In his Elantris
Chapter 5 annotations, EUOL noted:
I have gotten a little grief from readers regarding Kiin's family. Some think that the family as a whole feels too 'modern.' It is an anachronism that, to an extent, I'll admit. One of the quirks about the fantasy genre is how it generally prefers to deal with ancient governments, technologies, and societies without actually making its characters conform to more ancient personality patterns. In other words, most fantasy main characters are people who, if dusted off a bit and given a short history lesson, could fit-in quite well in the modern world.
I'll be honest. I prefer the genre this way. I don't read fantasy because I want a history lesson, though learning things is always nice. I read for characters--and I want to like the characters I get to know. I like putting characters in situations and exploring how they would deal with extreme circumstances. I just don't think this kind of plotting would be as strong, or as interesting, if the characters weren't innately identifiable to a modern readership.
I found this observation of EUOL's interesting and thought I would throw it out for discussion in forum-land. Does it bother you when characters in a world set in the past display modern sensibilities? Or do you prefer it that way?
I find myself agreeing with EUOL. A character has to be 'modern' enough that a reader can relate and understand them. And if you are reading for character (which I, like EUOL, do), than you want to be able to relate to them. Completely backward thinking--such as racist thinking--is going to turn off a modern audience, even if it was appropriate at the time. So you as the writer have to ask yourself--do I be accurate and lose reader sympathy, or do I be more flexible and lose accuracy?
That was one of the problems I was having with
Goddess of Yesterday (you can see my discussion in
Books if you'd like). I couldn't completely relate to the idea of Greek honor being important enough to go to war and kill millions over, just so Menelaus could revenge the slight against him. But that is because of my modern sensibilities that says a war should be to help people, not to defend the honor of a king. And so I felt Helen as a character did not always work--I was supposed to accept some things based on the Greek worldview. Because I like Greek Mythology and I am a forgiving reader, I did. But someone else might not.
This whole idea of what's too modern comes up in writing groups a lot. Where do you draw the line between making your fantasy world (if it is set in the past) realistic and still make it appeal to readers who think modernly? What is too "modern"? Certainly some ways of speaking are too modern--slang specific to our world seems out of place, in my book. I remember one time in my writing group with EUOL and Parker we had a discussion on telling time. I wasn't sure you could refer to the passage of time as seconds--that seemed too modern to me (the concept of a second, that is). But that then begged the question of how they told time. Unfortunately, this means that as the author you have to do research (not always fun in my book). Even if you are creating a unique way to tell time for your fantastic world, you still have to understand how it was actually done in the past--and more than just "Didn't they use those sun dial thingies?"
It is a delicate balance between being accurate and pleasing the audience. EUOL probably has the right idea--he says he wrote what he liked. He liked the way the family interacted, so even if some people felt it was too modern, he kept it. Sometimes I think an author has to do that--pick a way of doing it, trust himself, and know that he's not going to please everyone. But, from a writer's perspective, the concept of what is too modern does beg some pondering.
So I throw it out to all of you again. Have you been turned off by a book because it is too modern? Or because it felt too old-fashioned and it was hard for you to relate? What do you prefer in your fantasy fiction?
