Why, part two

[kippurbird]

Mwahaha... I remembered what else I wanted to say in the "Why" essay.

Culture! Culture is a big, big thing that needs Why asked a lot. First there are things that are transplanted from our cultures that must be examined. Cultural biases are one of those things. Why does a group of people do or believe the things that you do? For example slavery is bad in our culture, but why does it have to be bad in another world? They could have different rules for it. In Judaism, back when slavery was legal or a normal thing, a person could only be kept as a slave for seven years. Once those seven years were up, they were set free. This is something that could be transplanted into another world's culture. Slavery in most fantasy worlds is generally considered a bad thing because it is in our world. But this is only a recent development, now that we've had both the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution that allowed people to get more work done with less effort. Most fantasy worlds aren't in a place that would allow labor to be that free. They need the crops planted and harvested. They can have serfs do it, but they were practically slaves tied to the land. So, if slavery is going to be "bad" in a fantasy world, the people who believe this better have a better economic way of getting things done. This isn't to say that slavery that treats its slaves poorly has to be tolerated, this could be something that the protagonist stands against, but the actual institution of slavery could be kept intact.

Another thing to think about is culture for culture's sake. What do I mean by this? Well it's when you give a culture a unique feature just to make it stand out. Robert Jordan does this a lot in his Wheel of Time books. The people of Altara are an example of this. One of their identifying characteristics is that they often have duels over the most trivial matters and that a woman has the right to kill a man over any sort of reason. This culture should be a completely lawless place, after all people are supposed to be killing each other over any sort of insult. Theoretically they could duel the Queen if they felt insulted by something she did. Or one of the guards. How can you have order where there is no rules for duels and they can happen at any sort of place for any sort of reason? There is no place in such a society for a judicial component because everyone takes the law into their own hands. There isn't a way for someone to prove that they are right or wrong, just who ever wins the duel is right. So the question is why would Robert Jordan put in such an unsustainable culture? Because he wanted something different than all the other cultures that he had created. He wanted something that would make this city - this land- stick out from all the other lands and cultures that he created. However he forgot to ask why would a culture do this? Why is this culture even still around when they should have killed themselves off a long time ago? Such rules of dueling is better suited to a barbaric civilization than one within a city or the trappings of advanced society. In an effort to make the culture unique he forgot to logically look at the consequences of such a culture. We don't even know why this idea even started in this culture. It just is. Which is never, as stated before, a good reason.

Culture needs to grow organically from the beliefs and needs of the people living in it. In a society that has a high magic population, magic would be important and they would have a lot of things that regard magic, but it may be considered an every day thing since everyone could do it. Another culture that depends on a certain thing such as sheep to make their livelihood would have sheep as an important part of their culture. A good example of this from Robert Jordan (he of the many different cultures) is the Aeil. They live in the desert where there is very little water, so they consider water to be sacred. A good part of their culture is derived around water and the finding of it. They have water oaths that are considered to be the most important of all oaths. Things like this work to make a good culture. Why do the Aiel consider water sacred? Because they live in a desert where it is scarce.

If you can answer such a question, then you know that you're doing something right. Another question, however, that could be applied to the Aiel that wouldn't make as much sense is why is having the women wear their hair in braids considered something only children do? The answer to this is because the women of Two Rivers consider it something that an adult can only do and Jordan wanted to have a cultural conflict. That doesn't make any sense. There is no reason here for the hair to be up or down. In regards to hair, for another cultural example, in Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series, women in the Midlands use hair to denote status. The longer a woman's hair is, the more important. The reasoning for this is that a noble woman would have more time to devote to taking care of her hair than a commoner. This isn't the best of reasons, but it can and does sort of make sense. At least it makes more sense than the Aeil/Two Rivers reason.

As long as "Why" is capable of being answered with a reasonable explanation for the differences in beliefs or the customs of a world, for character motivations and for other things that make a world different from all other worlds, then things are on the right track. It means that things in the world makes sense or have a reason for being there even if it isn't obvious to the characters that live there.

Comments

[pandoras-closet.livejournal.com]

Off topic, but IM me when you get a chance. I have an idea and you're the only one I know who's . . . odd enough to appreciate it.

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

Should I take that as a compliment?

Anyway, I shall be on later this evening... after dealing with potential failures for roommates.

[pandoras-closet.livejournal.com]

The voices in your head hear voices. You tell me.

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

The voices refuse to come to an agreement and instead have decided to burn city hall.

[christinaathena.livejournal.com]

In Judaism, back when slavery was legal or a normal thing, a person could only be kept as a slave for seven years. Once those seven years were up, they were set free. That actually only applied to fellow Israelites. Gentile slaves could be, and were, kept for life.

How can you have order where there is no rules for duels and they can happen at any sort of place for any sort of reason? There is no place in such a society for a judicial component because everyone takes the law into their own hands. There are cultures like that, with no restrictions on combat, but they're generally restricted to very small groups, where even a hundre people in one place is a very stressful situation, and bands frequently break up over feuds, and people live in constant fear of being attacked.

The longer a woman's hair is, the more important. The reasoning for this is that a noble woman would have more time to devote to taking care of her hair than a commoner. This isn't the best of reasons, but it can and does sort of make sense Heian-era Japan was similar. Noble women had hair of ridiculous length. The ideal was considered to be hair that went past the feet. For common women, of course, such hair would be impractical. Although, as far as I know, there was no special connection between length and rank. However, there *were* special laws in place concerning what combinations of colors a nobleman of a given rank could wear, above a certain rank. Below a certain rank, any color-pattern that was not reserved for higher ranks could be worn, and, in fact, an idiom for a low-ranking man was literally "multicolored". The Romans likewise had similar laws regarding how much purple people of various ranks could wear, with the Emperor at the top being the only man allowed to wear *all* purple, and for a general to don a purple robe was a prominent symbol that he was preparing to seek to usurp the throne. Purple got that significance from the fact that, at the time, the purple dye was the most expensive one. It's quite plausible that a society could regulate hair length in such a way (and, presumably, women whose hair didn't grow long enough would use some kind of extensions)

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

That actually only applied to fellow Israelites. Gentile slaves could be, and were, kept for life.

Hrm... I think you're right, but the point still stands.

There are cultures like that, with no restrictions on combat, but they're generally restricted to very small groups, where even a hundre people in one place is a very stressful situation, and bands frequently break up over feuds, and people live in constant fear of being attacked.

Yes, the problem I had with Jordan's culture is that it was an entire kingdom's worth of people who were like that. Utterly unsustainable.

[gjohnsonkoehn.livejournal.com]

I was going to bring up the Japanese in that respect, actually. Should have known you'd beat me to it.

[karma-kalisutah.livejournal.com]

*ahem* From what I know about slavery, it's sort of... impossible... for slaves to be really treated acceptably. I mean, some are obviously treated better than others, but I wouldn't even want to find myself in the best-case-scenario. Part of the problem is that in order to keep someone as a slave, you have to convince yourself that they're a lesser being than you. Cognitive dissonance, I think it's called. And once you start thinking that, you don't really have much incentive to treat them right. There are all sort of other psychological things going on, both with individual slave owners and slave-owning societies, but the final result is that almost anyone who's okay with keeping slaves is going to be okay with treating them in ways that human beings - Hell, any living beings - really ought not to be treated.

You have a point about slavery being to some extent necessary in certain economies. So, of course, in fantasy worlds with those economies, the hero shouldn't be all "OMG, slavery is bad," unless they've really thought it out, or have had some personal experience that would lead them to believe that. But I don't agree that they ought to accept it with certain qualifications to make it "moral," because that comes off as the author suggesting that slavery can be moral, which it can't. So if the hero doesn't have a good reason for not condoning slavery, I think that the best thing to do is have him just condone it, and for the author to play this as a flaw - not necesarily a personal flaw, but, at the very least, a societal one.

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

You're right. Perhaps slavery wasn't the best example. I shall have to think of a better one.

[christinaathena.livejournal.com]

But I don't agree that they ought to accept it with certain qualifications to make it "moral," because that comes off as the author suggesting that slavery can be moral, which it can't. I disagree. I don't assume that what the charactes believe is necessarily what the author believes. After all, in many cases, the authors' beliefs would be out of place. If you write a book that takes place in, say, the South in the 1850's, while it would be reasonable to have an abolitionist character, it would be unreasonable to have a white character who believed in the equality of blacks. Even the most zealous abolitionst in those days did not believe that blacks were the equal of whites - they simply felt that, though inferior beings, blacks deserved better than slavery. Many abolitionsts, in fact, felt that the best option would be to "return" blacks to Africa. Of course, if an author were to show a slavery system from the POV of the slaves themselves, and have the slaves having no problem with the system, that would be another thing.

Of course, slavery and other forms of unfree labor can be rather complex. Roman slaves filled many clerical and bureaucratic positions, and could earn money of their own, and even buy or be granted freedom. Of course, other slaves, particularly those in agricultural occupations, were in far harsher conditions.

I would have no problem reading a book where the protagonist accepted slavery as natural, or at most, sought to establish certain legal protections for slaves (such as, say, limitations on the forms of punishment that may be used). As long as the author didn't glorify the slaves' position, I wouldn't see anything wrong with it. It would be quite natural for the protagonist to feel that way.

[berseker.livejournal.com]

And that’s why Gone With the Wind is such a wonderful reading. Sometimes the level of casual prejudice is mind-boggling.

Of course, the fact that Mitchell´s an amazing author and Rhett is TEH HOTT helps a lot.

[starsong24.livejournal.com]

I may be wrong, but I heard of somewhere -I think it was pre-USA Africa? -where, if a woman lost her husband or something, she might sell herself and her children as slaves to another tribe, until such time as her fortune had recovered and she could return. Kind of a last-stop measure, I think.

[thelittlebudgie.livejournal.com]

In Judaism, back when slavery was legal or a normal thing, a person could only be kept as a slave for seven years. Once those seven years were up, they were set free.

Was it literally after seven years were up? It's been a while since I've read the Old Testament, and I seem to remember something about a certain event taking place every seven years when slaves had to be freed.

The Altara seem quite random, and I have no idea how they could survive for very long like that.

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

Was it literally after seven years were up? It's been a while since I've read the Old Testament, and I seem to remember something about a certain event taking place every seven years when slaves had to be freed.

I think it might have been that every Jubilee year -which happened every seven years- the slaves were to be set free, but I'm not certain.

The Altara seem quite random, and I have no idea how they could survive for very long like that.

Yes. Jordan didn't think them through very well.

[christinaathena.livejournal.com]

It was after seven years, and only for a Hebrew "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything." (Exodus 21:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021:2;&version=31;) - that whole chapter is rather pleasant <)

The Jubilee was actually every 50 years. The seventh year was the "sabbath year" in which one was not to sow their fields. The relevant chapter (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2025;&version=31;) does say to "Consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants." and (25:39-40) "If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. 40 He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee."

[berseker.livejournal.com]

But treating slaves kindly would ruin all the fun!

Anyway, I think that’s the problem with many fantasy authors... you can just go around making things up, or you´ll just end up with another Alagaesia. Culture makes sense. Everything is connected - science, religion, laws, etc. Take the Paolini´s elfs. They culture doesn’t make any sense, because Pao coudn't decide on what qualities he wanted to give them. So he made up a race of brave warriors with the girl "more than capable than taking care of herself", who, at the same time, are pacifist who won´t eat meat because they have compassion for the little animals. They are supposed to be atheistic, but you never see an actual scientist explaining the world. Nothing matches. It’s just a bunch of attributes that doesn’t make a coherent whole.

And the humans don’t have culture.

Now compare that with Discworld and I´ll rest my case (Even if the Disc Series have more than thirty books, because all of them make sense).

Oh, and another thing people should remember: people learn the things they are told. If your main character was a noble princess surrounded by slaves, why would she think is wrong? She´s used to it. If the kingdom is always involved in one war or another, why the hell is Eragon the main character shocked to see battles? It just sounds fake.

[christinaathena.livejournal.com]

If the kingdom is always involved in one war or another, why the hell is Eragon the main character shocked to see battles? Well, if the battles are always off on the frontier, and especially if the accounts of the battles are glorified, then it would make sense that a person seeing his first battle would be shocked.

What I think would've been amusing is if the elves believed themselves to be rational and rejecting superstition and all, but then held beliefs that were clearly absurb, but that, they thought, were perfectly reasonable. :-) You can find beliefs like that in many cultures on Earth. The American notion that you have to wait a half-hour or an hour after eating before swimming (http://www.snopes.com/oldwives/hourwait.asp), the Japanese notion that blood-type affects personality, the Korean notion that sleeping in a room with a fan going all night is potentially lethal (because of that particular belief, most fans sold in Korea have timers on them!) In all these cases, these beliefs are believed to be supported by science, and yet, none of them actually are.

If your main character was a noble princess surrounded by slaves, why would she think is wrong? Occassionally a person in such a situation might change their views, but it generally requires something rather dramatic, such as a sheltered individual suddenly seeing the full brutality of the situation, not just coming to a realization one day.

[berseker.livejournal.com]

Oh, but that’s the point. People change their mind all the time, but you can´t have them doing it without a good explanation. Take the slaves things - it´s not even hard to make our princess shocked. If she sees a slave being punished, or tries to do work herself to see how hard it is, anything. It might even be complete intellectual – she can’t think of any reason why the slaves should be her slaves instead of the other way around (philosophical, our girl, uh?). But there’s have to be a reason.

And the battle thing, yes, it makes sense, but Eragon knows that battles are useful. He’s planning one of his own. He wants to fight the Evil King. His shock only comes when he’s not the one doing the fight.

And the elf culture… that would be funny and way more effective to convey the sense of a real culture. Especially considering all the prophecies and stuff they have. What’s the logical explanation? Where’s the science? Unfortunately, it requires a level of subtlety and irony that Paolini´s lacking.



(you know, I always wondered why the hell the character profiles in manga came with the blood type….)

[emily-goddess.livejournal.com]

Thank you for these "why" essays. Thay've really made me think about the process of worldbuilding - and thus, have inspired me to do some. You writers must be contagious or something.

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

Yeees... we're like an infectious disease. Once we bite you there's no turning back. MWAHAHAHHAAA!!!

No, but seriously, if you love what you do, and show it, it can't help but inspire other people. And I do love world building.

[emily-goddess.livejournal.com]

In addition to some good, old-fashioned thinking, I've often felt that worldbuilders should be well-versed in biology/ecology and anthropology, plus the actual technology of whatever time period they're emulating in their world. Some license can be taken as far as technology, especially if magic is involved, but technology should be more or less consistent. Bonus points would be awarded for studying physics, religion*, political systems, zoology, and anything else that might be relevant. Of course, the good ones will do some actual research: Pterry, for example, spent months researching rats before writing The Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents. He didn't have to, and we might not have known the difference, but the effort makes the book that much better. And if Paolini had spent any time researching actual horses, you wouldn't have been able to make all those "zombie horse" jokes.

But then, that's just the way I compensate for not having a far-reaching imagination: I can look to the real world, its cultures and its creatures, for inspiration, where other writers can just pull it from the aether and have it make sense. Both have their pitfalls, of course: making it up can lead to inconsistent worlds like Alagesia; drawing from real life could leave you copying instead of inventing.

Thoughts?

*As someone with a degree in religion(s), this is a pet peeve of mine in SF and fantasy. News flash: not everyone prays the way Christians do. Not every culture believes in a creator, or omnipotent dieties, or in gods that will save you or even care about you - you can't just take American Protestantism , plug in a new god, and call it original. Also, not all religions are incompatible with scientific advancement (just once, I'd like to see a technologically advanced society with temples among the hovercars and spaceports), and no, myths are not just "primitive peoples' explanations for stuff they didn't understand." And don't even get me started on the racist, condescending crap that people like Paolini spit out as "primitive"-style religions (they worship the fucking mountain? I'm willing to get blood on my degree, if it means I get to beat him with it).

[kellicat.livejournal.com]

Paolini's understanding of biology is an absolute joke as far as I'm concerned.
Here's an example: he uses 'fecund' when he should use 'fecundity'. He has Arya say that "'Nor are elves fecund'" (page 160, Eldest) which could imply they can't reproduce in abundance, but it can also imply that they can't reproduce at all. I think what he was trying to imply is that elves have a low birth rate compared to humans so he should have used "fecundity" instead. Arya could have said "Elves have a low fecundity compared to humans" and then the meaning would be clear. Or better yet, just use "birth rate" instead of "fecundity" so everyone can understand what Arya's saying.

That's CP for you though. Never uses a one dollar word when he can use a ten dollar word, preferably a word that didn't make it out the nineteenth century.

late answer... Naaaaah... >_>

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

Biology and technology in a world should be consistent and be based on the world around it. As you say. Research, of course, should be done before anything is actually created to make sure it makes sense and can be folded into the world naturally. One of the things that I did in my world was to make the traditionally domestic animals hardier and more armored because they live in a word where there are giant flying predators. A normal goat isn't going to survive very long in such a world, but an armored goat with rather nasty horns would.

As for religions, yes, not everyone practices as the Christians do. Etc, Etc. I'm just agreeing with you here. =D

Re: late answer... Naaaaah... >_>

[emily-goddess.livejournal.com]

And your hardy, armed animals would make me like your book because, even if I didn't like the story, at least it'd be clear that you put some thought (and thus, effort) into creating the world. It's one of those things that I might not miss if it wasn't there, but its presence would make a difference. If you care enough about the world to spend so much time and effort getting it right, then the reader can't help but care about it when it's presented to him/her.

[lunajadebaggins.livejournal.com]

Thank your for saying what I've been thinking, in a much more eloquent way.

There's a fairly large subset of Harry Potter fanfiction involving... Veela mating customs. As soon as you start thinking with your brain, you see that a society like that just wouldn't work. Not to mention that it doesn't apply to Fleur Delacour in the slightest, seeing as she lives, and is fully accepted, in the human wizarding society.

And then, there's the "it's magic, we can make up anything" school of thought. Err, no. Widespread use of a specific technology (or magical power) has immense implications for the nature of society... and the other way around, as well. This is explored brilliantly in James Halperin's The Truth Machine (http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Machine-James-Halperin/dp/0345412885/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-0972446-2476056?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179772614&sr=8-1). For example, we can conclude, based solely on the social customs observed in the novels, that in the Harry Potter world, there is no widespread mpreg.

I just wish it was remembered more often, both in fanfic and profic. I once read about a space-faring society that worshipped the stars as gods. WTF?

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

There's a fairly large subset of Harry Potter fanfiction involving... Veela mating customs. As soon as you start thinking with your brain, you see that a society like that just wouldn't work. Not to mention that it doesn't apply to Fleur Delacour in the slightest, seeing as she lives, and is fully accepted, in the human wizarding society.


You mean the whole, needing mates thing and Male Preg and all that fun stuff? Yes, that never makes sense. It's utterly illogical, and anyone with half a brain would realize this. However such things rarely impact on Fan Fic authors who live in their own special world of reasoning.

For example, we can conclude, based solely on the social customs observed in the novels, that in the Harry Potter world, there is no widespread mpreg.

Yes, but since when has canon ever stopped Sue Authors? =D