Old Books

Luddites wreck textile machines in this drawing from 1812. (Public Domain)

I admit that I'm a bit of a Luddite.  I have little interest in owning a smart-phone.  I prefer to do crosswords on paper (yes, I still do crossword puzzles).  I prefer to read books on paper.  For a brief while I flirted with e-books.  Living overseas, it doesn't do to collect more paper than you can fit in two suitcases (who needs to pack clothing?) and books in English are much more expensive than those in the native tongue, but it didn't last.  I had to leave a fair few behind me in Prague when I left.  That was hard.  I don't get attached to many things, but books (I'll include comic books as well) have always held a certain place in my heart.
    When I was a child, I had a very good friend named Matt (we are still friends, though life has taken us in different directions).  He and I shared many enthusiasms, especially involving books.  The one thing about him that always broke my heart was that his passion was for the story alone and not for the object that contained it.  When he returned a book to me, invariably the spine was broken and the pages dog-eared.  I assume that it was his method of devouring the work, getting into every nook and cranny of the page. Conversely, when I finish reading a new book, I could probably return it to the shop for a full refund (you can work out what it means psychologically, that's not what I go in for).  Matt has always been an early adopter of technology and you'd think that he'd be big on reading electronically.  The funny thing is, when I sent him the first draft of my novel, he had to get it bound to read it (and the copy he mailed to me was a beautiful gesture).  I like to think that that means something.
    Shopping in used bookstores is a favored pastime of mine.  Part of this stems from me not being able to afford to pay full price for all of the books that I want to consume.  Part of this stems from me enjoying the process of combing through shelf after shelf of titles, uncovering lost (at least to me) gems from another age.  I love seeing some of the old artwork on SciFi and Fantasy titles.  I also like combing through the "Literature" portion of bookshops, finding old hard-backed copies of classic works in odd sizes.  I like browned paper with ragged edges.  I like how it falls open in your hand without having to break the spine. Sometimes you find notes from the previous owner identifying particularly moving passages or perhaps simply the date of purchase.  Sometimes you find an older version of a story you already know, or an unedited version, it's like listening to an old Springsteen bootleg, when he was still working out the lyrics to new songs live on stage.
    I have nothing against e-books, or the people that love them.  Having moved a number of times in the US, I understand what a pain in the ass it is to cart around a small library.  I just know how easy it is for me to lose track of things on a computer.  If I bought all of my books for kindle, or some such, how easy would it be to forget that they lay there, unloved (because unread is unloved to a book).  I don't browse my computer's memory in search of inspiration, and I hate going back a few pages in an e-book to confirm something I think I know that has just happened in a story.  I need my books to stare at me longingly and accusingly from a pile.  I need them to remind me of the larger world.
    Part of the joy in bookstores (like record shops) is the joy in discovering something you didn't know you were looking for.  With all of the algorithms written to help you find what you might like based upon your personal past enjoyment, it's easy to miss the wonderful.  It's too easy to pigeonhole ourselves with such able customer service as the internet provides.  The electronic world is an amazing thing that makes much of our modern world possible (as it makes it possible for me to bother you faithful few with this).  Online publishing has created a marketplace for an incredible number of new voices.  I will not speak against it.  However, for me, the glowing screen is often a cold unfriendly place, which is rather averse to the outdoors, needs constant updates, and requires recharging.  It does not sit well in my armchair and can be expensive to fall asleep while holding.  Where is the fun in that?

Church / State

http://yesterday.uktv.co.uk/history/classic-history/romans/article/julius-caesar/

Growing up in the United States, the idea of "the separation of church and state" is drummed into us at a relatively early age.  As a fantasy author, it's important to remember that this idea is a relatively new one. Today, many people are skeptical of religious figures placed in authority (though every president of the USA carefully cultivates their religious cred), such as we still find in some Islamic states.  Clearly, this was not always the case.  Truth be told, it is only in the latest fraction of human history that we have begun this divorce.  In creating a fantasy world, it is essential to understand how your government and religion mix (plus, it's really fun).
    There are numerous historical instances of rulers declaring themselves to be gods.  Yes, I know this can be a tough sell for us erudite modern folk, but how better to control your subjects?  Max Gladstone's "Craft Sequence" exploits this concept (though, full disclosure, I've only read one so far), employing traditional prayer-granting deities, as well as the god-on-earth variety.  Modern takes on Thor (by Marvel) use the old "advanced enough science looks like magic" gag, so you could certainly set up some ill-intentioned aliens to be your fantasy overlords (this is also kind of a Lovecraft thing).  Worshiping your ruler as the guy (or gal) who has sway over your eternal soul can motivate all kinds of stories.
   Many times, instead of claiming to actually be a god, political leaders simply claimed to be descended from one of the pantheon of their respective deities (Roman, Egyptian, Norse, what have you).  In a fantasy setting, it'd be much easier to sell it to your subjects, with a wide variety of magical powers at your beck and call.  Then again, maybe that familial connection is entirely true in your world (see previous paragraph).  This can either serve as a simple confirmation of the right to rule, or a good excuse to get into a scuffle with mommy or daddy deity.  After all, Zeus had to kick his dad's ass to take over.
    "The divine right of kings" is an old phrase used as a self-fulfilling prophecy in the Middle Ages.  Men won battles because they were divinely protected and were divinely protected because they won battles.  Once established as a victor, these men then could use this shining light that obviously emanated from them to cow their subjects and have their way in the various interests of government and expanding their power.  Believing that God might come to their physical aid encouraged these men to engage in all sorts of manipulation, both temporal and spiritual, to try to swing the power of God to their side.  The Church, of course, played right back, either supporting or opposing the political forces based on what seemed best for their own interests (whatever they may have been at the time).
    While the political head might also be the religious head (Henry VIII creating the C of E), religious chiefs might simply be a close adviser to the temporal ruler.  These advisers might read the future, or speak to the gods more directly.  They might be "holy men" who are well versed in religious law, or have some other quality of significance.  The image of the Native American "medicine man" immediately springs to mind as representing this type (granted, most of my knowledge in this specific case comes from Westerns).  GRRM employs this relationship to the all-mighty extensively in his work, with priests of "The Seven", The Red Woman, the horse-lords' witchy-women, and so on.
    Even in today's "rational" world, most people don't really feel safe if their head of government doesn't have at least a little religion.  They want to know that the person in charge is doing things for the "right" reasons.  Add to that hope the fear the unknown, especially of death, and you're on to something.  When you can tie the idea of following orders to the concept of a happy afterlife, you have the makings for a pretty motivated population.  Just how those two facets interrelate can provide a lifetime of story options.  Good luck.


Do you have any favorite Fantasy novels that male extensive use of religion?  What about it did you find compelling?  


Fun List - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_been_considered_deities

Brass/Bronze: What's the difference?

I know, I know.  It's something that everybody is well aware of, so I needn't bother blogging about it.  So why the hell can't I keep them straight?  That's why I write this blog in the first place, right?  Right.  

http://www.moscow.info/kremlin/palaces/tsar-cannon.aspx

Bronze and brass are two alloys of copper and other materials (we all know they aren't elements, yes?) which have seen significant use throughout human history.  We even have a period of human culture referred to as The Bronze Age (4,000-3,000BC).  I know that I can't tell these materials apart just by looking (unless they're tarnished, I think), so what makes these two materials different?  How were they employed by our ancestors?  Where did they get the stuff?  Why should you care?
    In a simple material sense, bronze is an alloy of primarily copper and tin, but potentially includes arsenic, phosphorus, aluminum, manganese and silicon.  Brass is primarily an alloy of copper and zinc.  Apparently, this differentiation is becoming outmoded, as museums and the science of archaeology have begun using the catch-all term "copper alloy" to represent both.  However, for the writer, the terms "bronze" and "brass" are still useful, allowing the author to subtly differentiate without getting into the chemistry of it all.
    When you realize that the period before the Bronze Age was the Stone Age, you get an inkling of what a step forward this was in human development.  Bronze was used for tools, weapons, armor, and decorative pieces (it's pretty, you know this).  The earliest bronzes on record are copper-arsenic alloys, which occur together naturally, though you can guess why using (or manufacturing) this material frequently may have been a teensy problem.  Anyway, tin bronze turns out to be a much easier material to alloy, is stronger and easier to cast.  The trick is that these two materials are rarely found together, requiring long-distance trade and a significant amount of knowledge (these ain't no backwards hillbillys, though those guys can be pretty ingenious when it comes down to it).
    It is not known when brass was understood to be a zinc-copper alloy (since it does occur naturally). However, brass also has a long storied history.  Produced in Western Asia and the Eastern Mediterranean as early as the 3rd Century BC, "golden copper" may have been valued almost as highly as gold.  The Romans may have been responsible for its geographical spread across Europe, as apart from various decorative items, Roman coins (sesterces) were struck from brass.  Brass was made by heating ground smithsonite ore in a crucible with copper.  The zinc from the ore would permeate the copper, producing brass.  
    Obviously both materials were used for decorative goods.  It is hardly uncommon for one to be mistaken for the other (which does make me feel a little better), so if you had to choose a material for a project, why select one over the other?

Brass is a relatively softer metal than bronze and has a higher malleability (with lower melting point) and better acoustic properties (you've heard of the brass section of an orchestra?).  Brass is also used for low-friction applications, like locks, gears, and doorknobs, due to its ease of machining and corrosion resistance (also making it good for maritime use).  It seems that brass also saw use in the wool trade, being used in combs for wool harvesting, prior to the widespread production of shears.  Pins were widely produced from brass because the material could be cold worked to size.

Bronze is a heavier and stiffer material than brass.  It only corrodes superficially, protecting the material underneath (unless copper chlorides are formed, causing "bronze disease") and is a good conductor of heat (pots and pans) and electricity (hey, it's your fantasy world).  When casting, bronze will expand slightly just before it sets, making it wonderful to catch sculptural detail.  Bronze also has low metal-on-metal friction, making it a good material for firing cannon balls out of.  Because of its resistance to corrosion and relative stiffness, brass is still used for ship propellers and underwater fittings.




References
Bronze Age defined - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bronze%20age
Brass Wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass
Brass History - http://www.copper.org/publications/newsletters/innovations/2000/01/history_brass.html
Bronze Wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze
Bronze bells - http://www.verdin.com/bells/bell-foundry.php
Bronze casting - http://www.modernsculpture.com/bronze.htm
Color/composition chart - http://www.metalreference.com/Forms_Copper_Alloy.html
Care - https://www.thehenryford.org/research/caring/brass.aspx

Mercenary Sensibilities

Profilo di capitano antico, Leonardo Da Vinci

Much like the assassin and the thief, the mercenary has come to play a large role in many Fantasy novels.  I seem to remember that even Caramon, from the Dragonlance setting had been a "sell-sword" at some point in his career.  Glen Cook's Black Company is all about a mercenary troop.  GRRM has a fair number of mercs, though most of them don't seem to operate in the Seven Kingdoms.  Rothfuss created the Adem, a culture that generates a fair number of high-priced swords-for-hire.  My first real introduction to the mercenaries career was in Raphael Sabatini's Chivalry.  SO, now that we've established their presence in genre fiction, where did they come from and who are they?
    By definition, a mercenary is a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army.  The Geneva Convention gets a little more detailed about technicalities, requiring that the soldier in question not be serving in a conflict where their county of origin is not a player (so the Blackwater guys in Iraq were not technically mercs while the US military was actively involved in the conflict), but that is a more modern point of view and not really on topic for this post.  Further clarification of the definition suggest that a mercenary's primary motivation is money, as opposed to feudal obligation or national pride.
    Mercenaries have been around since at least as long as we've been recording history.  Before David became king of Israel, he served with the Philistines (after he killed Goliath).  They were used by Egyptian Pharaohs, Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Genghis Khan, and so on down through history.  During the Renaissance, Italian City-states regularly employed mercenaries in their wars.  The Hessians were primarily German mercenaries employed by the Brits against their unruly American colonies.  The Swiss Guard serve in the Vatican to this day, though in a rather different capacity than their illustrious forebears.  All I'm trying to demonstrate here is that being a mercenary (sometimes referred to as the 2nd oldest profession), is not a new idea, nor is it restricted to a specific geography.
    This occupation arose, quite simply, out of conflict.  There are those men (or women) who discovered that they have a talent for violence.  More than that though, conflicts might require foreign travel and being away from home for extended periods.  Such massive disruptions in the life of any farmer or businessman could be ruinous.  Beyond even that, the psychological toll that violent conflict could take on combatants is not a new thing.  Those who went to war would rarely come home unchanged.  Quite naturally, some decided to continue on in the profession.  If their country or lord wasn't engaged in a conflict, they'd find someone who was.
    War tends to provide quite the opportunity for financial advancement (assuming you don't get yourself killed) no matter what your original social standing.  At the base level, you can go through the pockets of your fallen foes.  To support an army on the march in enemy territory, soldiers would often have to "make use" of local supplies, pilfering food and materials.  In some cases, theft and destruction were employed as a tactic by generals, to disrupt the tax-base of the local lord and demonstrate to his people that he wasn't very good at protecting them.  Additionally, captured enemy combatants might be ransomed (depending on the local traditions of warfare) for quite a hefty sum, depending on who you nabbed.  Finally, if you were involved in a war of conquest, fine service might be rewarded with a parcel of land all your own in the newly conquered territory.  All of these seem like pretty enticing reasons for people who had very little other opportunity for advancement.
    Mercenaries were not just pulled from the dregs of society.  Entire clans, who perhaps had a tradition as fighters or raiders, might be hired to do someone else's dirty work.  The Scottish gallowglass found service among the Irish clans.  Celts served all over the Mediterranean in various conflicts.  The Varangian Guard was a portion of the Byzantine Army who served as bodyguard to the Emperor and was primarily composed of Germanic and Anglo-Saxon people.  As "soldier" became a profession, as opposed to a periodic occupation, it became a method of advancement for younger sons of the nobility (who had no interest in joining up with the church).
    Employment of a mercenary (or mercenary company) can be a dangerous thing.  Some were brought in as advisers and bodyguards to a lord, because they had no ties to the enemy.  However, Machiavelli viewed this as a disadvantage because they could not be trusted to stay and fight if their lives were in significant jeopardy, since they had no personal stake in the conflict.  Many are the examples of mercenaries being paid by the enemy to lay down their arms, or change sides in the middle of a conflict.  There is a reason that "mercenary" has taken on a negative connotation.
    There are many reasons why mercenaries have become so popular in Fantasy works.  The primary reason is that of convenience: "I need a good excuse to have a guy who is really good with his sword who is available to go off on adventures."  Second, within a company, you can mingle/showcase all levels of society in a setting that normally would not permit this.  Third, mercenary organizations (yes, including pirates) tend to be essentially meritocracies (or even democracies) in a time or setting that does not usually favor this political form.  Mercenaries are easily romanticized to represent the world-weary cast-offs that many of us sympathize with.  They are just doing their job and trying to make their way in the world, just pay 'em promptly and don't get on their bad side.

What do you think?  Why do we romanticize the mercenary?  What makes this character type so appealing?


For an appropriate musical finish - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvTv-I2Y390

Reference
Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenary
Related Paper - http://www.ksk.edu.ee/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/KVUOA_Toimetised_15_2_Holmila.pdf
6 Famous Forces - http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/6-legendary-mercenary-armies-from-history
More Comprehansive - http://www.mercenary-wars.net/history-of-merc.html
Further Reading - http://www.soldiers-of-misfortune.com/
The Swiss Guard - http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/swiss_guard/swissguard/storia_en.htm

Thank god we all speak Common

The "Common" tongue is one of the great conceits of many old-school role-playing games (well, in the D&D I remember) and Fantasy/Sci Fi novels.  It's a simple cheat acknowledged delightfully by Douglas Adams with his "babel fish".  When everyone can understand everyone else, it becomes much easier to get on with the action.  As a writer, how many pages do you want to devote to linguistic confusion?  Is it interesting? Will your readers make it with you to the other side?
    In a much earlier post (some time in 2013), I compiled a few ideas on how to write non-native speakers.  It included dropping articles (a, an, the), tense confusion, idiomatic phrase issues (most recently executed to perfection in Guardians of the Galaxy), and so on.  Using those ideas, you can create a clear voice for a character who has spent a significant amount of time learning a new language (or in Drax's case, one who just can't quite wrap his brain around certain modes of expression).  However, most of the time when you encounter a new language, you have not had years of study in preparation for the experience.
    One way to circumvent this difficulty is in having a character who is familiar with a language that is derived from the same source.  My girlfriend is a fluent speaker of Italian, so when she encounters any of the romance languages (especially in the written form), she can generally get along.  Similarly, friend who have studied Slavic languages generally say that it's easier to hop from one to another, rather than jump to a new language group.  Thus, characters travelling to neighboring lands would probably have a much easier time communicating than those who have journeyed far or sailed the trackless seas.
    Merchants and sailors (possibly even mercenaries), who routinely travel long distances, are another way to get around some of this problem.  Communication is an essential tool in the work of these trades (at least when they are ashore).  Once foreign trade becomes common in a certain port/city, the sides begin to develop a "pidgin language" shared by both sides, incorporating elements of each.  Members of these professions would also be more likely to be able to communicate when encountering new cultures, simply because they've done it many times before (assuming they've been at it for long enough).  
    There are a variety of cases where the inability of one character to understand another has been used specifically as a plot device.  The tv show Vikings deals with this early on and regularly.  Patrick Rothfuss uses it to nice effect in his ongoing work.  I seem to remember one of Joe Abercrombie's characters pretending to not be able to understand for a while (or was that just being surly?).  Robin Hobb uses it to keep her seafaring reavers dangerously "other."  I'm sure there are plenty of other examples in the literature, just not springing to mind.  Even within these exceptions, though, the majority of the characters encountered in these novels are of the easy-to-understand variety.  
    Perhaps the reason why this issue is so easily gotten around is the simple fact that most of the individuals written about are "exceptional."  These heroes are simply smarter and more clever than we are.  They can learn a language in six months (or hours) and then proceed to defend themselves in the highest court, with aplomb.  This perhaps is another symptom of my own personal annoyance with genre fiction.  I like reading about regular people living/thriving in these fantastical settings.
    Maybe it has more to do with having lived in other countries where I haven't been fluent (or even reasonably conversant) in the native language.  I know what you learn first (food/water/toilet) and how long it takes to get it right.  Not every story needs to be a comedy of errors stemming from linguistic misunderstanding, but every traveler has experienced embarrassment from some linguistic lack.  Furthermore, in the history of mass conflict, how many mistakes have been made, or acts of violence perpetrated, because of pure misunderstanding?  Language can be a powerful tool or a seemingly insurmountable barrier.  In these epic stories of clashing nations, it should play a more prominent part.

Religious Much?

Pope Gregory VII excommunicating Holy Roman Emperor Henry IVhttp://www.ssqq.com/travel/rhine2015germanhistory03.htm

   

With all that we know about the political maneuverings of the Medieval Church, it's easy to overlook the fact that the vast majority of people in the Middle Ages were truly devout Christians.  Tithing was widely practiced, with the commoners willing to put in time working on church lands to pay their portions.  The Crusades weren't just a land-grab.  While we may look back on this period in history with cynicism, it is important to remember that the Church wielded immense power, based entirely on devotion of the faithful.
    Priests were the learned men who spoke down from the high places, who spent their lives in seclusion, prayer and devotion, who were guides along the path to righteousness.  Priests also served as educators, tutoring both rich and poor, quite naturally using religious texts to sharpen the minds of their charges.  While some who joined the ranks of the clergy may have been younger sons of nobles, looking for an alternate route to power, the majority of the priesthood had very little to do with political wranglings.
    History texts tend to highlight the conflicts between church and state, jockeying for temporal power, whether it be land or taxes.  However, when the state petitioned church leaders to have their congregations pray for the war effort, they were not simply seeking to sway popular opinion.  They were seeking to sway God.  To them, it was another front.  Yeah, Bob Dylan has a couple questions about having God on your side, but it doesn't mean that folks didn't believe in it.  During this time, the Church accumulated vast amounts of property from those looking to make up for a life's worth of sinning.  You don't put the Church in your will if you're not at least a little concerned about the afterlife.
    Excommunication was the ultimate power of the Church, used to bring kings to heel (as well as others).  A person who has been excommunicated may not take part in the sacraments (most importantly communion) and may be denied contact with any of the faithful (shunning).  Additionally, excommunicated individuals may not perform any of their sacred offices.  Furthermore, many proclamations of excommunication were terrible curses called down upon the transgressor for their misdeeds.  Returning to the bosom of Mother Church required significant, and often public, amends.
    It would be simple to view priests and congregants alike as simple men who desired nothing but power and riches.  However, truth is often far from simple.  The entirety of the Church's power stemmed from the faith of the masses.  While many lords actively opposed the secular arm of the Church, they would rarely oppose the sacred.  More often, they would court the spiritual power of the Church, hoping to turn the power of God to their advantage.  "The divine right of kings" was both praise to the victorious in the struggle for power and damnation to the losers.
   
As far as how to utilize this information in a Fantasy setting, look again at GRRM.  His world has a variety of faiths.  Examine the faithful and their actions.  Much of what they do seems incomprehensible to an unbeliever, but would probably seem inevitable to a member of the faithful.  True faith is a powerful thing.  It is easy to forget this in a modern world founded on "proof".  In a world that lacks our scientific foundations, devoting your heart and soul to the unexplainable seems like much less of a leap.  Allow your characters to show their faith.
   


excommmunication history - http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc4.i.viii.ii.html
anathema - http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9209&context=journal_articles