Merging Fantasy and Anthropology

This isn't so much a question as it is a general tip: A few months ago, I wrote a blog post about "How Fantasy and Anthropology Coexist." I figure this is a good place to share it, since that's a big part of high-quality Worldbuilding.

General summary: You see anthropology in the whole range of Fantasy fiction, from Tolkien's languages to the Wizarding World in Harry Potter to the Chinese Fantasy Counterpart Cultures of Avatar: The Last Airbender. Heck, even George Lucas used anthropology for Star Wars, by looking at ancient legends. So if you're going to make a Fantasy story, it's best to have a grasp on human cultures.

But what do you guys think? Agree? Disagree? Any examples either way? Anything to add?

edited 30th May '15 9:12:57 AM by AwSamWeston

It's only necessary if your only conception of Fantasy is "huge elaborately designed worlds completely seperate from our own."

I could write a story about a modern-day knight fighting the monsters spawned by urban legends, and it would still be Fantasy even though it involved zero fictional cultures.

EDIT: Hell, I watched Frozen and How To Train Your Dragon recently. Neither of those films bother exploring the culture of their respective settings all that much, yet no-one in their right mind would argue that they're not Fantasy stories.

edited 30th Dec '14 3:30:37 AM by Tungsten74

how to train your dragon is interesting because the end of the movie creates a starkly different culture for that island, and the inbetween-movies-tv series (which is actually quite good) effectively goes into quite a lot of detail about the newly arisen dragon-taming culture simply as a by-product of being about hiccup trying to get the people of berk to accept dragons into their live and the problems that come with them.

i would agree that it isnt necessary, but it certainly is a good idea to learn about it. just like how its a good idea to learn about basic concepts in geography like how mountains can effect the terrain beyond it, as well as how mountains are created and how the exact same thing that creates mountains can create chasms or volcanos or earthquake zones. and how rivers and lakes work.

its not necessary and you can create maps without knowing these things, and you're not necessarily even going to get anything wrong, but you're not going to be villified for not learning it, and your map isnt going to be completely disregarded simply for not following rules; criticized, yes- but disregarded no.

so yeah. merging fantasy in anthropology is a good idea. but hardly a necessary one. that being said im probably going to look into anthropology some more.

It would certainly help to get more variation in fantasy instead of yet another Standard Fantasy Setting.

I was talking about the first film in a vacuum. I haven't watched any of the extra material or sequels, and frankly I don't need to, to judge HTTYD on its own merits. My point was that HTTYD, as a standalone story, did not need masses of intricate worldbuilding to be a Fantasy, let alone a damned good one. Think about it: the only setting information we get is that the characters are Vikings who hate dragons, they live on an island that is regularly raided by dragons, and there are a lot of different varieties of dragon. Hardly Tolkien, is it? And yet the story is fucking great despite that meagre exposition.

Innovation is no guarantee of quality. I could write a riveting story set in a fantasy world that was generic as all fuck, just as I could write an absolute snooze-fest set in a world beyond your wildest dreams. Characters, conflicts, struggles, victories... these are the things that keep audiences interested, not the descent of kings or the rules of magical systems. Indeed, I have a massively non-standard fantasy setting on the backburner at the moment, but it will never see the light of day unless I figure out a good story to tell within it. And that's fine by me - I would much rather write a good story than an extended infodump.

Wow. I, really, really wish there was a 'like' feature on these forums.

edited 30th Dec '14 7:06:07 AM by J.G.Crowne

I would argue that HTTYD still uses anthropology — it's just not as obvious as the examples I gave in the piece I wrote.

Look at Berk before Hiccup meets Toothless: You have a town that's accepted that they'll always fight dragons. They keep rebuilding houses because of the dragons' fire during their attacks, they have a whole book that catalogs the different breeds, they have organized defenses against the dragon attacks... Heck, they even have a training camp to teach young men and women how to fight dragons! Clearly that dragon conflict has gone on long enough that it's become part of their culture. It may not be obvious behind the "Old Norse village" base, but it's there.

On top of that, I mentioned some other examples in the post that aren't Tolkienesque. For example:

Now, is that a substitute for good characters and great story? Nope. But it can enhance the characters and story and make the setting more believable.

I also approve. This needs to be said more, especially among Fantasy writers.

edited 30th Dec '14 7:45:55 AM by AwSamWeston

The Flight of Dragons anyone?

edited 30th Dec '14 7:59:48 AM by echoingsilence

I'm not officially studying anthropology, but apparently being a pagan means that the only people I don't have to explain every aspect of my beliefs to are anthropologists, historians, or like-minded people.

On a world-building level, I LOVE the religions/cultures of antiquity and indigenous cultures. I make it a point to make focus on things that aren't mainstream as much as possible, because that's the kind of story I want to read. Even if half the stuff doesn't make it into the actual story, it's just really nice to know.

Anthropology is what I am most interested in actually, especially the idea that one little choice can have far reaching, if subtle, effects on culture.

While your argument is nice and all, a world that stands out in no way inhibits one from making a good story, I do wish that in saying stuff like that you would try not to sound like one shouldn't make an interesting and unique world. Stories are made from events happening, events don't just happen, they are a response to previous events of various importance and having evidence of that can help take care of the question of why all these things seem to be happening at the same time so conveniently for your story to take place.

I'm confused. What are you trying to say? Can you rephrase that or something?

edited 5th Jan '15 3:46:22 PM by AwSamWeston

That's really not my belief, and I apologise if it seems that way. What I've been trying (and evidently failing) to get across is that, if you focus on writing stories instead of building worlds, you will get the unique world you wanted in the process. It's just... really, really hard for me to articulate how that works without first explaining a whole load of other shit to do with storytelling, drama, emotion, improvisation, the elegance of simplicity, the pitfalls of the setting-first method of writing fiction, and so much more.

I've been trying to illustrate my view of fiction-writing a lot in my recent posting, doling out my thoughts piecemeal in various relevant threads. But the more I try, the more it seems that my view is just too holistic for that to ever be effective (and I tend to barf out enormous word walls, which probably doesn't help). I could try making my own thread, but the first post would end up being essay-length, and I really wouldn't know where to start anyway.

I don't think it's bad for writers to learn about anthropology. I agree that it's good for writers to have as broad a knowledge base as possible. I just disagree that focusing on worldbuilding is the right way to approach storytelling, in any genre or medium. Especially since if you don't have a solid story, no-one will care how interesting or unique your setting is. So you might as well make that solid story your first priority.

edited 5th Jan '15 5:16:37 PM by Tungsten74

I won't disagree with you at all on that point. Even so, I don't see it as a dichotomy between "worldbuilding vs storytelling."

Of course you need a good story for the world to work. And like I said before, a lot of writers (especially Fantasy writers) get too hung-up on the "world" details. But that doesn't mean you should just ignore worldbuilding altogether.

My point is that worldbuilding enhances the storytelling beyond what a good story could do on its own; that worldbuilding adds to the immersion of the story; that, ultimately, good worldbuilding makes the whole thing so much better.

a setting isnt limited to one story. if a story doesnt work out well the first time, well they've already got the framework in place to work on a different story.

non-professional writers have the freedom to do this, since they have no deadlines or editorial expectations.

wide-scale worldbuilding doesnt necessarily add immersion; it might even skew the writers priorities (in the cases where they're so proud of their work that they prioritize shoehorning the worldbuilding into the story when it doesnt matter to the story), but i feel it gives the author ammunition for more work all in all. if one story doesnt work, they can just take a look at a different part of their setting and derive ideas from that. although a pitfal ive fallen into is thinking of the designated "history" of the setting as offlimits for stories, despite that history being a collection of stories that occured before the designated timeframe i think of setting currently being in

edited 5th Jan '15 11:59:31 PM by Tarsen

I would think that, once a writer starts using worldbuilding as a crutch for story, it becomes a matter of Killing Your Darlings, throwing out the stuff that doesn't work for the story, and building from what's left.

And who knows? Maybe that writer might find another feature for their world, something that's even better than what they were trying to shoehorn.

The beauty of worldbullding is the layers it add too your setting and story, also it really help to mantain a level of pausability instead of making stuff because the plot need it to be that way

And of course, if the world is big enought you can always tell more instead of being trap with your main chararters

I'm not an anthropologist, but I've had the pleasure (and at times...displeasure) of working within the field quite a lot over the past year, and I 100% agree that it has a place in fantasy. Just like Talal Asad posited that historical societies merit understanding on their own terms, so to do I think that approaching fantastic societies in such a way is a good idea.

After all, isn't one of the great themes of fantasy that people in fact remain people even in a context so alien as to include sorcerers and monsters?

That being said, I agree with what the youtuber Plague of Gripes once said regarding world building; although there is a strong temptation to just blab on and on to your reader about the minute details of this world you've worked so hard on...you probably shouldn't. Rather, just let the reader know that the lore exists, letting it shine through in the narrative itself. Someone once used the example of mentioning early on how a particular religion in his setting had a taste for some strange kind of statue. Later on when the characters went to a temple to that religion, the author pointed out the statues in loving detail. That sort of thing helps the reader feel the depth of the setting without getting in the way of plot.

Hell, Dark Souls used that technique to give the illusion of lore where there often wasn't any in the first place!

Anyway, tl;dr: I think anthropology and fantasy can go together like peanut butter and chocolate if done well.

Expertly said, sir!

And I'd love to see that video. Any chance you can scrounge up a link?

Thanks! And of course! I'm a big fan of Mr.Gripes. The video I mentioned is part of a 3 Part Series. Definitely worth a look in my opinion.

[edit] Apparently I'm too much of a noob to post external links (how embarrassing! ). Regardless, just search for "Let's Gripe About Writing". Helpfully, he places links to the other videos in the series at the end of each.

Meanwhile, I'll try to PM you the links. Fingers crossed!

edited 7th Jan '15 6:10:32 PM by ZalDastan

to Zal!

Trying to balance the interesting with the believable is hard sometimes. While a race of reptilian folk allying with humanity because humanity offered them fuzzy & warm coats as a peace offering creates a silly but heartwarming backstory, it raises questions like "why didn't the lizardfolk know how to make the coats themselves?" and "how could they survive that long without discovering the use of clothing?"

and other things. Sometimes digging into anthropology means having to answer a lot of questions your readers have despite the fact that you want to talk about a warrior race of reptiles charging into battle with fuzzies on their battlecoats.

Of course, if you don't think of it as the writer, someone will think of it. Look at how much mileage CinemaSins has gotten out of nit-picking like that!

Avoiding a double-post: I was just rewatching a Behind-The-Scenes piece for The Lord of the Rings movies. I want you guys to notice how even the model-makers managed to incorporate a little microcosm of history, anthropology, and construction.

edited 8th Jan '15 5:45:43 PM by AwSamWeston

I don't know whether it fits here or in the general "gods, magic, and races" thread, but I'm pretty sure it goes here because of all my unconscious cultural-anthropology going on.

This is going to be VERY long, just warning you.

In my Urban Fantasy Moonflowers, The Fair Folk are antagonists and various gods are constantly stepping in to help. I had one of my main (human) characters make a bargain with a Chinese spirit called the Lady of Scales: He'll be returned to human form in exchange for killing his Fair-Folk enchanter, and also giving the Lady the color of his eyes.

The Lady of Scales and Persephone explicitly said that while eye-color's not a big deal for humans to give up (with the uncommon risk of going blind aside, most people's eyes just turn white or cloud over), it would be seen as a HUGE sacrifice for The Fair Folk since they don't have bodies in the same way that humans do, so the fairies would respect the character's bargain.

And then I started thinking about three main questions:

• Where do you draw the line between "powerful fairy" and "god"? Sub-question: How do I make sure I don't accidentally break my own world's rules?
  • Hades is one of my supporting characters. He first comes over wondering why someone's parents would completely ignore her after their alleged deaths, and he gets mad at finding out that neither of her parents are dead—just cursed (for her father) or trapped in the Otherworld (for her mother). Then he finds out that the girl AND her parents are soon-to-be targets of a Fair-Folk killing spree called the Fairy Raid, and he loses his shit because fairies are screwing around with life and death.
  • Later I plan on Hades bringing a character back to life, in deliberate flouting of biology: After getting rammed in the chest with an Irish Elk skull's antler, the character's organs are crushed, the front of his ribcage is broken, and he's bleeding out. The fairy points out that he'll die in a minute if he's somehow not dead already, but Hades goes "BITCH, I WILL TELL YOU WHO LIVES OR DIES." So that would mean even the most powerful fairy has to follow the laws of physics/magic (no matter how roundabout they have to get), but sufficiently-powerful gods can go "FUCK THAT NOISE, I'MMA FIX IT." His other reason for doing it is because the character has a boyfriend, and Hades has a soft spot for people who lose their significant others, since his own wife has to leave for half the year.

• Why would appearance be such a big deal for The Fair Folk, but not gods or other spirits? Sub-question: What makes permanent appearance changes (losing your eye-color, getting crippled, or aging) different from shapeshifting (voluntary and often a learned skill or inborn ability) or curses (involuntary, but at least with the chance of being broken)?
  • My fairies don't age (but can be killed with difficulty), and don't differentiate between their body and soul. They're vulnerable to Cold Iron, inside-out clothing, and salt, and have acidic blood when injured. However, they can intermarry with gods and also humans, since human changelings are well-known (and often killed in infancy out of fear/prejudice). This points to inborn traits that humans and gods share, but fairies lack. What traits would a fairy's body lack that renders them unable to cope with physical changes? Gods can be crippled and age, albeit very rarely, so maybe the difference between fairies and gods is that fairies can only understand death and injury/illness secondhand, without even the "rare but possible" possibility for gods?

• What's the line between "fairies have a different worldview than humans" and "even fairies can't do that"?
  • My fairies are definitely capable of being good/compassionate as we recognize it. One of them is friends with another character and unknowingly saved the character's grandson. And fairy/human intermarriage is pretty damn common in lots of mythologies, so the two species can't be too different.

So yeah, there's my puzzle. Thanks to whoever manages to read the whole thing!

edited 27th Feb '15 11:20:07 AM by Sharysa

Interesting! The fair folk in Irish mythology are nigh gods ANYWAY so it'd be interesting.

They could be two sides in a conflict? The gods being vaguely extra-dimensional and thus able to "tweak" the strings of the world. The fair folk are more concept like, perhaps closely tied to the world in such a way that, to change anything about them permanently changes their nature ENTIRELY?

So, they can shape shift because that is an ASPECT of their nature (The season change, shifting) but to have something change that is permanent, immutable (So, preventing them from chaging their eye colour) is like a nail against their soul and forever changes their mental state as well?

Gods are seperate but unchanging, insofar as they retain their aspect and powers but they are anchored only to those powers, but not defined by them in the same way a fairy would be?

fairies are also allergic to things like iron because it is clearly MADE and IMMUTABLE. It's an anchor to never changing things. The gods, ebing perhaps partly defined by humans, are more defined as such.

it's a bit philosophical, but maybe the fact that Fairies, if they lose their ability to shift by, say, losing an eye colour is almost like losing a limb. The rest of their culture may not even regard them as a "fay" anymore: it defines them in a way they become "unchangable" and thus is like being a leper? So it could be cultural as much as physical.

The gods are more comforable being both physical and unchanging, whilst also having the power to alter the state of things. Perhaps they are more personifications of their element, each god being the personification of their culture's ideas about said thing.

Of course, then you have the idea that - are the gods created BY humans, whilst the fairies are NOT?