The two last, like a number
of others, are set in what could loosely be called a standard setting for epic
fantasy or sword & sorcery.
Hopefully not in a clichéd way — I try to portray a range of different
types of pre-gunpowder civilisations, rather than the usual bland blend of
something that vaguely passes for a cross between mediaeval Europe and ancient
Babylon — but the stories have broadswords, horses, temples to numerous gods
and so on.
The Treason of Memory, on the other hand, is set in a culture of
flintlocks and rapiers, somewhat reminiscent of Europe in the late 17th/early
18th centuries, while The Lone and Level Sands has more in common with
the mid 20th century. This is a long
way from broadswords, or even flintlocks, although perhaps not exactly like the
equivalent period in the real world: land vehicles are mainly electric, for
instance, and air travel comes courtesy of airships.
The Lone and Level Sands is archaeological fantasy. Like parts of the Indiana Jones series, it's set in a desert
country in an unstable world where anything could happen. It has elements of a thriller — sinister
rivals, trigger-happy soldiers, blackmail and betrayal — as well as the fantasy
elements of a temple out of mythology and... well, you'll have to read the
story, when it comes out.
Coincidentally, I have
another story coming out later this year, in the excellent magazine Aoife's
Kiss, which is related to this, to the extent that it's also a view of the same
myth from a "modern" world.
This time, though, the culture is the computer age of the same world. If you pay attention, you'll find a couple of
more specific links between the two.
So what's the advantage of
doing it this way? Wouldn't it be
simpler to create a world for each story, or at least each series? A pre-gunpowder world, a world of
flintlocks, and so on? Just invent what
I need, when I need it?
Well, it would be easier in
some ways, but I think nowhere near as effective. In a joined-up world, the ideas don't come in isolation, and they
don't develop in isolation, either. The
legend behind The Lone and Level Sands is (hopefully) effective because
it's a story I already knew, and the "modern" discovery has a history
that make it comparable to finding a relic from Atlantis in our world.
The background to these
stories isn't just a background — it's people and places whose stories I know
and have written about. That's a level
of reality that's difficult to achieve in a one-story world. Not impossible, but difficult.
The world I use offers me
the means to write almost any kind of story I want, from epic fantasy to occult
thriller — I've even found a corner to write something resembling steampunk —
and stories come into being from the influence of their own past and
future. There are stories coming to me
that need to belong to a different world, whether it's a one-off or an ongoing
world, but I don't anticipate running out of fascination and inspiration in my
flexible world anytime soon. Probably
never.
Having many stories set in the same world is not a new approach to fantasy, certainly, but I am often amazed at how static some fantasy worlds are. They seem to stay in some sort of quasi medieval not quite renaissance era for thousands of years. While I enjoy this time period for lots of reasons--swords, horses, bucolic settings with picturesque thatched-roof cottages, and a level of social organization that allows for long and arduous overland or sea journeys--it is certainly not the only kind of world that can support fantasy.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that you can have a world that evolves enough to allow different settings and challenges across time, and where the events of one story are incorporated into a different story's history is indeed intriguing.
Congratulations on the new contract, Nyki! I enjoy your work and admire how your mind works.
ReplyDeleteCongrats, Nyki! Yes, I love writing in a single, evolving world too, but yours sounds really incredibly malleable! Have fun :)
ReplyDelete