aeldynnlore-definitivejournal

[aeldynnlore-definitivejournal]

Space Isn't Just For Science Fiction

When people think of space in conjunction with fiction, they probably start thinking in terms of Science Fiction; but I wonder how many have given thought to how ancient both astronomy and astrology actually are. The truth is, they're both thousands of years old. The Giza Pyramids have been theorised to have been deliberately built in nigh on perfect alignment with the stars of Orion's Belt, and astronomical alignments with the sun and moon have been observed at sites such as Stonehenge, which is believed by many to have been both a place of worship and a type of neolithic calendar, or as some have termed it, an "ancient computer" of sorts. As we move towards more recent history, the telescope and western astronomy are seen to have come in around the 17th century. Astronomy and astrology can be observed as having been included in various works of fantasy, whether it's a medieval setting or reminiscent of a later or even earlier time, especially in the form of diviners and oracles, witches and wizards, and sages. It's usually those with a scholarly disposition who take an interest in such subjects, and of course Final Fantasy XIV even has astrologian as a healer job class and has taken to the cosmos with its Endwalker expansion. We also see the Dwemer ruins in the Elder Scrolls videogame series as having complex mechanical observatories, and we often see these kinds of subjects in books that deal with prophecy, like The Guardian Cycle series by Julia Gray. Even folklore, along with urban and paranormal fantasy, sometimes engage with celestial events, with some supernatural beings/creatures being influenced by, for example, the full moon. There are even fragments of archaeological evidence lying around the ancient world that have suggested to some minorities that people from other worlds may have come to our planet before, and that those people had abilities we could not fathom. It is believed by some that these visitors were those thought to be the gods of our world's ancient mythologies, such as the Sumerians, Egyptians, Greeks and Norse (to name just a few). We've seen Marvel take up such ideas as this with races like the Asgardians, and there are similar concepts in Science Fiction videogames like the Star Ocean series. If a more inherently powerful and/or technologically advanced species were to descend on a world that has barely begun to develop, it would stand to reason they would likely be looked upon as deities. Even the very definition of heaven means a place - or places - that exist beyond the sky, which can be interpreted as meaning space. I'm not going into any specific details on religions (that's not what this is about), but rather expressing the meaning of such words. Another one of these words is celestial. We refer to objects in space such as planets, stars and moons as "celestial bodies", just as we might refer to angels - or indeed anything like them - as being celestial entities. We can also consider the foundations upon which another world might exist and function, from whether it has one or more moons, the type of sun it has and what other planets might be in its solar system, right down to its people's understanding of physics (do they have access to knowledge that we don't? Can they manipulate it in any way and do they call it magic, science, magi-science or even magi-technology?) Such a world is likely going to have some scholarly individuals and/or institutions who take an avid interest in these kinds of subjects, and it's more than likely it's going to have otherworldly or divine beings that some might call gods, demigods or angels. These are also subjects I am researching as an author as I also include them in my own world-building. So the celestial realms have just as much significance and relevance in Fantasy as they do in Science Fiction.

[aeldynnlore-definitivejournal]

Is it only fantasy? Is it only fiction?

The most outrageous claim in the world of literature is that the stories we authors write are nothing but fiction; that they’re only tales derived from figments of our imaginations. I actually lost merit in assignments I’d written for my degree in English Literature because I dared to look upon the characters I was reading about as real people. In one particular assignment I mentioned an occurrence that I believed revealed the ‘truth’ about a character. I then received criticism for using that word, truth. My tutor told me I shouldn’t be thinking of them as real people, because they’re not real; they’re fictional.

Really? I thought. In every literature course I have studied, one particular point has been reiterated, and that is that the thoughts and experiences of the author are projected into their writing. In literature courses students are expected to analyse the set novels or short stories in order to answer the assignment questions, and it has always been my understanding that fiction isn’t doing its job if readers aren't immersed in the world or universe they are reading about (bearing in mind everyone has their own tastes). We are always tasked with making sense of what the author is trying to say in their writing; what emotions are they trying to convey? What truths are they trying to represent? It doesn’t matter what genre we're talking about; there is always a need to connect with the world to express what otherwise cannot be expressed. Henry James even made the statement that fiction is an author’s “personal impression of life” (in reference to his critical essay on The Art of Fiction, which, ironically, was a text I actually studied in that degree).

Alright, so the biggest gripe about this is the belief that it’s only fiction because it apparently isn’t real. Existence is a funny thing to talk about because everyone has a different idea on what’s real and what isn’t. Maybe fiction is no more than words in a book, or maybe it’s something else entirely. How many literary memes are there on social media that express the notion that books are effectively portals to other worlds or places which give us the chance to experience life outside of one’s own ordinary existence? What is the point in fiction of any kind if we feel nothing for the characters and stories we’re engaging with? What is the point if we don’t actually think of them as real? What is the point in studying literature, analysing not just authorial techniques but character motivations and ambitions, if you’re just going to sit back and criticise it all by saying “it’s just words on a page; none of these people are real”? Whether they are actually standing right in front of us in the flesh or not doesn’t matter. Look up any title with a significant following and you’ll find fans constantly talking about what the characters are doing, what has happened to them, what might happen to them, and you’ll even find some people pairing characters up who they think have relationship potential (ie shipping). Say “it’s not real, it’s only fiction” makes you a killjoy who doesn't understand creativity, and it sounds even worse coming form a tutor teaching literature.

It’s hypocrisy to study and teach literature if one's true thoughts are that it's "just fiction". The author is real; their experiences, beliefs and emotions are real; their imagination is real; and both characters and the worlds they inhabit are brought to life from those things. All characters, whether human or fantastical in some way, have their own agendas and emotional conflicts that stem from our real experiences, perceptions or speculations on life and the universe at large. So irrespective of how you view fiction, the reality we know always plays a vital role in its construction and the effect it has on readers, who identify with the experiences of those they are reading about. Don't ever tell me it's just fiction.

[aeldynnlore-definitivejournal]

CHARACTERS: The Power of Immortals

I have often heard it said that immortal and incredibly powerful characters have no real place as main characters in fantasy and sci-fi because of what they are capable of. Apparently it can make them "boring". A late friend of mine once said he wouldn't touch immortal characters with a bargepole when it came to his own writing for this reason. Perhaps in the past this has been said because immortals, demigods and the like haven't been given enough depth, or perhaps because an author hasn’t written the experiences and emotions of such characters by getting into their heads. So please, indulge me for a moment. 

Have you ever asked yourself what it might be like to be immortal? Some readers will have an understanding of the immortality of races such as Tolkien’s elves, who are, for all intents and purposes immortal, but they’re still capable of dying. What of those who are truly immortal though? Can you fathom that kind of existence, with your only chance at respite being to enter a long period of sleep? Perhaps some of these characters had a childhood, and despite their spiritual or magical power, they still experience hunger and the need for regular sleep. They also have emotions and life experiences. They’re not soulless golems. Imagine the toil and heartache of what many of these types of characters must go through.

We authors should always consider these things when writing about all of our characters, which includes the back stories and subsequent motives of immortals. If they don’t, they’ll end up with the boring kind of everlasting beings who lack personality and integrity; the kind people don’t want to read about. They can be good, or evil, or neutral, but never should it be forgotten that character development is important, even for them, because it tells readers who they are,  why they exist, and for what purpose just like any other character. Beyond mundane normality, there are always greater powers at work that even the most accomplished of heroes or villains may fail to understand. There is always a place for the powerful and the immortal in fantasy and sci-fi, so long as they are given as much consideration as any other character or race. They can actually bring a lot of power to a fantasy or sci-fi narrative.

[aeldynnlore-definitivejournal]

BUT THAT NEVER HAPPENED IN THE ??? CENTURY!

As an avid reader of fantasy (and also as a writer), I’ve seen comments pop up every now and again about what would or wouldn't happen in a particular setting, and they have a tendency to raise my hackles a bit. If you’re basing your fantasy fiction on factual events and inventions that have taken place on our own planet Earth, then anyone can criticise an author for any noticeable inaccuracies. That’s all fair and square, but I'm talking about those who do this with FANTASY without taking into account any worldly differences. The worlds we write about may be feasible somewhere in the vast expanse of the universe where the laws of physics might differ or understood differently, but that's not what matters in this instance; what matters in this discussion is the time period.

We’re usually talking about different worlds entirely, or perhaps parallel/alternate universes. For all we know, steam engines might have been invented two hundred years before the 1800s in another universe or alternate timeliness. Or, if you’ve ever watched the TV series Fringe, you’ll know about another method of transport that took off (pardon the pun) in the alternate universe but failed in ours. If you haven't watched it, I recommend it, especially as it touches on the lesser known side of scientific research and where it might lead.

For an entirely different world based on perhaps the 12th century or even the 17th century, or even any other time in history, you’re definitely going to need to do a lot of research and keep things as much within historical context as possible (so a 12th century setting with fighter jets probably isn’t going to work unless you're doing something similar to the sci-fi JRPG series Star Ocean, where technologically advanced civilisations visit underdeveloped planets but are explicitly warned not to engage with the inhabitants so as to not affect their natural development), but you actually do have room to tweak a great number of things in whatever way you choose. So, if you want to have cities with cleaner streets, you can if you’ve got a means to back up exactly why it’s like that, because in the 12th century on Earth, most streets would be packed full of horse manure, human waste, and rats laden with disease.

Some critics/readers just don’t seem to recognise the idea that it’s set in an entirely different world, itbtherefore doesn’t have to adhere to Earth’s history to the letter. Similarly, an author may think it’s a different world and doesn’t warrant any explanation, but they'd be wrong. If the era in your fantasy world mimics Earth's equivalent, that's fine, and it's equally fine if it doesn't, but it needs to be made clear. By explaining it, you’re at least giving your work the clarity it needs. Remember, just because something happened a certain way on this planet, it doesn't mean it has to happen the exact same way on another. Differences might be quite noticeable, or they might be quite subtle, and little tidbits of information on what those differences are can be helpful in understanding how another world works.

[aeldynnlore-definitivejournal]

CHARACTERS: Villains, Antagonists & Anti-heroes

Sometimes it might be hard to tell which characters fit into these categories, especially if you have a large cast like I do. I’m a deep thinker, so I think about this sort of thing a lot. Villains are usually antagonists (occasionally a villain might happen to be a protagonist though it’s uncommon), but there are also antagonists who are not necessarily villains. Even some anti-heroes could be considered fit the role of an antagonist, particularly if they are a rival to a more altruistic kind of hero who may or may not be the protagonist. While all three of these terms can be linked, each has a slightly different definition:

Antagonist – a character who is in opposition to someone or something; an adversary; usually to the protagonist.

Anti-Hero/Heroine – a leading character who lacks the usual qualities of a hero (for example: altruism/fortitude/morality/idealism).

Villain – a character who is evil and thrives on malice/wickedness in order to achieve their goal(s).

If we take the typical approach of the ‘good guy’ is the protagonist, we’re expected to favour him/her, and hope and expect that he or she will ultimately prevail. I always find myself asking questions related to the antagonist(s) though, such as: what are the reasons for their behaviour? What happened to them to make them behave this way? What drove this character to be malicious? Why do the ‘good guys’ rarely (if ever) wonder what those reasons might be?

Don’t get me wrong, some stories do consider such details from the ‘good guy’s’ point of view, but I find they all too often don’t. Whether it’s in the form of a book, a video-game, an anime or perhaps a film, I feel much more connected if I’m able to see things from the antagonist’s point of view. If a villain does evil deeds merely for the sake of it, then I can’t help but see them as one-dimensional, and therefore boring and pointless. One term I came across with regards to a villain in a recent video-game, was that he was "wasted 'plot'ential", which finishes up the summary of a villain/antagonist with no depth or back story.

Most, if not all writers use their writing to express their feelings, beliefs and general views of the world, and I’m no exception. It’s part of who we are, and admittedly I find myself frequently relating to a lot of characters that bear the mark of the antagonist, anti-hero or villain. If I should find out that there is a very good reason for the antagonist or villain’s behaviour and can relate to it, I'll find myself taking their side over the so-called "good guys".

It’s no different when you have those ‘good guys’ embarking on a quest that turns into a mission to save (for argument’s sake) the world, without them giving much of a thought to why certain antagonists and villains behave the way do. Too often they’re hell bent on stopping the villain without pausing to consider their adversary’s reasons.

Alright, some villains are just plain evil through and through and all they care about is getting their own way (it's still shallow, a waste, one-dimensional and therefore boring when there's no given reason). People - of any kind - are driven by their emotions and instincts, and for villains with any depth that's typically via negative and often devastating personal experiences unless they're of an alien race with a particularly dark mentality. It all depends on who we want our readers to love, and those we want them to hate with a passion. That can go for any of our characters, but as for the focus of this topic, the most obvious way to consider loving or hating these kinds of characters is to think about whether they’re one-dimensional or multi-dimensional. Those who are focused on their own selfish gain are the characters we're more likely to love to hate, and it’s the multi-dimensional ones who should be making us wonder. Who knows, we may even relate to them in some way.

[aeldynnlore-definitivejournal]

Systems of Magic in Science & Technology

Any author worth their salt will implement consequences or some form of penalty for characters who use magic. You cannot walk, or run, or swim without expending energy, and likewise you cannot think, or perform any sort of mental activity without doing the same. Nevertheless, some characters may be more adept at using magic and have greater endurance than others, and this can be reflected in racial traits, and/or experience and talent. I’ve seen floating continents or islands in many fantasy worlds, but few of them ever explain what actually keeps them aloft. If anyone ever says “well it’s magic”, I will shoot them with as sarcastic a comment as I can think of. Tell me, what is controlling that magic? Is there a natural disturbance in the atmosphere? If so, what caused it? Did some ancient magician use a powerful spell to lift it into the air? If so, how has it remained aloft for centuries or millennia if said magician is long dead? No fantasy world is believable if it has a magic system the author cannot explain. No author can explain every single detail, but they should be able to tell you enough during the course of their stories for it to at least makes sense. Physics may work differently or be more malleable in a world other than Earth, so if you have more than one moon in the sky, the author should be prepared to give an explanation if the ocean tides appear to be no different to that of Earth. There must always pros and cons, for without them there is no clarity. Even the most supremely powerful being needs some form of weakness to make them believable, even though to the rest of the world it might just appear they have none. There ought to be some penalties somewhere along the line. This has just been a short piece to explain my stance on how I believe the use of magic in fantasy worlds needs to be explainable in order for readers to make sense of it. Speculation can only be taken so far after all.

[aeldynnlore-definitivejournal]

CHARACTERS: 3-Dimensional Beings

It isn’t possible to do this for every single character, but those playing a major role are owed a tangible existence by the author.  Characters with little to no depth may appear to readers as one or two-dimensional, and this (I believe) should only apply to incidental characters who may only appear once or very occasionally. We don't need to learn everything about incidental characters. I have read an awful lot of books in which many, if not all of the characters, are nothing more than words on the pages they are written on. Stories are nothing unless they come alive in the mind and stand out with a firm existence on those pages. It’s no good for an author to introduce their characters simply by name and the words that come out of their mouths; I want to know what they look like, what their body language suggests about them, and I want them to have distinctly individual personalities.

In my honest opinion, only authors who truly care about their writing and their characters will inject some measure of their own life experiences and emotions, of those they know or of peoples they have researched, and having an in-depth understanding of the human condition - or, I should say emotional/meaningful existence, as this doesn't just apply to human characters. The point I am trying to make here is that as a reader, I am so often perplexed by the lack of empathy from some authors, and I want to express my own desire and efforts to truly bring my characters to life.  

One of my favourite quotes is from the poet, Robert Frost; “No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader. No surprise in the writer, no surprise in the reader.” Not every story is going to touch every reader in the same way, but the effort (or lack of) is always noticeable to me. Characters should have a very strong, tangible presence on the page, or they are likely to fail to touch hearts and minds. It's always a problem for me if I can't see them as anything more than a name.

[aeldynnlore-definitivejournal]

Vampires in Fantasy & Science Fiction

Some time back, I was trawling Amazon for fantasy books I might like to read. I look at some of the positive reviews and ratings, and some of the negatives. One of the comments someone gave dismissed the book as a romance disguised as a fantasy novel, and that the final insult was that the author had included vampires. Personally, I am of the mind that writers write what they feel compelled to write, and that they also write about what they are interested in. It is every author’s hope that others will enjoy their books, but the one plain and bitter truth is that we’re never going to be able to please everybody. Vampires do not have to exist on Earth, they can appear on different worlds. No fictional story about vampires has to take place in our reality, or an alternate version of our reality. Any fantasy or science fiction author can choose to include them in the world(s)/universe(s) they create and make them fit in a way that suits their setting.

Still, what is it about vampires that this person hates so much? There are a number of factors to think about: clichés, repetitive myths and legends, they’re apparently undead, and they sometimes…sparkle? Ok, so clearly there’s a lot going on here. Some people are fed up with stereotypical vampires, and there are those who strongly disapprove of them twinkling like fairies, but let’s go all the way back to Bram Stoker’s Dracula and think about what made vampires so enigmatic in fiction in the first place. If you haven’t read Dracula, I recommend that you do. Let’s get one thing straight though, Dracula, is a classic nineteenth century novel and it’s not classed as fantasy fiction, nor are the works of Anne Rice. Vampire novels are usually found in the horror section, or in supernatural YA novels, though you might find the occasional book in the romance section includes a vampire or two. Why should it be considered weird to see them in fantasy or science fiction? I don’t connect with all the vampiric stereotypes included in these kinds of novels, and nor do I follow all the clichés that have followed since, but I do try to hold true to what they’ve always been about in the eyes of readers. They invoke fear, power, hostility, and mystery with supernatural abilities that one might consider to be magic, but stereotypically they: are undead, sleep in coffins, have no reflection, cannot cross running water (or cannot touch water at all), instantly die in a puff of ash upon being touched by sunlight, heal instantly, cannot enter somebody’s home unless invited, are either ugly or ethereally beautiful, and live off nothing but human blood. That's all fine, but it doesn't hurt to switch things up a bit. Perhaps familiarity breeds contempt with some people. Perhaps vampires have been seen the same way for too long. Perhaps there aren’t enough of them bearing deviations from the stereotypical norm, and perhaps they haven’t yet been utilised in fantasy or science fiction works enough for them to be accepted as having clarity and believability. Vampires will, nevertheless, always be typical at their core. Just as humans aren’t going to change their fundamental characteristics and behaviours, neither are vampires.