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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Agree with a lot of what is said here, but I think another is the Tolkien archetype. He, in many ways, is the founder of high fantasy. Our fantasies seem to derive from that wonderful world.
Which, is interesting, I’m not sure how many hold the old Germanic tales in oral tradition. A lot of what we have comes from the Eddas, which were written during early Christianity. Meaning, that the author was discouraged from writing in full integrity to the subject due to persecution or claims of heresy?
I think the obvious reason is that most fantasy authors are just not very familiar with history - the main influence for fantasy aesthetics is other fantasy. This is why everyone is still running around in studded leather armour with a mess of pouches, and there's not a woman in a wimple in sight.
That said, there's a very funny inclusion in Canto IX of Orlando Furioso, where the tyrant Cymosco is the only person in the story to have a gun, and is cast is villainous and cowardly for using it against knights. It is not strictly a modern belief that guns are unbecoming to epic fantasy:
Why is fantasy allergic to magic therapy modalities such as Therapeutic dragon riding, actual past lives therapy, and literally just wiping your memories? Is dragon riding only for princesses and amnesia for poor peasants in backwater communities?
Why does fantasy not have an in-depth discussion of sex clubs, including but not limited to: prices for couples, single men, single women, guidelines for inter-species play, types of cocktails served at the bar, and the very specific kinds of magic glass used for the cocktail glasses?
Why doesn't fantasy have a Hot Topic equivalent in which peasant girls buy kitschy goth trinkets???
I think the Witch World series by Andre Norton does a good job with this subject, with Kolders clearly being what we’d call a technologically advanced civilization with guns, fighter jets, missiles, and since their realm is a Mad Max style world nuked into uninhabitability, WMDs.
The whole series sets up a science and technology vs. magic paradigm that works surprisingly well when the author has the narrative skill.
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.
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
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
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.
My novel has guns and missiles destroying elves and other fantasy creatures, what category would that be?
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!
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).
Terry Pratchett's 'Men of Arms' is in many ways an exploration of this exact issue!
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.
This
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.
Agree with a lot of what is said here, but I think another is the Tolkien archetype. He, in many ways, is the founder of high fantasy. Our fantasies seem to derive from that wonderful world.
Which, is interesting, I’m not sure how many hold the old Germanic tales in oral tradition. A lot of what we have comes from the Eddas, which were written during early Christianity. Meaning, that the author was discouraged from writing in full integrity to the subject due to persecution or claims of heresy?
I think the obvious reason is that most fantasy authors are just not very familiar with history - the main influence for fantasy aesthetics is other fantasy. This is why everyone is still running around in studded leather armour with a mess of pouches, and there's not a woman in a wimple in sight.
That said, there's a very funny inclusion in Canto IX of Orlando Furioso, where the tyrant Cymosco is the only person in the story to have a gun, and is cast is villainous and cowardly for using it against knights. It is not strictly a modern belief that guns are unbecoming to epic fantasy:
In taking it, twas far from his intention
To use the cannon in his own defence,
Considering it a perverse invention
Not worthy of his quest when he went thence,
But of what he planned for it, made mention,
Since its power to main was so immense:
He bore it away, powder, shot and all,
So none to its lethal onslaught should fall.
And then, once he was far enough from shore,
His vessel riding fair upon the deep,
Where every sign had been lost once more
Of the land on either side, the wind asleep,
He seized the thing, and cried: ‘Your roar
Shall never aid some coward knight to reap
Advantage, or to claim a greater worth
Than men of valour; vanish from the earth!
O, vile, abominable ordinance,
Fashioned in the depths of Tartarus,
By Beelzebub, as an infernal lance
To wreck this mortal world, O ruinous
Engine, I shall send you down, perchance,
To hell itself, from whence you came!’ and thus,
He drowned it in the waves; and then set sail
For the cruel island, yet let sense prevail,
Why is fantasy allergic to magic therapy modalities such as Therapeutic dragon riding, actual past lives therapy, and literally just wiping your memories? Is dragon riding only for princesses and amnesia for poor peasants in backwater communities?
Why does fantasy not have an in-depth discussion of sex clubs, including but not limited to: prices for couples, single men, single women, guidelines for inter-species play, types of cocktails served at the bar, and the very specific kinds of magic glass used for the cocktail glasses?
Why doesn't fantasy have a Hot Topic equivalent in which peasant girls buy kitschy goth trinkets???
I think the Witch World series by Andre Norton does a good job with this subject, with Kolders clearly being what we’d call a technologically advanced civilization with guns, fighter jets, missiles, and since their realm is a Mad Max style world nuked into uninhabitability, WMDs.
The whole series sets up a science and technology vs. magic paradigm that works surprisingly well when the author has the narrative skill.