Fictional drugs vs real drugs

I'd rather see a fictional drug than an actual drug portrayed inaccurately.

Roxxsmom said:

Though its being like cannabis would explain why hobbits liked to eat six meals a day.

Click to expand...

"I don't think he knows about second munchies, Pip..."

Hard to imagine Frank Herbert's "Dune" working without a fictional drug, eh? "On close examination, we find that Maud'Dib wasn't a prophet, he was just really stoned."

If the plot requires, or is improved with a fictional drug, then that's the way to go.

Else, why would you take the time to invent something completely new? You can always wrap it with a new name if need be (see: "pipeweed"), with the usual caution about writing smeerps.

TKpinkerton said:

For my own purposes I'm thinking of some sort of psychoactive, pseudo spiritual drug, the kind of thing someone would use to feel like they're "leaving their body," sort of things like that.

Click to expand...

There's more than one real psychoactive drug like this. I've been to a couple of Yoruba-derived divination sessions that used small seeds. I was given three to chew, and I felt like I was flying.

The Iyanifa (priests) were each given 9. I kept wondering how they could even function.

If it is a technologically advanced sci-fi universe, you would expect them to have designer drugs; if it is a fantasy world, it would be jarring if the drugs were the same as in our world (or at least were called the same thing). So fictional drugs are completely fine for everything except contemp, and even there I have seen plenty of books successfully use fictional drugs without breaking suspension of disbelief.

For the fantasy ms I'm working on, I have several fictional drugs in the story. Stimulants, alcohol, opiates... it's fun to write about.

When reading I don't think I would care too much whether it's real or not. The only thing that matters is how it works with the story.

Robert Dawson said:

The table beer of earlier centuries was often very weak by modern standards, to the point where I would not trust the alcohol to disinfect it. More to the point, however, it was boiled for a significant period during brewing.

Click to expand...

Folks have attempted to recreate medieval beer and ale from what manuscripts remain, and found the alcohol content ran a very surprising 10 to 12 percent -- so if the resurrected recipes approach reality, it's more like "Why wasn't everyone drunk all the time?"

And it wasn't just a drink, it was a major source of protein and B-vitamins in their everyday diets (the stuff was thick with brewing leftovers -- I've read of folks who grew up in the backbeyond stirring oatmeal into modern beer to give it a "proper feel").

Reziac said:

Folks have attempted to recreate medieval beer and ale from what manuscripts remain, and found the alcohol content ran a very surprising 10 to 12 percent -- so if the resurrected recipes approach reality, it's more like "Why wasn't everyone drunk all the time?"

Click to expand...

Because by modern standards, a lot of what was drunk was rather weak, and it's not like, 'from what manuscripts remain' are in anyways rare or incomplete.

Being drunk all the time is a terrible way to get through the day when you need to be functional, so people wouldn't be drinking the strongest beverage all the time.

You seem to be making the mistake of thinking that there was somehow just one 'ye olde recipe,' instead of, well, everyone who knew how to ferment had their own recipe for doing it.

Deirdre said:

There's more than one real psychoactive drug like this. I've been to a couple of Yoruba-derived divination sessions that used small seeds. I was given three to chew, and I felt like I was flying.

The Iyanifa (priests) were each given 9. I kept wondering how they could even function.

Click to expand...

An interesting thing I learned in Japan - as a method of meditation, some buddhist monks would brew green tea so concentrated that it was more akin to paste, interpreting the ensuing caffiene OD high as a spirtul awakening.

Thomas Vail said:

Because by modern standards, a lot of what was drunk was rather weak, and it's not like, 'from what manuscripts remain' are in anyways rare or incomplete.

Being drunk all the time is a terrible way to get through the day when you need to be functional, so people wouldn't be drinking the strongest beverage all the time.

Click to expand...

That's why there was small beer (3 to 5 % alc.) was for breakfast and for the children. The regular ale wouldn't be opened until evening.

Thomas Vail said:

You seem to be making the mistake of thinking that there was somehow just one 'ye olde recipe,' instead of, well, everyone who knew how to ferment had their own recipe for doing it.

Click to expand...

I'm aware of that. And brewing from what manuscripts remain and from analysis of unearthed crocks is hardly a starter kit. When every household is required to brew X-many barrels per year (as was the case in some places) and methods came by word of mouth, you'll have as many recipes as you have households, and naturally those are all lost to us.

But it was interesting that the alcohol level of the modern attempts I've read about was the exact opposite of common modern wisdom.

Reziac said:

But it was interesting that the alcohol level of the modern attempts I've read about was the exact opposite of common modern wisdom.

Click to expand...

Is it possible it was diluted?

That level of alcohol content would make it an excellent pseudo-steriliser for dodgy water.

onesecondglance said:

Is it possible it was diluted?

Click to expand...

Very likely, given that wine was commonly mixed with water.

... which could take it down to the 2-2.5% ABV range you might expect...