In most fantasy stories today, the most common form of government is either a monarchy or an emperor. To me, it has been very much overdone, as there are so many other forms of government that exist that could be used. Though I admit I broke my own rule for my story "War of Magic," where the setting is in an empire with an emperor, though there are other political or non-political parties involved too.
Nonetheless, here is a short list of some other governments that writers should use for their writing (this list came from The History Guy website):
Anarchy- I don't recall seeing this one very often, but you could have no form of government. It could be a dog-eat-dog world of chaos and lawlessness, which could lead to an interesting setting and/or plot.
Communism- I think American writers generally avoid this one because we associate it with countries like Russia and China and because it's non-democratic. Nonetheless, it could lead to some interesting stories (I think of Orwell's "1984" and Martin Cruz Smith's "Gorky Park when I think of settings with totalitarian communist governments).
Confederacy- This one is not very common, as it's not a common form of government. Because of my Southern heritage and because I sympathize more with the South than with the North (but let's not get into that discussion), I've tried using this form of government before, though none of the stories have succeeded plot-wise. This would be an interesting government because there would be no king or federal government, just local rulers in alliance with each other.
Constitutional- this could be democracy or monarchy, where either the democratic government is limited by a constitution or the monarchy is. I don't see this one much either, but it would certainly put an interesting twist on the traditional view of an absolute monarch.
Oligarchy- basically the government is made up of high-ranking people or those with lots of wealth. Interesting alternative to a monarchy.
Theocracy- this one is not looked upon favorably because of most people's stance on religion today, in how they believe religion and government should be separate. So I don't this one very often. But in a story, it could be done well and in an interesting way, provided it doesn't become preachy.
Dictator- most stories seem to have some form of a tyrant who is a ruler, but it is generally a king or an emperor. Several countries in the world today have dictators in power but aren't kings or emperors, so why not create a fantasy world with such men or women?
This is only a short list of the types of government that exist out there. But don't feel compelled to use the typical monarchy or emperor-rule that most writers do. Perhaps you could try a different form of government, combine a few existing ones together, or even make up your own. There are plenty of options, so take advantage of them.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Monday, December 12, 2011
The Medieval World
Most modern writers and authors, when writing their stories, love to create a world that is very Medieval-esque. I could rant on how much this is overdone, but I will restrain from that and focus on something else. Ever since September, I have been taking a Western Civilization history class, and for the past few weeks the teacher has been talking about the Medieval time period, which has gotten me thinking about Medieval fantasy worlds. My problem with Medieval worlds is that they tend to be more or less stereotypical glances of the real Medieval time period and this makes them vastly unrealistic.
Here are some examples of how writers need to do more research if they want to do a Medieval-esque world.
Monarchies:
Most Medieval fantasy stories focus on a king who is running the political show. The king is usually very powerful and is from a long dynasty, and he generally has few to no rivals. However, looking at the Medieval period, this is not the case. Kings were actually fairly weak in power, and dynasties were quick to rise and fall. Most kingdoms were actually more under the control of powerful noble families, and sometimes these families could completely take over and start a new royal dynasty. Kings also did not have very much power, as the whole "Divine Right of Kings" and absolutism would not show up for a few more centuries. Kingdoms were also not very stable. Nobles were constantly feuding for the throne, especially if a king was deposed or died without an heir; The War of Roses is a good example of this.
But also, people in the Medieval times were semi-independent, relying on the Feudal System's structure. Nobles managed their estates and those of their vassels, taking taxes from them, and kings interfered very little with this. And, as I said earlier, nobles were really the ones in control, not the kings.
In conclusion, Medieval kings were sometimes powerful, but they were also weak. They were constantly battling the powerful noble families, and kingdoms were thus very unstable because of those political structures.
Social structures:
Another common misconception of the Middle Ages is the entire social structure. People imagine the whole system of peasants/ serfs, knights, the church, and noble families, but they don't look more closely or apply it to their fantasy worlds. My history teacher went on a detailed explanation of how men became knights, how the whole gentry system works, and so much more. I could possibly post the entire chart he wrote on the board, but I'll refrain from it. In short, the system was actually more complicated than most writers allow. When they think of Medieval kingdoms, they think of the king, a few noble families, and some peasants, but this is actually different. You have the upper gentry of the knights, those given titles by kings or nobles, the lower gentry of men like yeomens and husbandmen, peasants, the clergy and those associated with the church, paupers, common soldiers, etc... And, not to mention that it was possible for someone to rise up gradually through society, from lower ranks to upper ranks. Society was more complicated and more diverse actually than most Medieval-esque writers admit.
Castles:
Castles are also associated with the Medieval Period. Most of the time, these places are viewed as very grand places to live, but this is far from the truth. Castles were dark, cold (no huge fireplaces or heating systems), dirty, and dreary places. Tapestries didn't show up until later in the Medieval period, and the Crusades later added decorations from the Middle East that made them cheerier and better decorated.
Knights and Chivalry:
Knights and the Code of Chivalry were also big during the Medieval Period. However, knights were not the most honorable or admirable characters. They were required to serve their masters and to go off to war when summoned, but knights were very belligerent and aggressive. They were always looking for fights, and they often helped raid the lands of other nobles. Tournaments were used to let the knights take out their aggression, and the Crusades, no doubt, also helped keep them from going crazy when no wars or battles were going on. Even though knights had a Code of Chivalry, I'm pretty sure they viewed it "more as guidelines than actual rules." So knights were certainly not angelic in the Medieval Period.
There are other areas I'm sure I could touch on, but this is a general look at what the real Medieval world looked like. It was not a clean, proper time period; it was messy, aggressive, and rather unstable. It had a lot of societal complexities which most writers largely ignore in favor of a simpler world. There is only one Medieval-esque writer that I know of who comes even close to capturing the gritty Medieval world, and that would be George R. R. Martin. Martin did a good job of sticking to actual Medieval facts and not stereotypes (though I believe he severely overdid the whole sex aspect that pervades "A Song of Fire and Ice"). Nonetheless, Martin actually did his homework about the Medieval world, and it makes his world of Westeros much more realistic and not a cardboard stereotype.
Here are some examples of how writers need to do more research if they want to do a Medieval-esque world.
Monarchies:
Most Medieval fantasy stories focus on a king who is running the political show. The king is usually very powerful and is from a long dynasty, and he generally has few to no rivals. However, looking at the Medieval period, this is not the case. Kings were actually fairly weak in power, and dynasties were quick to rise and fall. Most kingdoms were actually more under the control of powerful noble families, and sometimes these families could completely take over and start a new royal dynasty. Kings also did not have very much power, as the whole "Divine Right of Kings" and absolutism would not show up for a few more centuries. Kingdoms were also not very stable. Nobles were constantly feuding for the throne, especially if a king was deposed or died without an heir; The War of Roses is a good example of this.
But also, people in the Medieval times were semi-independent, relying on the Feudal System's structure. Nobles managed their estates and those of their vassels, taking taxes from them, and kings interfered very little with this. And, as I said earlier, nobles were really the ones in control, not the kings.
In conclusion, Medieval kings were sometimes powerful, but they were also weak. They were constantly battling the powerful noble families, and kingdoms were thus very unstable because of those political structures.
Social structures:
Another common misconception of the Middle Ages is the entire social structure. People imagine the whole system of peasants/ serfs, knights, the church, and noble families, but they don't look more closely or apply it to their fantasy worlds. My history teacher went on a detailed explanation of how men became knights, how the whole gentry system works, and so much more. I could possibly post the entire chart he wrote on the board, but I'll refrain from it. In short, the system was actually more complicated than most writers allow. When they think of Medieval kingdoms, they think of the king, a few noble families, and some peasants, but this is actually different. You have the upper gentry of the knights, those given titles by kings or nobles, the lower gentry of men like yeomens and husbandmen, peasants, the clergy and those associated with the church, paupers, common soldiers, etc... And, not to mention that it was possible for someone to rise up gradually through society, from lower ranks to upper ranks. Society was more complicated and more diverse actually than most Medieval-esque writers admit.
Castles:
Castles are also associated with the Medieval Period. Most of the time, these places are viewed as very grand places to live, but this is far from the truth. Castles were dark, cold (no huge fireplaces or heating systems), dirty, and dreary places. Tapestries didn't show up until later in the Medieval period, and the Crusades later added decorations from the Middle East that made them cheerier and better decorated.
Knights and Chivalry:
Knights and the Code of Chivalry were also big during the Medieval Period. However, knights were not the most honorable or admirable characters. They were required to serve their masters and to go off to war when summoned, but knights were very belligerent and aggressive. They were always looking for fights, and they often helped raid the lands of other nobles. Tournaments were used to let the knights take out their aggression, and the Crusades, no doubt, also helped keep them from going crazy when no wars or battles were going on. Even though knights had a Code of Chivalry, I'm pretty sure they viewed it "more as guidelines than actual rules." So knights were certainly not angelic in the Medieval Period.
There are other areas I'm sure I could touch on, but this is a general look at what the real Medieval world looked like. It was not a clean, proper time period; it was messy, aggressive, and rather unstable. It had a lot of societal complexities which most writers largely ignore in favor of a simpler world. There is only one Medieval-esque writer that I know of who comes even close to capturing the gritty Medieval world, and that would be George R. R. Martin. Martin did a good job of sticking to actual Medieval facts and not stereotypes (though I believe he severely overdid the whole sex aspect that pervades "A Song of Fire and Ice"). Nonetheless, Martin actually did his homework about the Medieval world, and it makes his world of Westeros much more realistic and not a cardboard stereotype.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
