If Dragons Then Royalty

[lea_hazel]

Royalty and nobility are one of the most common conceits of epic fantasy. Almost every fantasy novel takes place in a world comprised of a series of kingdoms, or similarly structured alternatives. Epic plotlines usually follow the royalty or at least high nobility of one or more of these kingdoms. This applies doubly when the protagonist is a commoner; gaining access to the higher echelons of society is part of their reward.

When I tried to think about fantasy novels (excluding contemporary, and even those have their vampire kings and fairy queens) that defy this convention, I thought first of A Wizard of Earthsea. I may be misremembering, since I read it in translation years ago, but I don't recall Ged or any of the other major characters being noble. A few other books came to mind, where characters sometimes deal with nobility but don't wind up discovered as the long-lost heirs to something, or receiving a noble title, or anything.

I can't think of many fantasies that don't take place in a royal hierarchy, though. For some people, the crowns and swords and other medieval trappings are a major part of fantasy's charm, but it's still a pretty diverse genre. Do people think non-monarchic systems are too much of a divergence for fantasy, or does it just not occur to them that there are other options? Like the title says: If dragons -- then monarchy?

Comments

[scifisentai]

I think perhaps it's such a common concept that it doesn't usually occur to writers. Even in fantasy books/series that don't involve characters from the nobility for their main characters, said nobility still exists, it still forms the world around them and society has developed and such.

Um, unless this isn't exactly what you're asking, in which case I apologise for misreading. It's late, my brain's not working so well. >.>

[lea_hazel]

That's what I was thinking. Like, among the other pseudo-medieval-Europe trappings people write into their fantasy without thinking them through, there's "generic stew" and "generic sword" and "generic kingdom". I mean, political intrigue fantasy is pretty much a response to epic fantasy, but it still embraced the monarchy, maybe because of resentment towards all the unrealistically brave and magnanimous kings in epic fantasy. But then, why not have intrigue in a senate, or some other political structure? Religious political fantasy?

[manifesta]

Michael A. Stackpole's DragonCrown WarCycle series has some royal characters in it, but if I recall correctly the main ones are lower-class. I don't think they gain access to nobility, either.

I feel like royalty is such a prevalent trope in fantasy because it's so easily associated with power, which seems to be what fantasy stems from. If it's difficult to think of fantasies that don't involve royalty, it's even more difficult for me to think of one that doesn't involve a power struggle of some sort.

[manifesta]

political intrigue fantasy is pretty much a response to epic fantasy

As a side note, I've been thinking about this dichotomy and never connected the dots that way. This makes quite a bit of sense.

[holyschist]

I was actually thinking about this recently! I can think of a fair number of fantasy novels that aren't about nobles, even ones where nobles don't play a major role. But I can't really think of any non-urban fantasy set in a democracy, republic, or even solidly in a nomadic culture* or other smaller political organization than a kingdom or city-state. Especially not medievaloid

I think it's partly that so much fantasy is medievaloid, and most people are most familiar with Western Europe, and not with other political organizations of the past.

*This is actually one of my biggest issues with Shannon Hale's Book of a Thousand Days--it's strongly inspired by the Mongol Empire, but its political structure and social hierarchy are very European, and in some ways antithetical to medieval Mongol social values. I feel like she really missed a chance to do something less monarchical than your average fantasy novel.

God, I am longing for political intrigue fantasy in a senate or church now (although a church is often as much a hierarchy as a monarchy)!

[lassarina]

Just to be difficult (and because I like devil's advocacy) I should also point out that, purely from a logical standpoint--going on adventures takes money. Little things like food, inns, means of travel, warm enough clothes. Peasants usually lack these things. (Middle-class kids might get away with it, but that assumes your structure is sufficiently advanced to have created a middle class.) Also, noble kids usually get a LOT more choice in what they're going to do with their lives than peasant kids do--your average sixteen-year-old non-noble boy has been working the family farm/tailor shop/etc. since he was four.

The kind of upward mobility we have in our lives now (well...the illusion of upward mobility masking the filthy underbelly of classist privilege, which is a discussion for another time) is simply not possible in a subsistence society, which is functionally what most fantasy-noble-echelon stories are about. Since the society isn't industrialized, food production (and every other damn thing) takes forever and lots of hands. Manufacturing isn't an option. The machines we have now can weave a mile of fabric or more in a day; in medieval Europe or the Renaissance, you'd be lucky to get a couple of yards. Food preparation was entirely more involved. Shoes took weeks, not hours, to make. Etc. etc.

Which is a long winded way of saying, I suspect most political/epic fantasy is about Charming Nobility not only because it's traditional, but because as soon as you start analyzing the social forces of any preindustrial society, you realize that the nobility is the only group that consistently has the time to give a rat's tail about what's going on beyond their noses.

[archersangel]

i think the harry potter series would be classified as fantasy & had no royals at all

[holyschist]

I actually don't read epic fantasy at all, and everything else is still mostly about nobility.

I would argue there are plenty of other classes of people who could and sometimes do have adventures in a feudal society: scholars, scientists, monks, soldiers, merchants, spies, senators, thieves, and pilgrims, for example--and that's leaving aside entirely that a physical quest isn't necessary for fantasy.

There are also pre-industrial political models that are not monarchies per se: Greece, Rome, any number of nomadic societies (e.g. Alans, Scythians, Sarmatians, Mongols, Turkic groups, etc. ad infinitum) which could be used as a basis for fantasy but aren't. I'm not saying these groups are classless--obviously they're not--but they're not monarchies.

And somehow, despite the huge amount of work involved in nomadic life, the Mongols still found time to conquer the largest contiguous land empire ever--by not devoting much time to developing many technologies common in sedentary civilizations or a written language of their own.

As far as the difference in time--I'm well aware of it, since I am a historical reenactor and have either done or know people who've done those tasks with preindustrial tools (many types of shoes can be made much more quickly than weeks). It's true everything took longer. It's also true people had a lot less stuff then. The fact that handspun, handwoven fabric (and the fleece preparation and spinning take orders or magnitude longer than the weaving) is slower to produce is partially counterbalanced by most people having a few sets of clothes, not an entire closet full of them. It's not an insurmountable obstacle to fantasy, especially if the work of daily life is integrated into the story. Frankly, I'd find that a lot more interesting than most nobility-focused fantasy (which tends to overlook how much work being a noble was, too).

I think you're conflating the bourgeoisie and the nobility somewhat as well. Especially by the Renaissance, the bourgeoisie could be as wealthy as the lower nobility--or wealthier--but they still did not occupy the same social class.

[holyschist]

Er, ETA: I missed that the original post was specifically about epic fantasy, but I still think a lot of this applies. I see no reason you couldn't have an Ancient-Greece-based epic fantasy, and Genghis Khan's story is certainly epic--something like that could easily be put into a fantasy framework.

[foxfirefey]

Yeah, but Harry Potter falls into that contemporary class mentioned, I think.

[caramarie]

I don't think I ever really noticed this before, and now I'm having a hard time coming up with exceptions! & most of those I can come up with are kids' books... Jackie French's fantasy, or Sherryl Jordan's, which tend to be set more in nomadic societies... though you may still be focusing on chiefly families. Some of Tamora Pierce's Emelan books, though not all of them. Juliet Marillier's YA novels deal with merchants... these are all definitely secondary world fantasy, I don't know if you would call that equivalent to epic fantasy? Terminology = hard.

More Ursula Le Guin: the Gifts series. As far as I recall, the social structures aren't the same as monarchies, though it's been a while since I read them. And now that I think about it, those were published as YA here.

I couldn't say if there's actually a difference between kids & adult fiction, or if it's just that I've read so many more children's books that it's just easier for me to come up with examples.

I can think of a few that deal with empires instead of monarchies. But that may be ignoring the spirit of the question there :)

the Roman model in secondary-world fantasy

[morineko]

I know K.J. Parker's used it, but I'm not sure if Parker's work counts as "epic"--it's more political and none of the books I've read so far have any magic whatsoever, they're just secondary-world.

[nightmareink]

I'm not sure if this counts as contemporary fantasy fiction or something else, but the His Dark Materials trilogy never really mention royalty in any form in any of the worlds that it takes place in except for when they talk about the Kingdom of Heaven. Yeah, one of the characters is from our world, but there's several examples of other worlds that aren't like ours like the world in the third book that Dr. Mary Malone spends most of her time in where it's primarily a tribal culture. And then there's Lyra's world which is...I'm not sure if it counts, but it seems like the world is more ruled by the Church than any King.

I do write my own fiction, which I hope to have published someday and in one of my worlds, they actually overthrow and kill the royal family in one of the books and in a later book that takes place over 200 years later, the country has been functioning with a bureaucracy of the nobility with a figurehead at top, but people are starting to want democracy. Oh and this bureaucratic form of government had been functioning since the overthrow of the royal family and before their world's equivalent of an industrial revolution.

So there's probably still hope for what you're looking for. If I can come up with an idea that fits it, then others probably can too.

[scifisentai]

Well, religion is a thorny and divisive concept anyway, so maybe writers are trying to avoid screwing up on a colossal scale by Getting It Wrong.

Maybe also lack of familiarity? Generic kingdoms and so on are familiar to a lot of people, but if you're not familiar with how a senate would work then the time it would take to research how they operate and so on might be more than the writer is willing to take on, especially if you're not sure how your potential audience is going to react to it.

[lea_hazel]

Which is weird. To me, the whole point of fantasy as a genre is that everything goes and you can make it up as you go along. Like, off the top of my head, I could invent a Council of Seven with representatives from the seven major social strata: the high priestess of the sun, the head of the goldsmiths' guild, etc. and then they gather to elect their chair once every seven years. It doesn't have to follow the exact structure of the British parliament, or anything.

[lea_hazel]

Yeah, because in epic fantasy you have all the Arthurian derivatives, and Arthur himself is (I think?) derivative of King David. They're notorious for having every possible virtue, even when they contradict each other. Once you've studied political history for any length of time, high and noble kings who fight alongside their men and emerge as heroes start to really tick you off.

Think of Robin Hood. Yeah, John Plantagenet was a douche, but Richard went and got himself killed, and that's no way to be king. Granted, if I remember correctly, John was a conniving shit who did a lot of damage, but he makes a much better model of typical royalty than Richard. And in terms of producing offspring, he was... more like David.

[scifisentai]

True. But, playing Devil's Advocate here, as you've noted already the same concepts show up again and again, albeit in slightly different forms. That's what sells, so people write more of it and so on. It's self-perpetuating.

And hah, our parliament's a mess anyway. >.> It's probably the last structure you want to model a political system off.

[lea_hazel]

Interesting point about the power. I will have to keep that in mind.

Would you recommend the WarCycle series otherwise? What is it about?

[lea_hazel]

Frankly, I'd find that a lot more interesting than most nobility-focused fantasy (which tends to overlook how much work being a noble was, too).

Amen to that! If the noble sons are running around chasing treasure and bad guys all the time, then who governs their lands? Who collects and distributes taxes? Who protects against highwaymen? Who mediates disputes? Who maintains the roads?

[lea_hazel]

I forgot to mention empires specifically. :) That's what I meant under equivalents. There could not be a king, but an emperor, or prince, or duke, or satrap, etc.

[lea_hazel]

Mainly I just think that by putting the idea out there, it makes people question their assumptions. When you write fantasy (or read it), questions lead to new worldbuilding and new stories. At least, that's how I always did it.

[lea_hazel]

Messy is good for fiction. It's neat that presents a problem.

[scifisentai]

Hah, true. Neat leaves no room for conflict and pushing plot forward.

[hatman]

I think it's that technology and civilization are linked in our minds. The more technology you take away, the further back in "history" you go. So if you're not doing a contemporary fantasy or urban fantasy or what have you, you end up with a medieval society. Which means nobility. If you take away more technology than that, you end up with barbarians and clan chiefs. Never mind that the Greeks had a democratic government, we have it stuck in our collective subconscious that if you haven't developed guns or factories, your society won't have managed to do away with primitive forms of government like monarchy.

If guys are running around in metal or leather armor, naturally that goes with monarchy. It's just what we expect. You're right that it would be nice to see fictional books which challenge that assumption. But it's a road so well-traveled that it's as easy for the author to fall into the groove (if you'll pardon the mixed metaphor) as it is for the reader.

I'm trying to think through counter-examples.

The Sword of Shanarra does have nobility, but the world used to be run by the druid council, which, among other things, acted as a sort of UN.

Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn series starts out with a system of nobility ruled by a god-king, but there's a revolution which results in a representative democracy. His stand-alone novel, Elantris, had nobility, but the overarching government was by Elantrians - humans mysteriously and magically selected from all classes to be transformed into wise and powerful beings.

The later Darkover novels also have the nobility gradually replaced by something like representative democracy, though with the nobility remaining. (Sort of like the UK. Sort of.)

I'm sure there are other examples. Civilizations ruled by a council, generally made up of powerful mages. Which is more or less a meritocracy. Can't think of the specific series, though.

[holyschist]

This kind of ties into my question recently on another comm about Robin Hood novels where Marion actually acts like a feudal woman--I mean, I'm all for women running around the forest in drag and whatnot, but I'd really like to see one where she runs a manor and intrigues politically and oversees charity and all that stuff.

...really, I think all of this probably explains a lot of my problems with epic fantasy--too much glossing over all the daily life stuff where I think the most interesting story potential is.