eimarra | time periods for a story

I've seen a few things lately denigrating horses-and-castles fantasy, anything set in medieval or pseudo-Dark Ages. Of course, my new idea, Sundered Sword, needs a historical milieu.

The idea started with the line from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. "[S]trange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government." Which got me thinking about Excalibur and wondering what would happen if two different people both got swords -- or part of the same sword.

I can't write about such a thing in a modern world or even post-Enlightenment. People don't believe in divine right to rule and haven't for centuries. That pretty much limits the sort of fantastical world I can create.

It won't be a strictly medieval world. I've been reading a lovely biography of a woman in early seventeenth-century Italy, and I'll be borrowing Renaissance and Baroque elements, probably including guns and cannon. But the absolutely critical point is at heart, people must believe in the right of kings (or queens) to rule, even if it has been generations since one has.

And that's my rationale for adding yet another horses-and-swords fantasy to the world.

(cross-posted to Random Walks toward Publishing)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Not necessarily for us to know but I think the answer will inform how you write scenes--

Do certain people have divine right?

Is it related to a bloodline? Is it occasional? Are there tests? How do existing rulers feel about it? How is power transferred? Can a person or bloodline lose favor? Are the god(s) active in any other ways?

Or, if you're an atheist or non-interventionist, do people think these things are true?

Thanks for the questions. :-D

Yes, it's bloodline, parent to child, and only the true ruler can wield the sword. And when there was no clear successor, the kingdom fell to pieces, with petty lords and bandits (some of whom it's hard to tell apart) grabbing what power they could. It's now a few generations down the line, and the keeper of the pieces of that sword has decided enough is enough, the kingdom needs to be whole again.

And since I am using Europe as a model, there's a religious system fairly similar to Catholicism. I haven't decided whether there's been a Reformation yet. And there are alternate religions and views. Whether any of them have something to do with the magic in the world is another issue . . .

There's no such thing as too many horses, too many castles, or too many swords.

Sparkly vampires, on the other hand... ;)

Heh. Right!

Sounds desperately interesting! And there can never be too many horse fantasies. Wait, you said horse and castle...well, close enough.

LOL! Yeah, actually I never went through that horse stage that most girls do, although I was tempted to try adopting one of the mustangs the BLM auctioned each year.

And a comment related more to your post rather than your idea.

There's always room for cod-medieval if it's done well. (Heck, there's always room for anything done well.) Yes, some readers are tired of it. Yes, some readers object to being fed a diet of nothing but European pseudo-Dark Ages. Don't deny it. But if yours is different somehow (as it sounds), and the execution is good, it might be a hard sell but not an impossible one.

Thanks. It's nice to see someone confirm my idea that if it's different enough and well done enough, there may be a place for it.

If you want to force it, people still believed in divine right to rule up to 1911 or so in China, or even 1945 in Japan....

(Yes, I'm evil.)

Another thing to consider is that the guns and cannons you borrow don't have to be "Renaissance" elements per se. Apart from the much-underplayed fact that the last century of the Middle Ages already saw widespread use of gunpowder in Europe, there are many other gunpowder-age milieux that fit surprisingly well with medievalesque fantasy concepts like the divine right to rule. Right now I'm having fun with the "pikemen survival" sketches (see the latest post in my journal) and another horribly odd fantasy idea I have (in the backburner) just demanded a 19th-century setting because it wanted me to combine swords with a variety of pretty modern weapons like revolvers. And let's not forget that the idea of the divine right to rule was occasionally brought up by monarcho-revivalists in the ideological warfare of the 19th and 20th centuries, as well as by some parties in dynastic disputes within the same timeframe, so there's certainly plenty of room for that kind of notion in a post-Enlightenment setting!

(Hint: let's not forget that the Enlightenment didn't really spread down into the consciousness of the rural lower classes until much later, too.)

All very good points.

Of course, this came from an intersection of ideas, which I simplified above, and Umbrian Italy was also a strong influence -- you did see the backstory I posted, I know. (And yes, I'm still thinking about what, if any implications, I want the diminutive name to have.) There, I referred to the breaking of the sword. So that's the background I'm working with. So although I may look into the Asian aspects to deepen and change my world's culture, it's firmly rooted in Europe.

Can you recommend a good basic text on the history of firearms and gunpowder weapons, or should I just start with Wikipedia and browse?

For the really early stuff, I'd recommend this nice overview of the history of European personal firearms up to the early 16th century. Its best part is the overview of the firearms' technical development; the finishing remarks about the firearms' impact on military tactics and organization are on rather shakier ground. Or are you wondering about later 18th- and 19th-century developments instead?

I...frankly don't see your problem at all. I belive I've read about it on Ethnographic Arms & Armour...a rather interesting thread about magic believes connected with the keris that somehow touched the question of royal power and legitimacy too.

The story - as far as I can recall it anywawy - was that the power (and right) to rule was considered an abstract force to be directly transmitted from the previous ruler to the new one upon his death. The power usually manifested itself as a ball of light above the rulers corps and that ball would usually migrate into the next ruler's body during the mourning, naming him or her the next king/queen.

I think the javanese considered their Keris to be a type of "body", which means it would stand to reason that the power could migrate into a keris, or in your case, a sword too. Somebody breaking it could be an attempt to become the next king propper instead of ruling as a placeholder for a future king with the sword in hand.

The problem really isn't about the divine right, per se. It's more that I'm embarking on a story in a setting that I know many people think there are enough of already. But I'm doing it because that's what the story needs.

And if I had a clear-cut method of demonstrating the succession like that, there would be no story, really.

You don't belive in people believing in religion regardeless of whether it might be right or wrong? The deal here is not really whether it is true that a ball of light makes the difference between somebody who can and can not rule but rather that people hold it to be a thruth.
You're writing the story of the people who believe that the divine right is tracable through a ball of light, which happens to have taken residence inside a sword for a while. Which turned the object in question into a sign of rulership for generations until somebody decided that he needed the extra bit of legitimacy that comes with the ball and broke the sword.

The whole situation's a bit like medieval modes of legitimation vs early absolutism in France, where the king decided that it would be prudent to act like the image of a hellenistic dictator.

No, I'm not writing a story about people who believe that divine right is traceable through a ball of light.

I'm writing a story where divine right is seen through the ability to wield a particular sword, and the succession is in contention.

The story *is* about the fight to be king.

That's why I said if there was such a clear-cut method as a ball of light, there would be not story. Because that's not the story I'm telling.

Sorry -- just read through your post again, and I see what you're saying. Although that would be an interesting story, though, I still must say that it's not the story I'm telling. I posted some of the backstory last month. The sword broke during a battle, and the king died after that. The actual story, about the fight to be king, takes place generations later, after the kingdom has really degenerated.

I'm not telling a story about someone who wants to usurp the divine right. I'm sorry that wasn't clear. If that's a story you like, maybe you should write it.

time periods for a story

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject