The Gun Problem

My guess is you probably hit on most of the points.

I don't read fantasy, but science fiction. So, take that for what it is worth.

Lastly, of late (last several decades) in the US firearms are a pretty touchy subject, so many people are sensitive about the issue.

There's lots of SFF that has guns in it.
Steampunk almost always has guns, and other fancy post-industrial revolution weapons, some of them way more inventive than anything the real world has seen.
Urban Fantasy, and UF/PR quite often has guns. It's certainly not something that is "forbidden" in those genres.
Horror frequently features guns. It's often the way the main characters try to defend themselves from whatever it is that is out to get them.

So, I wouldn't say that "SFF writers will do literally anything to skirt around dealing with guns", because I don't think there's any basis to claim that.
However, guns are rarely very important when they are in works of SFF. The exception their perhaps being Military SF. But then again guns are hardly important in other genres of fiction that is not directly related to military matters either.
To be perfectly honest I don't see the need for guns taking a more prominent place in SFF. If I want to read books were using guns is an integral part of the plot I usually turn to Action Thrillers or Action Adventure books. I suspect enough SFF readers and writers agree with me that they don't look for gunplay in SFF, so it's just not something that is often made a part of it.

arkady 7 said:

Is it lazy research, and authors not wanting to deal with different types of guns?

Click to expand...

In my experience, the people who know the least about guns are people in the US who owns, and in some cases fetishize, guns. Granted, they know how to use guns, and maybe how to strip them, but they seem to never read anything about guns and just rely on whatever they have heard from other people as being fact.

One example; A couple of US people were complaining on a friends FB about how The Man in the High Castle series was ruined for them because the Germans used Lugers. One of them even went so far as to claim they had been totally phased out by Rugers by the start of WWII. I already knew that the Germans used Lugers all through WWII. (My Grandfather - I'm Norwegian - got two of them from allied soldiers in the aftermath of WWII.) It took me two minutes on Google to find out that Luger is a US weapons manufacturer that started up in 1947...

The above is not the only case of US people who have personal experience using weapons stating misinformation about guns with great conviction of it making them look like they are knowledgeable. And there seems to always be complaints about any kind of fiction with guns in it from people like that.
So, although I don't think SFF authors necessarily avoid depicting guns because it is not worth the hassle of dealing with the complaints, I would totally support any author who used that as a reason for avoiding guns.

Because most fantasy is set in a world modelled after historical times dating from before the widespread use of guns? Another reason is the very young age at which aspiring writers start writing fantasy - an age at which those young people have not yet been exposed enough to the idea of guns and gun use due to the content restrictions of the books/films/tv they are most closely familiar with.

If a fantasy takes place in a secondary world, I don't think the fear of portraying guns inaccurately would be a big deal. I've got guns in my fantasy world, but I don't dwell on the different firing mechanisms that exist (it's early modern, so they're somewhere in the equivalent of a doglock to flintlock era), and they only fire once before needing to be reloaded. But my characters aren't thinking too much about the way the weapon someone fired at them works. Looking up details about how antique firearms worked, like how long they took to reload and so on, how far away they could hit, what kinds of wounds they caused, isn't that hard. So I don't think fear of inaccuracy is the issue. It sure doesn't stop people from getting horses and other pre-modern elements wrong.

I think it's because swords, armor, castles, and bows have a "coolness factor," so the stories are set in some nebulous early "pre gunpowder" medieval era, except other elements of the world and culture (like the architecture or way government is run) seem more early modern. It's an established fantasy trope, I think, so most people don't question it too much, or accept a very perfunctory explanation. I'm guessing most of what people like in fantasy is about the tropes and settings they enjoy, not about realism. Of course, swords, armor, crossbows, and even castles, lasted for quite a while after gunpowder weapons first came into use in Europe, though they did evolve during that time period.

And a fantasy world doesn't have to be based on the middle ages or on Europe (medieval or any other era), or on any real-world time and place at all, and non-traditional fantasy settings seem to be what's hot right now (on many agent wish lists and also many of the books that are currently popular).

For instance, there are a number of "gunpowder fantasies" that are popular these days that feel like they're taking place in some 1700s-early 1800s type world, whether it's an alternative version of ours or completely secondary. Also, there are a number set in what feels like the Victorian period, but with magic, that aren't steampunk. I'm guessing the success of Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell is responsible for this.

I'm not really seeing this myself.

Most fantasy is set in a world where guns aren't sensible or practical, either due to the presence of magic (why shoot when you can cast fire and lightning?) or because the technology doesn't exist. As Weirdmage points out, however, guns are all over the place in steampunk. Granted, they're usually revolvers or flintlocks, but steampunk is usually set in a Victorian/Old West universe. It imagines technology more advanced than that of the time, but not unbelievably so.

In sci-fi, however, guns are usually all over the place. Space opera usually has at least one swashbuckling rogue and the faceless evil empire (whoever they may be) employs armed foot soldiers, for example. Military SF may not show characters actually engaged in a fire fight, but battles between star ships employ all kinds of ballistics (so it's not unrealistic to believe that personal firearms exist). Sci-fi more concerned with exploration and discovery may or may not have characters who use guns, but the focus of those stories is such that guns would feel out of place; then again, Star Trek had guns and the frequent use of them, and it was supposedly all about exploration, so there you go.

To be honest I kind of think that when people write "medieval" fantasy they don't... really care that much about historical accuracy. I don't know if a lot of these people really research medieval warfare that much. For a long time gunners and archers coexisted because they were used for different things.

There's also this idea that, when compared to a lot of other inventions that had different versions discovered among disparate groups of people, gunpowder was only discovered once. This may be why writers of alternate histories think they don't have to include it -- they can just say that in that universe, it was never discovered.

You need a reason to invent gunpowder and guns. In one of my fantasy worlds, which could be an equivalent of our modern world, there was no need for guns. Why have them when everyone can use magic? They can shoot a fireball, hurl a rock, shoot an ice shard, etc. I thought about putting guns in, but realized there was no practical sense in having them. I think a person must also, for their universe, understand how guns evolved. They were slow, cumbersome and ineffective at first. If everyone has magical abilities, what advantage do those early guns have? Why would anyone even put time to making them more effective, let alone something like a modern Gatling when you can put your energy into new spells which do as much damage.
I think guns and fantasy become very much world specific. Guns might work well in one universe, but not another.

arkady 7 said:

Seems like SFF writers will do literally anything to skirt around dealing with guns in their universe. It's alway "oh, magic scrambles fire arms..."/"gunpowder doesn't ignite in our presence"/"we are a post-13th century historical fantasy world and yet we don't have guns we have cannons if ur lucky sucker"

Why do you think this is?

Click to expand...

The term SFF is broader than you've used it, but confining the question to epic/high fantasy, I suspect it's the romanticization of a pre-industrial world associated with Tolkien and his many imitators. The taboo has never been quite as strong as you suggest though, and it has eroded further in recent years. Robin Hobb, Anne Lyle, Django Wexler, and Brian McClellan have all written fantasy series that incorporate firearms. Popular fantasy computer games have also depicted black powder weapons, including World of Warcraft, Jade Empire, and Pillars of Eternity. I think the perception was always stronger than the reality though. Early fantasy writers used guns in their stories (Robert Howard's Solomon Kane) and even Tolkien mentions black powder in Middle Earth.

I think a number of factors feed into the myth of the pre-industrial world. The imagery of the Arthurian legendarium is strong in Western culture. The influence of 19th Century British Romanticism also remains in fantasy (Sir Walter Scott, the Pre-Raphaelites, etc.) When that powerful imagery blended with the common periodization of history in a timeless era, the idea of high fantasy became somewhat fixed in the mind.

A lot of popular culture associates the Medieval era with Arthur, Robin Hood, maybe the Crusades in a very general way. It has a certain pre-modern innocence if viewed through that Romantic lens, and gunpowder isn't the only period appropriate tech most fantasy strips out. How many windmills show up in high fantasy novels? Mechanical clocks? Spectacles? Water hammers? All existed prior to the widespread use of plate armour, but...high fantasy isn't about historical coherence. It's about myth and imagery. That myth struggles to exclude the trappings of industry.

As high fantasy writers explore other cultures, other time frames, and other ways of depicting myth, I think the stigma will break down further.

I hope so at least; my current high fantasy WiP incorporates a number of industrial technologies, including firearms.

arkady 7 said:

Is it because guns are truly the end of chivalry?

Click to expand...

I think this is a big part of it - that fantasy is still ultimately rooted in chivalric romances. The rise of gunpowder forces the decline of the knight. Also, as mentioned above, magic effectively eliminates the need for gunpowder.

There are some great fantasy writers who take fantasy very much into the age of gunpowder and away from knights in shining armour. Brian McClellan's Powder Mage trilogy does a superb job with touching upon the Napoleonic.

Meh. There are guns in both of my novels, but they're not integral to the plot. Except to the extent that "MC doesn't get eaten by a sabre-tooth tiger because he shoots it."

arkady 7 said:

Seems like SFF writers will do literally anything to skirt around dealing with guns in their universe. It's alway "oh, magic scrambles fire arms..."/"gunpowder doesn't ignite in our presence"/"we are a post-13th century historical fantasy world and yet we don't have guns we have cannons if ur lucky sucker"

Why do you think this is? Is it because ranged weapons becomes a great leveler of fighting ability? (You don't need to be 6'2 pounds of hulking muscle, you just need to have training with a gun.) Is it because, like Indiana Jones, guns allow us to just shoot our problems no matter how cool their fighting style is?

Is it because guns are truly the end of chivalry? Is it lazy research, and authors not wanting to deal with different types of guns? Or have you stumbled across stories where authors had good plot reasons for not talking about them?

Click to expand...

Um...I would think some magic/super powers would make guns kind of useless in some situations, lol. (Like metal melting or magnetic powers or bullet proof shields/skin, etc...)

For me, as a reader and writer...? Well, I don't like guns and American gun culture in real life, so I would sometimes like to escape to worlds or plots that don't involve a lot of guns. (I watch an occasional spy/action movie with guns, or a mystery or police procedural where some murders have been committed with guns, but I usually don't watch or read a lot of stories where guns are constantly in use or in a positive light.)

When it comes to "medieval"-ish or countryside/village or fairy tale fantasy settings, I feel like too much focus on guns (or too much tech) would sometimes kind of kill the romantic aspects of such settings.

Btw: I don't think "romanticization" (or whatever it's called) is a problem; it's merely a taste preference thing, imo.

And, sometimes guns don't have a purpose in the plot, so the guns may not even be mentioned. Or maybe a protagonist could be gun-averse, like Batman, etc...

ETA: I read more gentler, light hearted, less violent or epic stuff, so guns are not usually in use, unless someone's murdered with it in a more contemporary or historical mystery/police procedural plot.

I mean, I guess Harry Potter avoids the issue because guns could level the playing-field too much, for example. Along with many other more modern inventions. But aside from that kind of thing, I don't actually see a ton of published material with this issue. I think several previous posters have made good points as to why a world that from an earth history perspective might have gunpowder doesn't. Although, gunpowder was invented during the alchemical search for the Elixir of Immortality or somesuch. So it's not totally wild that it might exist.

I think one point about magic rendering guns/tech useless though has a bit of hypocrisy in it, though. Why have archers? Why have swords? Why have armor? Or horses? In a lot of cases, those would be even more outmoded by magic, I'd argue. Even if you specifically design your magic system as a type of mana artillery role, it's still a bit odd.

Guns mark the transition into steampunk, an aesthetic that I loathe, which is why they're firmly and absolutely absent from any fantasy I might write. I have made use of cannons, but actual hand-held pistols and the like? Urgh.

Liosse de Velishaf said:

I think one point about magic rendering guns/tech useless though has a bit of hypocrisy in it, though. Why have archers? Why have swords? Why have armor? Or horses? In a lot of cases, those would be even more outmoded by magic, I'd argue. Even if you specifically design your magic system as a type of mana artillery role, it's still a bit odd.

Click to expand...

This is a good point, now that you mention. The way I see it is that magic just replaced firearms in the evolution of weapons, and with them came their own limitations.

It's a given in most fantasy works that not everyone is able to use magic, so those that can't still use other weapons. Because some people still use other weapons that stab and cut, you still wear armor.

Magic might also not be appropriate for every situation. For example, casting might take immense focus and/or time, and in the interim a swordsman could have eviscerated the target or an archer could have put three arrows in them. So if speed and maneuverability are a priority, traditional arms are best. What happens if a magic user is somehow unable to use magic, or the party's magic user is incapacitated?

Our military and law enforcement are still taught hand-to-hand combat and how to employ a variety of weapons, despite an M4 rifle being just fine for just about every situation. There are also weapons specialist who serve very specific roles in combat (snipers, for example). So it makes sense that, even in a fantasy setting, you have a variety of ways to make people not alive*, even if magic is the best way to do that.

*Or heals them, for that matter.

Liosse de Velishaf said:

I think one point about magic rendering guns/tech useless though has a bit of hypocrisy in it, though. Why have archers? Why have swords? Why have armor? Or horses? In a lot of cases, those would be even more outmoded by magic, I'd argue. Even if you specifically design your magic system as a type of mana artillery role, it's still a bit odd.

Click to expand...

Well, on the armor front, if one looks at certain types of fantasy art and video games--the ones with the really skimpy armor or just clothing with no armor, it feels like some people are thinking the same thing, lol! XD

Maybe some enemies have metal-bending/metal-manipulating/magnetic powers, like Magneto from X-Men or metal benders from The Last Avatar/Legend of Korra, so sometimes you have to use alternatives?

It's more of the romanticism, I think. That's my main reason. For me, sometimes I would like to escape from gun culture or the baggage that comes with guns, once in a while, in some of my SFF stuff...

ETA: Plus, aesthetically, the "dancing" sword/non-gun fighting looks prettier than someone just standing and shooting. *is shallow*

If you want guns in your fantasy, include them.

If you don't, don't.

You're the one in control. you build the world. you decide the technology and the social trends.

In the fantasy novel I wrote, the world had electricity and telephones, but cars were *so* expensive only the mega rich could afford one, and even then they weren't popular because of (spoiler.)

Most people travel by the urban commuter trains or else by bicycle. Horse drawn vehicles are still in use, but the bicycle is king of the road.

That world also has heavy gun control. only royal guards and on duty soldiers have any reason to have them. the police don't. the citizens don't. possession of a firearm when you're neither of those things is a major crime. if you want to shoot somebody you're stuck with archery.

So there's a whole catergory of fantasy that includes guns! Flintlock Fantasy ala Brian McClellan's Powder Mage trilogy literally has magic based around guns and their use. Larry Correia's GrimNoir is 1920s pulp fantasy with guns.

Basically the issue is not chivalry, it's not tech, it's guns makes anyone capable of killing a threatP You can teach a man to use a gun far easier than you can do so to use a sword. Point, aim, trigger pull. It doesn't require the arm strength a bowman needs, and you can kill from a distance. It makes peasant uprisings all the more threatening, or it keeps power in the hands of dictators. Guns are a huge power imbalance factor because anyone can pick up and use one and be semi-proficient with ease which cannot be said of nearly any other weapon, and they have the bonus of killing at a distance.

So why bother with magic study if peasant farmer John can just pick up a gun and shoot Lord Zappo before he finishes his incantation? Why hasn't a long-barreled rifle put a hole in Lord Farquad after he exerts his "right" of Prima Nocte with the wrong soldier's wife? Fat lot his knights are going to do against a sniper, etc. So on and so on.

So, yeah. Fantasy that has different focus means guns either have to be woven very carefully into the setting, or removed entirely to preserve balance and realism.

MurderOfCrows said:

Basically the issue is not chivalry, it's not tech, it's guns makes anyone capable of killing a threatP You can teach a man to use a gun far easier than you can do so to use a sword. Point, aim, trigger pull. It doesn't require the arm strength a bowman needs, and you can kill from a distance. It makes peasant uprisings all the more threatening, or it keeps power in the hands of dictators. Guns are a huge power imbalance factor because anyone can pick up and use one and be semi-proficient with ease which cannot be said of nearly any other weapon, and they have the bonus of killing at a distance.

So why bother with magic study if peasant farmer John can just pick up a gun and shoot Lord Zappo before he finishes his incantation? Why hasn't a long-barreled rifle put a hole in Lord Farquad after he exerts his "right" of Prima Nocte with the wrong soldier's wife? Fat lot his knights are going to do against a sniper, etc. So on and so on.

So, yeah. Fantasy that has different focus means guns either have to be woven very carefully into the setting, or removed entirely to preserve balance and realism.

Click to expand...

Just as magic might make guns useless, guns aren't magic. Why doesn't the peasant shoot Lord Zappo? A gun is likely to be far, far more expensive than a peasant can own. Why hasn't the soldier shot Lord Farquad? It might be that Prima Nocte is socially acceptable or at least tolerated so he didn't really think to do it. Even if it isn't, it's kind of like asking "why didn't you shoot the cop?" Shoot the cop? are you crazy?

Even if they could make guns back then were accurate enough to be sniper rifles (hint-- they weren't), we can ask the question about any given person in power today. Yes, government officials have been killed by snipers. Civilians have been killed by snipers for no good reason, too. Kids get killed by other kids who bring guns to school. Yes, it happens a lot more often than people would like but these are still actually rare occurrences. The fact is that most normal people just don't think that way. Yes, fiction does like to focus on unusual circumstances, but I think that if you have a medieval fantasy world where guns exist, you don't really have to ask yourself why nobody's just shot the corrupt lord yet. That someone will automatically use a gun to solve any problem they have in a society where guns exist or are even plentiful is not a given.

Hapax Legomenon said:

Just as magic might make guns useless, guns aren't magic. Why doesn't the peasant shoot Lord Zappo? A gun is likely to be far, far more expensive than a peasant can own. Why hasn't the soldier shot Lord Farquad? It might be that Prima Nocte is socially acceptable or at least tolerated so he didn't really think to do it. Even if it isn't, it's kind of like asking "why didn't you shoot the cop?" Shoot the cop? are you crazy?

Even if they could make guns back then were accurate enough to be sniper rifles (hint-- they weren't), we can ask the question about any given person in power today. Yes, government officials have been killed by snipers. Civilians have been killed by snipers for no good reason, too. Kids get killed by other kids who bring guns to school. Yes, it happens a lot more often than people would like but these are still actually rare occurrences. The fact is that most normal people just don't think that way. Yes, fiction does like to focus on unusual circumstances, but I think that if you have a medieval fantasy world where guns exist, you don't really have to ask yourself why nobody's just shot the corrupt lord yet. That someone will automatically use a gun to solve any problem they have in a society where guns exist or are even plentiful is not a given.

Click to expand...

And again, that's why we have to have balance -- does expense keep guns out of the hands of peasants, but wild talent magic simply spring up, making it more accessible? Does the soldier, who no longer cares about societal constraints after his wife's been raped, have trouble getting a gun out of the strict control of the armory because they're rare weapons and thus well guarded? So on and so forth.

It's all part of worldbuilding - you need to find out where the best balance is.

I think you must ask, why would there be a reason to invent a gun in a fantasy world. Do you're non-magic folks need an equalizer, or can you think of something better for your universe? Would the people of your universe even consider making such a weapon? (Remember, it took centuries to get the gun where it is now, not a few decades).
I actually find it out of context for people to have guns when everyone has magical abilities. Someone above mentioned Harry Potter, you don't see guns because there are spells which are far more effective for combat and fighting.

Wizards in Harry Potter don't have guns because they're totally out of touch with the muggle world. Heck, they don't even have ballpoint pens.

Hapax Legomenon said:

Wizards in Harry Potter don't have guns because they're totally out of touch with the muggle world. Heck, they don't even have ballpoint pens.

Click to expand...

Also it's British, so guns aren't that much of A Thing.

Helix said:

Also it's British, so guns aren't that much of A Thing.

Click to expand...

Now, but they were very common in Britain until the 1930's.

The knowledge and techniques necessary to make firearms has bee around for a rather long time, but the knowledge was split between smiths and magicians or alchemists. A low power cannon of a sort would have been possible more than 2000 years ago. While gunpowder wasn't known, the ingredients were known and available. With a little experimentation a useful mixture could have been found. A welded iron tube cased in wood with iron fittings could have been made; it is no more complicated than a good axle, just larger. The knowledge existed for about a thousand years before it was used. For purposes of fiction there is no reason why ab author can't put firearm into that period.