Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ray Imgrund's avatar

I think this is a very useful distinction! Mistborn falls into a very peculiar place in regards to fantasy: although it leans much more heavily toward the explanations and "science" of its magic, there are interesting mystical elements about divinity and divine providence that loom increasingly large in the original trilogy.

But, really, sword superiority forever.

B. A. Clarke's avatar

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my piece.

Ultimately, I obviously don’t think that all fantasy requires firearms. I *do* think that some fantasy is reaching for guns but not using them because of a misguided sense of firearms being more modern than other technologies they are including.

I concede that some may do this on purpose for symbolic reasons, and that’s their prerogative, but I don’t believe that fully explains the phenomenon. And while again I’ll reiterate that each writer writes is their own prerogative, I do think that strongly historically inspired fantasy has a role in informing how people conceptualise the past, creating some level of responsibility to, if not historical accuracy, then at least avoiding certain pervasive historical inaccuracies. (I understand many will disagree with that, and probably have another piece in me expanding on that idea.)

We’d also definitely draw the line of what is and isn’t fantasy in very different places, which will of course inform how we understand the genre.

6 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?