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.
Thanks in kind for the discussion. I do want to say that I absolutely think you are unto something, even if I am adding conflicting layers to the analysis.
For instance, it is very true that—because fantasy is so much of what many people "see" that looks like history—people have a tendency to conflate it with history. Certainly education and academia has played a role in that, but there are also a lot of fantasy stories that are selling themselves as "grounded" and "realistic" but then use debunked historical myths or are just ignorant.
(My personal peeve is when swordfight choreography is copied from hand puppet theater. *coughgameofthronescough*)
But even with the Mistborn's of fiction that are more fantastical, you have a strong point in asking authors to seriously consider why they aren't just putting a gun in the story if they are going to still include every other element of what makes a gun what it is. I have an explanation for this behavior, but that doesn't negate your critique. If the aesthetic (the surface layer of the symbolism) is the *only* reason they won't use a gun, then they should probably think about it harder.
Some great points in here, despite the fact that I readily use guns in my fantasy. The sci-fi vs fantasy debate is a perennial one, so I’m always interested to see how folks distinguish.
I appreciate the read! Thank you! Yeah, I don't remember how well I described my distinction here, but I definitely don't think gun=sci-fi, just gun->modern.
Popular Asian fiction takes this to an extreme somtimes. My favorite for this particular dynamic being the Korean manwha "Tower of God." It uses very modern appearing things with reckless yet intentional abandon... and yet the story can still feel just as ancient as Middle-earth, since the backbone of the ToG's world and its character motivations are so mythical. Characters live for thousands of years. Their world is a tower and that is literally true in effect and yet its physical form is impossible to nail down. And the characters climbing it do so to have their "greatest wish" granted, such as to see if stars really exist.
But there, the point seems to be to frame the present as the past and quite explicitly squash the distinction. It speaks to the idea that, "with humans, some things never change," with all the more gravitas *because of* how alien and absurd its world can be with its juxtaposition and blending of old and new.
Yes, this entire comment was an excuse to talk about Tower of God right now.
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.
Thanks in kind for the discussion. I do want to say that I absolutely think you are unto something, even if I am adding conflicting layers to the analysis.
For instance, it is very true that—because fantasy is so much of what many people "see" that looks like history—people have a tendency to conflate it with history. Certainly education and academia has played a role in that, but there are also a lot of fantasy stories that are selling themselves as "grounded" and "realistic" but then use debunked historical myths or are just ignorant.
(My personal peeve is when swordfight choreography is copied from hand puppet theater. *coughgameofthronescough*)
But even with the Mistborn's of fiction that are more fantastical, you have a strong point in asking authors to seriously consider why they aren't just putting a gun in the story if they are going to still include every other element of what makes a gun what it is. I have an explanation for this behavior, but that doesn't negate your critique. If the aesthetic (the surface layer of the symbolism) is the *only* reason they won't use a gun, then they should probably think about it harder.
Some great points in here, despite the fact that I readily use guns in my fantasy. The sci-fi vs fantasy debate is a perennial one, so I’m always interested to see how folks distinguish.
I appreciate the read! Thank you! Yeah, I don't remember how well I described my distinction here, but I definitely don't think gun=sci-fi, just gun->modern.
Popular Asian fiction takes this to an extreme somtimes. My favorite for this particular dynamic being the Korean manwha "Tower of God." It uses very modern appearing things with reckless yet intentional abandon... and yet the story can still feel just as ancient as Middle-earth, since the backbone of the ToG's world and its character motivations are so mythical. Characters live for thousands of years. Their world is a tower and that is literally true in effect and yet its physical form is impossible to nail down. And the characters climbing it do so to have their "greatest wish" granted, such as to see if stars really exist.
But there, the point seems to be to frame the present as the past and quite explicitly squash the distinction. It speaks to the idea that, "with humans, some things never change," with all the more gravitas *because of* how alien and absurd its world can be with its juxtaposition and blending of old and new.
Yes, this entire comment was an excuse to talk about Tower of God right now.
I’ve watched the first season of the anime and enjoyed it! Would you say it’s faithful to the manwha?
Yes. That's actually my favorite version of that arc. Though, the original has some charm from being made so much earlier than the rest.
It's also interesting to devise magical reasons why no guns.