Showing posts with label Research world building. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Research world building. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

The Club, The Wheel, The Mind


When I’m sick – yeah, let’s just say that my respiratory system is a walking liability – I can’t read fiction. This is part of the reason I’ve fallen so far behind on my fiction reading. It doesn’t seem to be a rare affliction. When you’re sick you can’t handle emotion and, of course, all good fiction is emotion.

However, I can’t stop reading. Reading is what gets me through the stupid stuff that must happen in life, like washing dishes, cooking, cleaning. I have yet to figure out how to read in the shower. Someone must make a better, water-proof ereader.

So, instead of fiction I read non-fiction. The more tired/sick I am, the dryer my reading material. Years ago, when pneumonia put me in the hospital (ICU for eleven days) I read a collection of nineteenth century biology manuals. No, you probably don’t want to ask.

And I know I’m at least becoming somewhat more human because I either start having story ideas, or I start figuring out how what I’m reading applies to some aspect of writing.

This last month and a half, as I’ve been spiraling deeper and deeper into illness (And no, I don’t even know if it’s the same illness or a succession of respiratory bugs) I’ve been reading about the pursuit of the Indo-European language and culture.

Yes, this morning I finally decided enough was enough and this afternoon I dragged self to doctor and I’m now medicated. While I’m still not substantially better – except the fever must be down because my head is clearer – in the “up” points of this er... bug sequence I’ve been able to realize what I’m reading is both a wonderful seed for stories, possibly a setting for a series of novels which has deviled me (my last run at it was ... fifteen years ago, when I was definitely not ready) and, more importantly, a world building tool.

What I’ve been reading, particularly, which attempts the reconstruction of an ancient culture that might have been homogenetic, but was almost certainly heterogenetic (same or different genetic heritage), might have been located over a region or another, and might have worked out one way or another, has made me realize how things are connected, things we don’t tend to think about.

No, I don’t know how much their guesses are true, but I do know that there are certain “rules” that tend to apply and that these archeologists use them to reconstruct a culture just like a paleontologist reconstructs a dead animal from a loose tooth. Will they sometimes be wrong? Oh, yeah, heck, yeah. Remember the dinosaurs that have changed name or shape as more has been found out about them? But still, there are certain things that apply. If you find a certain shape of tooth, you know you’re dealing with an herbivore, for instance. And if you find human craniums with largely cavity-free teeth, you know you’re dealing with a culture whose diet was low on carbohydrates. Oh, there might be some genetic freak that keeps them from getting cavities, but, more than likely, you’re dealing with a diet based on protein.

The same goes for population replacement, for instance. One population disappears, another comes in. Was it war? Maybe. Sometimes you do find a population where the graves show women of the previous population and men of the new one. You could be dealing with a Rape of The Sabines situation. Alternately, you could be dealing with some elaborate treaty and bride price, and perhaps the men of the tribe moved elsewhere to marry women from the other tribe. Yeah, that wouldn’t be total, but these graves never represent everyone, just the powerful families.

And then there’s that too – what was powerful at the time? What was “wealthy”. A man is buried in a grave that would require immense labor with only a few shards of pottery and a dagger. Was it because the culture was terribly poor, or were the gifts symbolic. You only know by comparing to smaller graves of the same culture.

I’m not going to go into details, but it is important, not just for historical fiction but for science fiction and even for fantasy to think through these details. “What does my culture use for transport?” for instance, limits how far your character can travel. That much is obvious. But it will also limit the ideas of the world; how far her parents’ married; how many languages there are in the immediate vicinity; what they eat and possibly how they pray. “What do they eat?” again limits or shapes what the culture is like. If they are mostly agriculturalists, their culture will be different from if they are pastoralists. And if they are pastoralists with frequent cattle raiding (which also correlates to weapons) the culture is yet different. (And if they eat mostly stew, you’re caught in The Tough Guide To Fantasyland.)

I confess that even with as much as I know about history and how cultures evolve, and how economics influences daily life, I’ve caught at least a couple of mistakes I’ve made in one of my cultures – where they could not possibly be settled agriculturalists with those habits.

We live in a time where the world is our backyard, where food of all seasons and all continents is available to us and transport is cheaper and easier than it’s ever been. This divorces source from event in our minds, so that we have trouble creating even complex, future cultures.

Of course, the classic work with everything integrated is Le Guin’s The Left Hand Of Darkness. I’m not saying I don’t have problems with some of her extrapolations. I do. She and I come from widely different philosophical traditions and that always shows. Also, though I liked it originally, the presentation itself now seems incredibly dated to me. BUT at least she tried to show a culture integrated in all facets of myth and daily living and its natural environment. And managed to hint at a full fledged society, which of course never fits in a book.

What is your favorite such example? Do you have one? What would you like to see? How do you think archeology can help us learn world building?

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Of Eminence and Grease


Quick question: who is the most influential person in a typical company? Hint: it's not the boss. It's not the owner (unless the company is very small). It's probably not you, because the people who read this blog are mostly not into the whole making friends and influencing people thing, and people tend not to want to employ subordinates who are smarter than they are.

If you look closely, you'll find the real power usually lies with the boss's secretary (or personal assistant, or whatever they call it). If there's no-one who formally fills that role, look for someone who talks to pretty much everyone and who everyone goes to for the news about anything. There'll be one who the boss listens to. And if you're employed in that company, do not, under any circumstances, piss that person off.

It's pretty simple if you know what to look for, and it happens wherever there's a power structure that's too big for the person at the top to follow (or there's too much information out there). The CEO, or President, or King, or Lord High Thingamajig ends up with someone filtering out all the little things that someone else can handle, and passing on the important stuff.

A gatekeeper, in other words. If the King never sees your petition for justice, he's not going to grant it. And if the boss never sees your wonderful work, he's not going to reward it. Same principle, similar results. From such are bureaucracies born...

This is where the grease comes in. If you can't convince the gatekeeper on the merits of your situation, there's a long, long history of convincing the gatekeeper by means of a little palm-greasing. Leading to those that have getting more while those that don't have get less, since the noble with the biggest purse can afford the best bribes and get little things like laws adjusted to his favor (side note of trivia: privilege is derived from the Latin for 'private law'. There really are two sets of law, one for the super-wealthy and one for everyone else). Uncorruptibles are few and far between, and usually won't be found working for any government of any color.

Even so, eventually the gatekeeper's load gets too much, so he acquires a set of advisors/assistants. Enter the beginnings of a bureaucracy that's founded on keeping people away from the top, not "serving" the populace.

Yes, I'm cynical. The thing about bureaucracies is that as long as they exist, they're important in all the wrong ways. Never piss one off - it's not possible to go through life without dealing with them, and angry bureaucrats have all sorts of untrackable ways to take revenge. Files get 'lost'. Or end up on the bottom of the queue. Or some obscure rule no-one's ever heard of before applies to you. You can run into this even without upsetting one of them: all it takes is a body of law so complex it has cracks and the misfortune to fall into one.

And grease applied to the eminence is the way around the entire mess - worse, it tastes lousy, even with ketchup. I think it might even be one of those universal truths.

p.s. For those who are wondering, this whole post is born from a bit of punnage involving the term 'eminence grise'. Personally, I prefer greasy eminence.

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Trapped in a Modern Mind


We're all writers, trying to create interesting worlds and problems for our characters to strive against.

Recently I watched season one and season two of Rome. I must admit that I had a rather limited idea of Rome, based on interminable Hollywood movies. (As a child I LOVED the Harryhausen's Jason and the Golden Fleece. Greek rather than Roman, but same area and similar style of clothes. For years I had a thing about men in short togas!).

What I found really interesting about The Rome series was the way it portrayed people's attitudes. The role of slaves was fascinating. They could be unlucky and die early in the salt mines, or they could end up serving a aristocratic family, with education, good food and the chance to buy their own freedom. They could identify with the family so strongly they felt part of it.

Watching Rome made me realise how trapped I was in a modern mindset. Christian attitudes are deeply engrained in our society. These ancient Roman people lived short lives. They bargained with different gods depending on what they needed. There was no 'turning the other cheek'. After watching this series I felt like my mind had had a grease and oil change. It was very invigorating.

I love it when I come across a really inventive, well realised world in a fantasy series. When I discovered Tolkien's LOTR at 17 I was blown away by the back story and sense of history. Now, when I read it to my children I skip the travellogue and read the exciting bits.

What series have you read, that impressed you with its world building?