Politics

[Lief Erikson]

Here we can discuss our politics in writing . Many of us who have created or are creating worlds in fantasy have had some connection to politics. The amount of connection and the depth they get into may differ from writer to writer. What kinds of politics do you have, and what kinds of relations between the kingdoms? How do events in the stories affect the politics, or vice versa?

[Lief Erikson]

Also, how does religion or magic play into affecting your politics? I know it affects mine strongly.

In the start of my book, the wizards' castle dominates the world, and their magic is known. It is feared by a few, but a great comfort for many, for they know that the wizards have noble aspirations and a good purpose in the world. The wizards' presence and the power and influence of their council causes kingdoms to try to fall into line with their will as much as possible. They have councilors assisting and advising some kingdoms, and they have ambassadors in other kingdoms. They have large amounts of trade going on with some of the other countries as well. Their council exerts a huge amount of influence.

As the book goes on, their influence wanes and begins to die as they become invaded by a huge army, instigated by a dark wizard. Dark wizards are supposed to have been extinct, wiped out in a war about . . . maybe eighty or so years ago. Yet one is alive, somehow.

[Lief Erikson]

I have two different forms of government in my book. The first is the monarchy, and the second kind is a Majority Council (Though I think my Dad told me it's a Republic), in which the people elect a certain number of people and those people vote together on what to do in a given situation. There's a Council Leader who has more votes than any of the others.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Well, my kingdoms are predominantly monarchies, though there are a few others. For instance, the Amazons (very poorly developed ATM) are run by a council of Twelve Amazons; though they have an Amazon Queen, she isn't really a monarch, more of a Council leader. There are two kingdoms nearby one another, Canrath and Naros (the latter actually being a group of several small kingdoms) which are closely allied: Canrath is the chief Human realm, the seat of the first City built for Humankind, as well as the great Temple. It is a monarchy, whereas Naros is a collective of small kingdoms: each King rules his own kingdom, but in matter which deal with all of them, they decide in a Council.

As for magic, not really...the Magicians/Wizards/Whatever I'm gonna call them are an autonomous collective, answering to no King. They rule themselves, but don't really have much to do with politics.

Religion...meh, it's a bit harder to say. Religion plays a very big role in Lisman, and priests are consulted often to seek divine guidance. Also, there is usually at least one priest who advises the King of Canrath. The Temple is pretty much a theocracy, with the greater priests having more power (the High Priest having the most authority); the Paladins are treated with awe, as are the Prophets at times, though sometimes they are regarded with a more suspicious eye. But as far as actually getting directly involved in politics...no, not really.

On second thought, it is in some places. The Priestesses of the Scarlet Spider have the entire Dark-Elven society eating out of their hands, and at one time, Canrath was ruled by Gulstan the Black, who King as well as High Priest of Vilkroth.

[IronParrot]

I'm a politics geek. After my current writing project (which may take quite a long time) one of the ideas I want to tackle next is a satire of the Greek pantheon of gods in the form of a parliamentary government that passes all sorts of legislation regarding the goings-on of the world below.

My current story is set in the late 1940s, and has a lot to do with the power of the media over the people, some of it in a very political sense. I also like work in a few issues regarding social stratification.

[Agalayth]

There are many different countries in the world I'm creating, but few have been developed, and none are developed in writing. I haven't started writing the books yet, because I'd like to get a better education before I actually start. I'm only in 7th grade you know. But anyways, here's what I have so far, on one of the countries:

Mundara: Mundara is the country of the High Elves. There is a King and Queen that make most of the decisions, though the Queen generally has more power than the King. In my Elven society, the females usually have more authority than the males, because the Elves believe in a Goddess (who goes by many different names, the most common being Yra, pronounced AI-rah), and they also believe that females are decendants of the Goddess. Magic is a big part of the politics in Mundara. See, the only way that magic can be used is if there is light from the sun or moon, which are worshiped by the Elves. So, on the night of the new moon, no one is to be out of their homes. The country is mainly defended by mages, so staying inside is just for security. The ultimate way for a mage to become more powerful is to learn to cast spells in darkness, which almost no one can do. The three who can do this are Urion, Shel'Kaara and Amhrobis - A High Elf, Wood Elf, and Dark Elf.


I'll work on Dark Elven country of Iscolon next, and after that the Wood Elven country of Avron.

[Lief Erikson]

I like that idea of those light sources giving power . It's cool.


In my book, I have two larger countries are simply interested in conducting their economical affairs and building up themselves. Those are called Hornad and Erena. Then I have two backwater countries that aren't strong and don't have much political sway. People tend to only pay attention to them when they want their aid, and their trading abilities are slim. They tend to be self reliant and poorer than most countries. Their names are Visal and Venaros.

Then I have Kithal and Tari. Tari used to be part of Kithal, but it broke off a long time ago and received recognition as a country from the wizard Rainbow Council. Kithal didn't have the military strength to stop it from breaking off at that time, and after it had received recognition from the Rainbow Order, it was too late. Since then, Kithal has become highly militaristic and has always considered Tari with some anger, and with desire to bring that land back into itself.

Arla used to be a part of Erena, but it broke off a long time ago. I haven't thought up the history for that yet, but I will eventually. In any case, their relations aren't nearly as strained as those between Tari and Kithal. On the contrary, Arla is a strong trading partner with Erena, (Which is, by the way, the country that has the most wealth of any in the world) and it is an ally of that country as well.

Then I have Iastanva, which is also a trading partner with Erena, and might be connected with Venaros in trade also, though only a little bit if at all. Iastanva is pretty self sufficient and has strong economical ties with Erena, as Hornad and Arla do. Iastanva doesn't profit from its trading with Erena as much as Erena does, but they're willing to put up with that, and they can use the income. They have a fine military; not so strong as some of the other countries, but still quite decent.

Aharvadon is probably the second to strongest country in the world in terms of military. It used to have the goal of creating an empire, and invaded Venaros. Their pretext for the invasion was barbarian attacks. These barbarian attacks were real, and the Rainbow Council gave its approval of the invasion, because of that. But their military operations floundered, despite the might of their armies, because of the brilliance of General Baarorg.

Aharvadon's military suffered some severe defeats in Venaros, and they ended their war eventually without occupying much of Venaros at all. All they'd succeeded in doing was drawing more political power to the king of Venaros, and huge popularity to Baarorg, who was the country's new hero. The added political power to Venaros's king, however, ended Aharvadon's original quarrel with their kingdom anyway, for it enabled the king to put an end to barbarian raids on Aharvadon. Their war failed to gain Aharvadon an empire, but it very indirectly ended the barbarian raids.

Elerev has the strongest military in the world, or at least is supposed to have it. Elerev is the country that the wizard order resides in, the Rainbow Order.

Kithal has probably the third to strongest military in the world.

Harad and a desert kingdom are the last two countries I have in my book. Harad is one of the locations that the most happens in in the book, but it is also the smallest country in this part of the world. It and Tari, anyway, are probably equal size. Harad has had huge political turmoil and upheaval going on in it. So much so that most of the big countries try to keep their hands clear of it.

The desert kingdom is militaristic, even if it is small. It has a stronger naval military might than most might expect, though.

Oh yes! I almost forgot to mention my merkingdoms, Aordia and Mesashell.

By the way, I don't expect anyone to read all this .

[Draken]

I like the "what if" element of thinking through how different societies could develop in fiction. Iain M Banks is very good at this; "Player of Games" is about a society that has a third "dative" sex AND where social position depends on how well you can play an incredibly intricate game. Also he made his Culture society a communist utopia to wind up, he said, his American friends!

I personally would love to write some fiction that managed to track the life of say a city rather than an individual, showing teh changes in characater and sophistication as it grew.

[Celebréiel]

Oh! I love reading fiction or fantasy where people work the politics of the world into the story. Even if its just to explain how everything works. One of my biggest gripes on most peoples stories is when theres no mention of any type of structure, so everything seems so flat. Imo, it makes the story much more three dimensional and real to have mention of the workings of the world outside the main characters journey. Not just in politics but everything...yeah..

[Laurus Nobilis]

I have only recently started to think about the politics in my world, but I have a few ideas already.

Human kingdoms are all monarchies. Among them, Tenargil is the richest country, and it also has a great political influence. It used to be an empire a long time ago, but now it's not militaristic anymore.

The kings of the seven most prominent human countries take part in a Council that settles the matters which affect the human race as a whole. Which are those kingdoms is something that fluctuates constantly, but the king of Tenargil has always been part of the Council.

Another races have different forms of politic. The Rildai, who are creatures of the forest, live in cooperative tribes.

The Derhi -a race of dragon riders- are ruled by the Kaiya, who fills the role of a king and is adviced by the Ancients. THey are the six oldest people among the Derhis. When the Kaiya dies, the Ancients choose his/her sucesor through a series of tests.

[Churl]

First, I want to wish everyone here the greatest success in his or her respective writing projects.

Second, I agree with Celebréiel: I also love getting “the big picture” in stories … the politics, culture, legends, and folkways that provide the backdrop for the events of the plot.

I’d add some caveats, however (all merely my own opinion):


1. Everyone has a different level of enthusiasm for back story and exposition.

For example, I love Tolkien’s passages about the history and lore of Middle-earth.  Those same passages bore others.  In contrast, my eyes glazed over amid the thousands of pages of Byzantine political machinations in Herbert’s Dune series.  Other people consider that same complexity proof of Dune’s greatness.

I guess I’m just taking too many words to paraphrase a cliché — “You can’t please all the people all the time.”  A middle ground is probably the wisest course, provided that it conveys your intended depth and scope of Place.


2. Avoid blatant real-world political parallels.

This follows Tolkien’s (negative) stance on allegory.  I tend to agree with him: when writers try to draw one-to-one relationships between real-life political figures/events and characters/events in their stories, the results usually seem contrived at best, and sanctimoniously preachy at worst.

(To preface the following, please realize that I am not trying to advance a political position one way or the other; I’m merely using current events to illustrate my point. I.e., I’m not trying to start an off-topic debate.)

Imagine that a writer wishes to write a story that expresses his or her opposition to the recent war in Iraq.  I would prefer to read such a story if it took one of two approaches.  First, the writer might set the story in the real world with the real war as a backdrop for the fictitious events of his or her story.  Second, the writer might set the story a fictitious world, and then go on to explore the broader themes of intervention, multilateralism vs. unilateralism, etc. — but at the same time leaving the interpretation up to the reader.  (Consider Tolkien’s words on “applicability.”)

Such a story that I would not wish to read, however, would be one in which a fictitious country, led by a conservative (ummm, errr) “monarch” invades a smaller nation led by a despotic (errr, ummm) “troll king” because he fears the troll king’s potential arsenal of (uhhh, hmmm) “magic fire.”  The story would then ham-fistedly go on to show the suffering wrought by the invading nation, concluding — oh-so-profoundly — with the question, “was it really all worth it?”

Of course, while I rapidly throw such beat-you-over-the-head “soapbox” novels across the room, others might enjoy them and consider them witty satire.  Again … this is all just my opinion.


3. Likewise, avoid heavy-handed religious or philosophical Messages.

The capital M was intentional.

Please don’t misunderstand.  I’m not advising against any religious or philosophical exploration (or even against any real-world political relevance, for that matter) … I’m merely arguing that stories which champion a single, unquestioned religious/philosophical Message are rarely good fiction in their own right.  (Yikes, I can hear the fans of C.S. Lewis, Sartre, Camus, Ayn Rand, and L. Ron Hubbard sharpening their knives already….)  I’m sure that exceptions exist, but for the most part, the “proselytizing” school of storytelling too often reads like a pretentious after-school special with a Very Important Lesson.  Blech.


Again, none of this is meant to imply that politics, philosophy, and religion have no place in fiction — just the opposite!  I just know that I, and many others, appreciate a richly detained fictional world only when it serves as a backdrop for an interesting “foreground” story.  Likewise, a strong theme is important, but it should never browbeat the reader.  Leave some ambiguity … some room for interpretation.

Most importantly, however, write the story that you want to write.  (After all, what do I know aside from my own subjective artistic preferences?)  Everyone else can only give you advice … in the end, the story must feel true and right to you, no matter whose advice you follow and whose you ignore.

Sorry for the long-windedness.  I hope that at least some of this contributed to the discussion.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Churl
I’m merely arguing that stories which champion a single, unquestioned religious/philosophical Message are rarely good fiction in their own right.  (Yikes, I can hear the fans of C.S. Lewis, Sartre, Camus, Ayn Rand, and L. Ron Hubbard sharpening their knives already….)

You forgot Tolkien.

[markedel]

Not necessarily-obvious parallels to the real world throgh fantasy can work if the work is well done. Story should be first, message second. Otherwise one should simply write an essay. I for one have enjoyed some "historical fantasy."

[Lief Erikson]

(1)I think the amount of desired back-drop, history, legend and set-up that you have in your world depends upon what kind of a world you have and what kind of a story you're weaving. It really depends upon what the type of book you have is for you to choose what kind of a set-up it should receive.

(2)I tend to agree with you a bit more about real-life political references, but that's just my personal preference, and it's an uneducated opinion. I haven't read any books that have strong political messages, though I don't think they're likely all that bad. Writing a book can be a voice for the author to give their opinions, and that doesn't always inhibit the enjoyment of the masses. Everyone has their own tastes; it's up to the author how far they want to limit the number of appreciative audience they're likely to receive.

(3)There are actually quite a lot of successful books that incorporate religious themes. I think that that's more a matter of taste than of how good the book is. Also, you might want to note that even some severely anti-religious books receive a large amount of praise among certain circles.

[Churl]

I definitely agree with all of you … I tried not to indulge in the same preachiness that I rail against, but despite my best intentions, maybe that's how it sounded. If so, I apologize.

Gwaimir, you reminded me that I'd forgotten Tolkien when listing writers whose messages were close to the surface. Maybe so — to many, Tolkien's themes are heavy-handed. I guess I don't mind them because they're not as directly allegorical as the works of many other writers.

As markedel wrote, "Story should be first, message second." I guess that's the defining trait of great fiction writers.

Finally, Lief: you wrote that the story determines the required level of historical background, etc. I agree completely. A fantasy or historical epic — or even a modern espionage tale or technothriller — often requires the introduction of dozens of characters, factions, and political bodies. The story, again, determines the content.

Certainly there are respected writers whose political and philosophical messages are strong. (Kurt Vonnegut immediately springs to mind; John Irving put forth an earnest defense of abortion in The Cider House Rules, etc. … I'm sure the list is long.) Perhaps I shouldn't have been so absolutist in my advice. I would still argue, however, that the line dividing "theme" from "sermon" can sometimes blur if it isn't handled very carefully.

To sum up, I'll echo the best writing advice I ever received: "Write your own story." You'll know when it feels true and right to you.

[IronParrot]

I think Tolkien is about one of the most story-over-message authors you'll find, and he'll probably be rolling in his grave if it's ever suggested otherwise.

I admit that Narnia left me with a bit of distaste at the points in the story when it indeed became subservient to the religious message, and that is why I do not count the series among my favourite works of literature, despite its many virtues.

On the other hand, one of my favourite novels is Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. There is one passage in it that very deliberately reads like a political science textbook. Yet that was one of my favourite parts of the novel because of its level of insightful analysis. Was it preaching? Oh yes. But it did it so well that I didn't mind.

I don't think there's any consistent model for determining how much is too much, in the way of political and religious undertones. It is indeed highly dependent on the reader. It is also highly dependent on how the author presents the ideas.

I complain about literature (and film) getting overly preachy from time to time, but those complaints only crop up when such overt presentation of a not-so-subliminal message is handled poorly in its presentation.

No matter what you do, just do it well. What is "well"? Okay, that's subjective, but there's a certain point at which bad, preachy writing is bad, preachy writing, and you'll know it when you see it.

[IronParrot]

As for how to work in all those complex politics and backgrounders once you've developed them:

I liked how Tolkien did it - in The Lord of the Rings that is, not The Silmarillion. By relegating all of that historical matter to the appendices, none of it got in the way of the story. At the end of the day, he only presented us with what we needed to know to really appreciate the story. It was vital that we knew the history behind the Stewardship of Gondor, to understand where Denethor, Boromir and Aragorn were coming from in their respective positions. The relations between Rohan and Gondor were presented in such a way that they weren't just plopped in front of us, but we saw them develop as the action progressed. We see the distrust of Rohan early on, yet later we have the Ride of the Rohirrhim, and the various governmental decisions that are made on the Fields of Cormallen. We know just enough about the split of the ancient kingdom of Men, and its decadence through the Third Age.

But that's all we're told, and everything else - the various bloodlines, name by name, and the origins of the house of Eorl, plus the entirety of The Silmarillion - that is textbook material that is not absolutely essential, and was thus left aside. Not obtrusive, but out of the way for anyone who was actually interested (which turned out to be a lot of people).

As for political maneuvering within the story itself: as long as you do it with action. I'm going to pick on Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time here, because it's just so easy to make fun of it.

My favourite part of the Wheel of Time, and what I thought was Robert Jordan's real talent, was the political intrigue between and among all the various kingdoms in his world. That was some really good plotting, and the background was well fleshed out.

However, the presentation of it bored me to death, because often you'd have an entire chapter which amounted to a character thinking, "Okay, this is what the political situation is like," and coming up with all these diabolical schemes. I seriously would have preferred reading a chapter-by-chapter plot summary than trudging through all of the extraneous matter that doesn't move the story along.

So if you're going to work in political intrigue - and by all means, I encourage it, as it contributes to the depth of your world - do it in such a way that advances the story. Make it dynamic. Don't just let all of your intricate facts sit there.

"Show, don't tell," isn't that what they say?

[Churl]

Originally posted by IronParrot
I think Tolkien is about one of the most story-over-message authors you'll find, and he'll probably be rolling in his grave if it's ever suggested otherwise.

As evidence, consider the diversity of Tolkien fans throughout history: his works have been loved by hippies and fascists, the religious and the non-religious, the brilliant and the simple … as well as nearly everyone else in between.

No doubt certain members of his fan base (not to mention their interpretations) would also make the professor roll in his grave, but to me, the very diversity of reader responses to Tolkien elevates him high above “object lesson” school of fiction.

[markedel]

Heavy handed messages can work to some degree-I always enjoyed The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Starship Troopers despite their blatant sermonizing.

[Anglorfin]

If I am going to write fiction i find it very easy to incoporate politics, and even easier to incorporate prejudice and racism. What I use politics for is basically just racism on a larger scale. Aspects of racism in fantasy for me might explain a highway robbery, or a tavern brawl. My politics do the same thing basically.

One of the things i have been fascinated with is cultural studies. I love reading books about social philosophy. All that stuff about mob mentality, culture clash, social taboos, religion vs. state, is just another way of saying the word "politics". What makes any book on this subject so interesting is that politics is a field that will never become dated. It is going to be around for as long as humans exist so it's ideas and themes will be relevant to anyone no matter what.