J. Rose Magicians Mira Grant Naomi Novik Paolo Bacigalupi Patrick Rothfuss publishing Pyr R.A. Salvatore R. A. Salvatore Robert J. Sawyer Sam Sykes Science Fiction Seanan McGuire Star Trek Star Wars Star Wars Sundays steampunk Terminator The Black Prism The Way of Kings urban fantasy vampires Writing Zombies

• Authors

  • A. Lee Martinez
  • Adrian Tchaikovsky and George Mann
  • Alastair Reynolds
  • Ann Aguirre and Dan Wells
  • Ann Aguirre and Ilona Andrews
  • Anton Strout and Amber Benson
  • Babel Clash Special Content
  • Book Reviews
  • Brandon Sanderson
  • Brandon Sanderson and Brent Weeks
  • Brent Weeks and Joe Abercrombie
  • Celine Kiernan and Glenda Larke
  • China Mieville
  • Chris Wooding and Kevin Hearne
  • Clay & Susan Griffith and Jasper Kent
  • Dan Abnett and Graham McNeill
  • Daniel Abraham and Ty Franck
  • Daniel H. Wilson and Ernest Cline
  • Danielle Trussoni and Paul Hoffman
  • David Anthony Durham
  • Douglas Clegg and M.J. Rose
  • Dungeons & Dragons
  • F. Paul Wilson
  • Gail Carriger & N.K. Jemisin
  • George Mann and Andrew P. Mayer
  • Guy Gavriel Kay
  • Heather Brewer & Rachel Caine
  • Holly Black and Scott Westerfeld
  • James Enge and Matthew Sturges
  • Jay Lake and Felix Gilman and Mark Hodder and Tim Akers
  • Jeff VanderMeer
  • Jim Butcher and Patrick Rothfuss
  • Jocelynn Drake and Jeaniene Frost
  • Joe Abercrombie and Anton Strout
  • John Joseph Adams
  • Jonathan Maberry and David Moody
  • Justin Cronin
  • Karen Miller
  • Kate Elliott and Ken Scholes
  • Kelley Armstrong and Marjorie M. Liu
  • Kim Harrison
  • Laurell K. Hamilton
  • Lev Grossman
  • Lou Anders, Ginjer Buchanan and Jeremy Lassen
  • Mark Chadbourn and Justina Robson
  • Michael P. Spradlin
  • Mira Grant and Jesse Petersen
  • Naomi Novik
  • Nicole Peeler and Jaye Wells
  • Orbit Books
  • Paolo Bacigalupi
  • Patrick Lee
  • Patrick Rothfuss Jim Butcher Anton Strout
  • Paul G. Tremblay
  • R. A. Salvatore
  • R.A. and Geno Salvatore
  • Robert J. Sawyer
  • Robin Hobb and Sara Creasy
  • S.M. Stirling and Taylor Anderson
  • Sam Sykes & Ari Marmell
  • Seanan McGuire and Devon Monk
  • Star Wars
  • Stephen R. Boyett
  • Steven R. Boyett
  • Tom Lloyd and Joel Shepherd
  • Troy Denning and John Jackson Miller and Joe Schreiber
  • Uncategorized

• Meta

  • Log in
  • Valid XHTML