I think the use of fire arms not bring used is that it doesn't have the same sense of honour. Welding a sword takes more skill and practice than pulling a trigger and is a reflection of character as the sword bearer has probally put in more hours to be skilled in using that weapon compared to a gun handler. Star Wars did it brilliantly as Lucas had the Force which is basically magic, laser guns and lightscabers. Lightscabers were from a by gone era and laser weapons were the more go to weapon of choice for the average person. So in that way fantasy writers could put guns alongside swords and it wouldn't be out of place. I think it would work in a Renaissance setting but would be a hard Sell in a medieval setting even though it maybe historically accurate it wouldn't feel right to most readers.
The brilliant part was allowing light sabers to block the pistol shots reinforcing the dedication to the art of the force and sabers over the basic point and pull of laser pistols. Rather than make sabers obsolete it elevated them above the pistols in effectiveness in that setting.
There are several areas where blackpowder drastically altered matters, generally for the better, that are not firearm-related. One is in mining. Blackpowder was a HUGE boon to miners; they could blast tunnels faster than ever before. That meant metal ores, salt, and other minerals could be extracted in greater quantities in less time. Blackpowder blasting could remove stumps, creating more farmland. And blackpowder could be used to split large trees. Splitting the bole of a felled tree was the primary way of reducing it to workable pieces. Sawing was done, but hewing and splitting did most. And for much of the early medieval period, saws were quite rare. And if the tree were big enough, even sawing was useless. Blackpowder was used to split up the monster trees.
I appreciate your perspective and will even compliment your essay though I will defend the decision not to include them by saying that the decision not to include them for me stems from a love for the pre-modern, for the ancient and that my world is meant to be akin to Tolkien's just for the French and Scots and Japanese, and to be a 'faerie-world' a place that exists in the pre-flood era and is in some stories more Classical period (Greco-Roman) or Medieval (8th-early14th centuries), deliberately because I wish to avoid gunpowder.
I wish to create a mythology, a fairy-tale Great Romance or series of Romances. Gunpowder would interfere with the sense of the other-worldly.
But I think more and more authors are doing what you've suggested and that that's fine, it is also quite neat and important that every author chart their own course.
I think the point of the explosion at Helms Deep is reflected in the original post. Without going to deep into deconstructionalism, it is clear that Tolkien wanted to portray the negative effects of industrialization (which is his view and lived experience far out-weighed the positive). This is consistent with his worldview.
A setting that includes gunpowder but also is very magic-heavy is Warhammer Fantasy. A setting invented to accommodate tabletop miniatures and a game based around them, existence of guns in a fantasy Renaissance scenario is not only accepted, but even seen as necessary for the various factions that use it, where their opponents are magic and often include demons or otherworldly creatures. The utility of having a cannon blast a dragon away can be tested and indeed, is welcomed when it happens. At the end of the day, gunpowder itself is incorporated and treated as one if many tools of war in a setting that includes magic and fantasy beasts.
Some great points in here! I too got bounced out of The Poppy Wars at exactly the point when imagery of the WW2 street-to-street combat of the siege of Shanghai was depicted… with bows and arrows.
The Luddite element of fantasy is certainly a consideration. I’d expand and say that even in the contemporary era the average person’s knowledge of firearms operations is more influenced by Call of Duty than actual tactics (automatic weapons applications, suppressive fire, the role of comms, etc).
Thank you for your thoughts. For as much as I was saying "yes!" as I read this, I have to admit that I disagree with a few of your assertions--especially regarding the ultimate need you see for historical accuracy in order to combat "reactionaries" who think the past was better, and thus are trying to return to a past that never was.
On the one hand, I think that with the increase in grimdark fantasy--or, at the very least "gritty" fantasy--we are long, long past the days of fairy-tale views of an idyllic past. I wish it weren't so, but it is. Modern readers demand "realism"--which to them often means "graphic brutality."
And also, while admitting the past had many, many flaws, I do believe one can still assert it may have been existentially better. This makes sense to me. Despite less "equality," or "diversity," it may have been--on the whole--a better time. In fact, to hand-wave this possibility off sniffs of "presentism" to me--the prejudice that we moderns are so much better now, with our liberal, permissive mindset, our radical individualism-over-community, and our technology. Yes, we are better off today in many areas--democracy and capitalism have nearly eliminated hunger, promoted medical wonders, and so forth...But Tolkien was right, I think, to warn us about losing our souls in this machine age. He sensed "something is wrong"--we've lost something in the Age of Industrialization. Community. Quiet. Responsibility. Religion. Simple "hobbit" values. The enchantment of a world perceived everywhere and always as "magical."
And, honestly, as has been stated better by other commentators to your post, I think this is why guns are avoided in fantasy--they represent that "something spoiled." The opposite of magical wonder.
Now, I'm not advocating for zero gunpowder in fantasy. Like you, I can see many exciting possibilities for it. My own writing is an American Revolution era fantasy (coming soon to a bookstore near you [jk].) I just understand the aversion to boom sticks and blowy-uppy-things.
Not speaking with authoritative knowledge, but I think the rise in plate may also have coincided with the ascendancy of the longbow on the battlefield. I think the use of massed longbowmen is sometimes mentioned as contributing to the decline of the armored knight. One might, in a way, view longbows as a predecessor to guns in changing the battlefield, increasing the odds of a noble or status-aspiring warrior being killed by a commoner at a distance. I think Wellington or someone even floated the idea of having a unit of longbowmen, but given the extreme training time, it was infeasible. Perhaps here we see the problem for many fantasy stories-the greatest hero may be killed by the least competent foe with a lucky shot, or even by accident.
Guns are the great leveler. They make peasants equal to knights and women equal to men. I suspect the aversion to guns in fantasy is less about creating an idyllic past than about the desire for a meritocracy in which power grows out of skill and training. Now that I think about it, even urban fantasy seems obsessed with training — show any hint of magical ability and you’re packed off to the danger room to learn hand-to-hand combat.
So just in case it hasn't been said yet, there is tons of fantasy with guns: this is called science fiction. It is exactly the same thing and even put on bookshelves together with fantasy.
Fascinating essay. It reminds me of how shocked I was in my undergraduate studies to find sources speaking of the Knights of Malta fighting the Ottomans. Both sides used gunpowder extensively and the supply of it became an important part of the siege. I think my thoughts on the inclusion or exclusion of firearms (and technology level in general) in fantasy is similar to my view of magic. How does it serve the story? While a certain level of firearm technology may be appropriate for the ‘real world time period analog’ it may be inappropriate for the type of story the author wishes to tell. A ‘fantasy’ story is told in a sub-created world - There is not guarantee or expectation that technology will evolve in the same way that it did in our world or that such things (like firearms or saltpeter as a substance) even exist in said world. Totally agree about the crossbows though.
I had a good comment written out for this and then Substack crashed on my phone and I lost it, so I am just reminding myself to come back and write the comment out again when I'm on my desktop.
Ok I'm back. I liked a lot of what you said here, and I think you touched on a few things that hold the secrets as to why people don't often include guns in their fantasy.
First off, I think that you're right that people draw a misguided symmetry between pre-modern firearms and those produced today. The power difference, efficiency, and accuracy between a flintlock and an modern assault rifle is astounding, but the layman just thinks "gun, shoot, bullet, dead".
This kinda feeds into my next thought, where guns are one of those niche interests where people might be nervous to include them for fear of the random gun enthusiast chiming in with a dreaded "ACHKSUALLY..." (because gun enthusiasts are one of those people who would absolutely call out inaccuracies lol).
To add onto this, swords and other edge weapons are easy to fudge without needing to have too much knowledge about them.
My third thought kinda ties the first two together. In terms of dramatic tension, a swordfight is much more charismatic than a gunfight. Thrust, parry, riposte! Chances for witty banter or threats! Near misses and unfortunate touches... There's so much more that can be written within a fantasy melee. They also favour pacing; flintlocks and the like take a few minutes to reload, so it's one BANG and then the tedium of whipping out the horn, wadding, rod, etc.
Regardless of this, I would still love to see more firearms in fantasy fiction. They still have their place, but I think the rollout for becoming mainstream will be a slow one.
I think you lay out the scene for a great sword and pistol fight, it's one bang and now that firearm is a club if in close combat. Toss empty pistol aside and draw sword. Not to mention misfires. The other day I was out with my kin at the range firing modern black powder and a tiny bit of rain moisture was all it took for misfires. A pop and fizzle. Much like the battle where bowmen kept their bows unstrung resulting in victory over those who did not, the old saying keep your wick in your pants and your powder dry is a note to how unreliable such arms can be. The original ranger handbook has a line about all men having a hatchet in case of needing to finish an enemy after firing. (not an exact quote as it is from distant memory) There is a fair chance your enemy will not stand idly by while you reload.
This is an interesting read. My fantasy world has many elements of the Industrial Revolution, but I decided against having guns. The main reasons were that I find guns to have less aesthetic appeal than earlier weapons, and that I wanted a unspoken hierarchy of sword fighters. It was actually something that I spent a lot of time mulling over.
I think the use of fire arms not bring used is that it doesn't have the same sense of honour. Welding a sword takes more skill and practice than pulling a trigger and is a reflection of character as the sword bearer has probally put in more hours to be skilled in using that weapon compared to a gun handler. Star Wars did it brilliantly as Lucas had the Force which is basically magic, laser guns and lightscabers. Lightscabers were from a by gone era and laser weapons were the more go to weapon of choice for the average person. So in that way fantasy writers could put guns alongside swords and it wouldn't be out of place. I think it would work in a Renaissance setting but would be a hard Sell in a medieval setting even though it maybe historically accurate it wouldn't feel right to most readers.
The brilliant part was allowing light sabers to block the pistol shots reinforcing the dedication to the art of the force and sabers over the basic point and pull of laser pistols. Rather than make sabers obsolete it elevated them above the pistols in effectiveness in that setting.
There are several areas where blackpowder drastically altered matters, generally for the better, that are not firearm-related. One is in mining. Blackpowder was a HUGE boon to miners; they could blast tunnels faster than ever before. That meant metal ores, salt, and other minerals could be extracted in greater quantities in less time. Blackpowder blasting could remove stumps, creating more farmland. And blackpowder could be used to split large trees. Splitting the bole of a felled tree was the primary way of reducing it to workable pieces. Sawing was done, but hewing and splitting did most. And for much of the early medieval period, saws were quite rare. And if the tree were big enough, even sawing was useless. Blackpowder was used to split up the monster trees.
Blackpowder did more than just power guns.
I appreciate your perspective and will even compliment your essay though I will defend the decision not to include them by saying that the decision not to include them for me stems from a love for the pre-modern, for the ancient and that my world is meant to be akin to Tolkien's just for the French and Scots and Japanese, and to be a 'faerie-world' a place that exists in the pre-flood era and is in some stories more Classical period (Greco-Roman) or Medieval (8th-early14th centuries), deliberately because I wish to avoid gunpowder.
I wish to create a mythology, a fairy-tale Great Romance or series of Romances. Gunpowder would interfere with the sense of the other-worldly.
But I think more and more authors are doing what you've suggested and that that's fine, it is also quite neat and important that every author chart their own course.
What about when they breached the wall at Helm's Deep with blasting-fire, which was an obvious analog for blackpowder
One notes that the Chinese used it as an incendiary and explosive for a long time before they refined the process enough for cannons, nevermind guns.
I think the point of the explosion at Helms Deep is reflected in the original post. Without going to deep into deconstructionalism, it is clear that Tolkien wanted to portray the negative effects of industrialization (which is his view and lived experience far out-weighed the positive). This is consistent with his worldview.
My reply was more in regards to gunpowder or similar substances interfering with otherworldly appeal, which is does not if used correctly
My novel has guns and missiles destroying elves and other fantasy creatures, what category would that be?
The anime "Gate" did a fair job of that scenario as well.
A setting that includes gunpowder but also is very magic-heavy is Warhammer Fantasy. A setting invented to accommodate tabletop miniatures and a game based around them, existence of guns in a fantasy Renaissance scenario is not only accepted, but even seen as necessary for the various factions that use it, where their opponents are magic and often include demons or otherworldly creatures. The utility of having a cannon blast a dragon away can be tested and indeed, is welcomed when it happens. At the end of the day, gunpowder itself is incorporated and treated as one if many tools of war in a setting that includes magic and fantasy beasts.
Some great points in here! I too got bounced out of The Poppy Wars at exactly the point when imagery of the WW2 street-to-street combat of the siege of Shanghai was depicted… with bows and arrows.
The Luddite element of fantasy is certainly a consideration. I’d expand and say that even in the contemporary era the average person’s knowledge of firearms operations is more influenced by Call of Duty than actual tactics (automatic weapons applications, suppressive fire, the role of comms, etc).
Thank you for your thoughts. For as much as I was saying "yes!" as I read this, I have to admit that I disagree with a few of your assertions--especially regarding the ultimate need you see for historical accuracy in order to combat "reactionaries" who think the past was better, and thus are trying to return to a past that never was.
On the one hand, I think that with the increase in grimdark fantasy--or, at the very least "gritty" fantasy--we are long, long past the days of fairy-tale views of an idyllic past. I wish it weren't so, but it is. Modern readers demand "realism"--which to them often means "graphic brutality."
And also, while admitting the past had many, many flaws, I do believe one can still assert it may have been existentially better. This makes sense to me. Despite less "equality," or "diversity," it may have been--on the whole--a better time. In fact, to hand-wave this possibility off sniffs of "presentism" to me--the prejudice that we moderns are so much better now, with our liberal, permissive mindset, our radical individualism-over-community, and our technology. Yes, we are better off today in many areas--democracy and capitalism have nearly eliminated hunger, promoted medical wonders, and so forth...But Tolkien was right, I think, to warn us about losing our souls in this machine age. He sensed "something is wrong"--we've lost something in the Age of Industrialization. Community. Quiet. Responsibility. Religion. Simple "hobbit" values. The enchantment of a world perceived everywhere and always as "magical."
And, honestly, as has been stated better by other commentators to your post, I think this is why guns are avoided in fantasy--they represent that "something spoiled." The opposite of magical wonder.
Now, I'm not advocating for zero gunpowder in fantasy. Like you, I can see many exciting possibilities for it. My own writing is an American Revolution era fantasy (coming soon to a bookstore near you [jk].) I just understand the aversion to boom sticks and blowy-uppy-things.
Thanks again for a thought-provoking post!
Terry Pratchett's 'Men of Arms' is in many ways an exploration of this exact issue!
Not speaking with authoritative knowledge, but I think the rise in plate may also have coincided with the ascendancy of the longbow on the battlefield. I think the use of massed longbowmen is sometimes mentioned as contributing to the decline of the armored knight. One might, in a way, view longbows as a predecessor to guns in changing the battlefield, increasing the odds of a noble or status-aspiring warrior being killed by a commoner at a distance. I think Wellington or someone even floated the idea of having a unit of longbowmen, but given the extreme training time, it was infeasible. Perhaps here we see the problem for many fantasy stories-the greatest hero may be killed by the least competent foe with a lucky shot, or even by accident.
Guns are the great leveler. They make peasants equal to knights and women equal to men. I suspect the aversion to guns in fantasy is less about creating an idyllic past than about the desire for a meritocracy in which power grows out of skill and training. Now that I think about it, even urban fantasy seems obsessed with training — show any hint of magical ability and you’re packed off to the danger room to learn hand-to-hand combat.
Agreed. That's why that famous scene in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is still funny, decades later.
Eat hot lead, Conan!
This
So just in case it hasn't been said yet, there is tons of fantasy with guns: this is called science fiction. It is exactly the same thing and even put on bookshelves together with fantasy.
Fascinating essay. It reminds me of how shocked I was in my undergraduate studies to find sources speaking of the Knights of Malta fighting the Ottomans. Both sides used gunpowder extensively and the supply of it became an important part of the siege. I think my thoughts on the inclusion or exclusion of firearms (and technology level in general) in fantasy is similar to my view of magic. How does it serve the story? While a certain level of firearm technology may be appropriate for the ‘real world time period analog’ it may be inappropriate for the type of story the author wishes to tell. A ‘fantasy’ story is told in a sub-created world - There is not guarantee or expectation that technology will evolve in the same way that it did in our world or that such things (like firearms or saltpeter as a substance) even exist in said world. Totally agree about the crossbows though.
You might enjoy how Moe Lane's Fermi Resolution handles it. There's magic that can target guns.
I had a good comment written out for this and then Substack crashed on my phone and I lost it, so I am just reminding myself to come back and write the comment out again when I'm on my desktop.
I wait in anticipation
(This sounds sarcastic but I swear it isn’t)
Ok I'm back. I liked a lot of what you said here, and I think you touched on a few things that hold the secrets as to why people don't often include guns in their fantasy.
First off, I think that you're right that people draw a misguided symmetry between pre-modern firearms and those produced today. The power difference, efficiency, and accuracy between a flintlock and an modern assault rifle is astounding, but the layman just thinks "gun, shoot, bullet, dead".
This kinda feeds into my next thought, where guns are one of those niche interests where people might be nervous to include them for fear of the random gun enthusiast chiming in with a dreaded "ACHKSUALLY..." (because gun enthusiasts are one of those people who would absolutely call out inaccuracies lol).
To add onto this, swords and other edge weapons are easy to fudge without needing to have too much knowledge about them.
My third thought kinda ties the first two together. In terms of dramatic tension, a swordfight is much more charismatic than a gunfight. Thrust, parry, riposte! Chances for witty banter or threats! Near misses and unfortunate touches... There's so much more that can be written within a fantasy melee. They also favour pacing; flintlocks and the like take a few minutes to reload, so it's one BANG and then the tedium of whipping out the horn, wadding, rod, etc.
Regardless of this, I would still love to see more firearms in fantasy fiction. They still have their place, but I think the rollout for becoming mainstream will be a slow one.
There are a lot of "duels" in Westerns that are extended by cover and hiding. Lots of dramatic tension, but different in flavor, definitely.
I think you lay out the scene for a great sword and pistol fight, it's one bang and now that firearm is a club if in close combat. Toss empty pistol aside and draw sword. Not to mention misfires. The other day I was out with my kin at the range firing modern black powder and a tiny bit of rain moisture was all it took for misfires. A pop and fizzle. Much like the battle where bowmen kept their bows unstrung resulting in victory over those who did not, the old saying keep your wick in your pants and your powder dry is a note to how unreliable such arms can be. The original ranger handbook has a line about all men having a hatchet in case of needing to finish an enemy after firing. (not an exact quote as it is from distant memory) There is a fair chance your enemy will not stand idly by while you reload.
Because guns suck.
This is an interesting read. My fantasy world has many elements of the Industrial Revolution, but I decided against having guns. The main reasons were that I find guns to have less aesthetic appeal than earlier weapons, and that I wanted a unspoken hierarchy of sword fighters. It was actually something that I spent a lot of time mulling over.