Fantasy and War?

[Shaun]

Alright, a fellow blogger and I have already discussed this subject, but I figure we could discuss it here as well.
Here are the posts: Here (http://wisb.blogspot.com/2007/10/dialogue-of-war-in-fantasy.html) and here (http://sqt-fantasy-sci-fi-girl.blogspot.com/2007/10/war.html).

So, your thoughts?

[Andy]

Some of the most common aspects of fantasy are: magic, new races, new religions. I think it's unfair to blame Tolkien that fantasy centers on war a lot. The very aspects of fantasy are most thrilling when war is involved; otherwise, there might be no reason for a story to be fantasy at all.

Let's assume a story has magic: what are some of the things you want that magic to be capable of? Well, using it for fighting is one thing - and with a virtually limitless variety of spells that can be used to create destruction in various ways, magic can obviously bring a new twist to the aspect of war. Raise dead, control minds - all could make a war story interesting.

What else could it do? It could be used to improve daily life - do chores, solve problems, etc. But for the most part, a story like that would probably focus too little on fantasy and too much on a typical lifestyle. Chores probably wouldn't be a major part of daily life (unless you took them to the extreme), so the magic would probably play a secondary role in whatever plot you created.

As soon as magic starts being used against other people, though, it becomes a story about fighting. In these two cases, fighting seems to be the most interesting choice, and the one which can make the most of magic. (I can't think of any other choices at the moment.)

Fantasy can also have other races. But unless your race operates or exists in a way that is different from humans, they might as well be human. For example, a story about a boy going to school and getting bullied - but is of a greed long-eared race with a similar modern society to our own - wouldn't be much of a fantasy. The race would need something different from humans, or there would have to be multiple different races, for it to truly reap the full benefits of creating a new race(s).

The key word is "different" - with differences inevitably come people who don't like, or cannot accept, those differences. That means war, or fighting.

Another aspect of fantasy is new religions. Like races, they would have to be different from modern-day religions, or they would not be fantasy. Again, differences. Differences can clash.

Unless an author works very hard to make sure those differences don't stir up anger or frustration from characters who don't like those differences, battles will occur. Can someone write a story about a strange race that follows a strange religion, where the MC must go through a strange, difficult ceremony? Yes. No war there. Might even be a good story.

But the conflict probably wouldn't be as intense as if there was war. External conflicts are a main part of storytelling. With fantasy, it's not surprising that so many focus on large wars. Given the aspects involved with fantasy, writing wars is easy to do, and can make for a rich story when those cultures clash with their magics. In addition, society today likes violence in movies much more than many years ago, so putting wars into stories is like appealling to the masses.


Yeah, there are probably some flaws with the reasoning in this post, but I'm tired and going to bed. Good night.:sleep:

[jordanisonfire]

I agree with most of what Andrew said. In my story, there is a certain type of magic called Elemental Magic, which is, obviously, using the elements to accomplish things. At first it could be used for starting fires or cooling hot things, but, eventually, someone's going to get mad or something and use it on someone else. It's just common sense.

Now, this is going to lead to greater conflict (between the two peoples' families or races, if they are of different races and take it too far). As Albert Einstein said, As long as there are men, there will be wars. This is no different in fantasy, even if they are different races. There is the exception, of course, if a race is very peaceful and it is part of their religion or preference not to go into war (which is very smart of them, I must say).

Also, in my story, the war I am putting in it is referred to by the characters as the Great Crusade. It's a war between Life and Death's followers (Life and Death are Gods). Life's followers are the Druids (mostly Elves, as their Temple is based in the Elven homeland) and the Necromancers are Death's followers (mostly a new breed of Elves called Shadow Elves). Now, obviously, there's going to have to be conflict between these two opposites. They are of different religions and use different practises (Druids choose to leave the Dead dead, whereas the Necromancers, obviously, bring the Dead back to life and used them as their minions).

Although most of what Shaun said, about the insignificant but greater suffering people not being noticed, was true, is it any different in our society in real life? Sure, there are reports in the news of soldiers who have died, but nowadays we have better tactics and no one dies in great numbers.

In conclusion, war is a good ingredient to Fantasy, but it shouldn't take up the entire story. It can be based around the war, but you have to have different and exciting things happening outside of the war, otherwise it's just going to be incredibly boring.

[Shaun]

Although most of what Shaun said, about the insignificant but greater suffering people not being noticed, was true, is it any different in our society in real life? Sure, there are reports in the news of soldiers who have died, but nowadays we have better tactics and no one dies in great numbers.

In conclusion, war is a good ingredient to Fantasy, but it shouldn't take up the entire story. It can be based around the war, but you have to have different and exciting things happening outside of the war, otherwise it's just going to be incredibly boring.

I think we're getting off the mark guys. Discussing magic and races and the like is fine, but the point is that fantasy doesn't have to have magic or other races to be fantasy, so the one thing that seems to almost always be there in fantasy is war.
And to what Andrew was getting at, there are plenty of novels that don't have war that are fantasy that work wonderfully. Look at the first few Harry Potter movies. War is mentioned, but it isn't central to the plot, especially in the first book. What about Winnie the Pooh? Yeah, I know, it's a kids story, but it is fantasy, and it doesn't have war (probably because it is for kids). There's others too. Point is, fantasy can work just fine without war, so why is it that it is constantly used?

As for in real life, we pay a lot more attention to the insignificant than we ever did before. That's because of the media. Whenever a million people are killed in some other country, we pay attention. We heard about all the people who died on 9/11, or because of Katrina. All of those people, in general, were rather ordinary, nothing special. We didn't know most of them by name. In the Middle Ages, though, they didn't really have newspapers and obviously no TV or radio. So, you didn't hear about the insignificant. Fantasy stories have a tendency to focus on the significant, rather than the average everyday man. So...yeah.

[jordanisonfire]

Hold on a sec, Shaun. I thought you were arguing that the insignificant people in wars in Fantasy books should be mentioned. But, in your last post at the end, you seem to agree that they shouldn't (or rather couldn't) be mentioned. Have I read your first post wrong, or what?

[Shaun]

No, I think you misread. I was saying that in today's society things are very different than in the old days. Fantasy still focuses on the significant though, and there isn't enough focus on the insignificant.

[jordanisonfire]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but how can we talk about the normal, everyday man? In many fantasy stories, the protaganist starts off as an average, everyday being, but has a special gift or something that makes him significant.

[Shaun]

He's not ordinary then, because he has something special about him. The ordinary man is someone that possesses no special powers or magical weapons. Look at LotR. The hobbits, by any standards, are not extraordinary people. In fact, they're insignificant not only as a culture, but as a race too from the perspective of everyone else--most particularly humans and the goblin/orc races. Yet, Frodo and Sam defy all odds and make it to Mt. Doom, and Merry and Pippin--in their limited role in the books--do much more than any other hobbit ever did, even though there is nothing truly special about them.
So you could easily write a story about a character that isn't special. It's just easier to write about characters that have a gift of some sort, because it's quicker for people to identify with that character. One of the problems with LOTR was that the opening chapters were really slow and only managed to show a glint of hobbit culture, rather than drawing you into the character on a quest.

[jordanisonfire]

There was something special about Frodo: his resistance to the Ring and Sam, Merry and Pippin all had great bravery. Thanks to the beginning parts of the first book, we see most Hobbits would hardly be suited for fighting and most are very lazy. So, there was something significant about those four hobbits.

[Shaun]

There's nothing significant about them. Any hobbit would have developed the same instinct if put in the right situation. Bilbo had to be dragged out of the house by Gandalf. Nothing significant, just a matter of being at the right place at the right time.

[jordanisonfire]

But what about the things Galadriel told Frodo? "If you cannot do this, then no one can." That implies he was significant. Greatly significant, considering the consequences if the Ring was returned to Sauron.

[Shaun]

You're taking the words of a man who smoked pot religiously up until the start of LOTR...or rather, pipe weed, which is the same as pot anyway :P.
Hobbits aren't significant, that's the whole point, that even the smallest of people can do great things. In this case it's literally and figuratively true.

[jordanisonfire]

I said Galadriel, not Gandalf. :rolleyes:

[Shaun]

Oops, well the same thing applies :P. Galadriel was a little high and mighty.
Besides, if you think about what Galadriel said in context of the story, she says that after Frodo has already crossed through Moria, etc. Of course he has to do it or nobody can, he was entrusted with the ring and is the only one willing to hold on to it. Gandalf refused to take it because he was afraid of what it might do to him with his power. Etc etc...

[jordanisonfire]

Many were willing to hold onto it. Aragorn and several others at the Council of Elrond would have taken the Ring to Mount Doom. Anyway, we're branching off the topic. Say something to get us back on topic, Shaun. :)

[Shaun]

Actually, there was a reason why the Hobbits were the only ones that were given the opportunity to have the ring. They weren't the ones bickering and arguing. Everyone else was. Aragorn actually is tempted by the ring and shows that he has true character too in the book by not taking it, while Boromir actually tries to take it after losing his mind. The only thing that makes the Hobbits especially special is that they are seemingly isolated from the rest of the world, which enables them to be rather unadjusted to things like war and jealousy on a more violent scale.

But, to get us on topic, if you look at Harry Potter it has no war in the first few books yet it is extremely effective without. While Harry is not an ordinary kid by any stretch, he's still not engaged in outright war until maybe book five when things start to get really heated.

[Rafael Domination]

Ahahah!

Actually, I've noticed that in all the High-class fantasy novels, War is a large thing. I mean, LOTR, and even the Harry Potter 7, I mean c'mon, there's nothing like magic versus magic in all it's glory.

Ahhh...it feels so good to be in Shaun's glow again :D

[Shaun]

Umm...thankyou? haha. Welcome Rafael! Glad to have you here :). Get super involved! We need the activity :D.

I agree, war is a huge thing in fantasy, almost like the primary thing, but I think we can accept that a lot of books function well without war. Though it does seem nearly impossible for a fantasy novel to function without some sort of violent conflict. Harry Potter had Voldemort in the beginning novels...

[jordanisonfire]

What?! I do do agree that novels are good without war! I thought you were suggesting we should change our views to be that there should be barely any war in our novels. Jesus Christ, I did all that debating for nothing. :glare:

[Shaun]

Haha. I think we should try to write more novels without war, if possible, because it makes the possibilities of a story much different.

[jordanisonfire]

My novel is based around a crusade (hence the name The Great Crusade). It would tear the story apart to take it out now. I'll try a novel in the future without war.

[Carraka]

George R. R. Martin has war ....

It's awesome.

Equus Cruorem -- I don't think there will be war, but there's definitely a strain on inter-kingdom relationships. It's more of an interspecies war, really, except that war has been going on for such a long time that no one really thinks about it that way. (At least, the humans don't.)