Limyaael ([info]limyaael) wrote,
@ 2004-08-03 22:42:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood: bouncy
Entry tags:fantasy rants: summer 2004, political fantasy rants

Rant on rebel groups, part one
This is a subject that’s rather been on my mind lately, since I wrote one rebel hero and, in my current novel, a woman who wishes the rebels and the status quo would all just get drowned together (in the immortal words of Mark Twain about James Fenimore Cooper’s characters). The vast majority of fantasies are about people rebelling against an evil overlord or a usurper or some aspect of the world as it is. So here are ways that I think they should be handled, combined with irritations about the way they often are handled.



1) Create dynamic rebel leaders. If you have a rebellion that’s bound together by a leader’s charisma and courage, remember to actually invest him with the charisma and courage. I’ve read fantasy stories where the author, intending the hero to become the new rebel leader, invests the former one with all the charisma of a wet rat and all the courage of a damp log. There’s no explanation for how the group held together or won any victories at all before the hero got there.

What makes the rebels stay with their leader, instead of turning him out and finding a new one, or becoming many little splinter groups? They may have good motives for rebelling in the first place (although see point 2), but they’re doomed if they don’t also have someone who can weld them into one unit, come up with plans to make sure they’re not taken at once by their enemies, and wield power that will bear them through losses. It doesn’t have to a wild-eyed fanatic; it can be a calm strategist, or a powerful mage who offers them hope in the future, or an orator who binds them with his words. There can also be a council or group or pair of leaders. But there shouldn’t just be a slot for the hero to slide into.

Nor is the rebel leader who rules by brute force alone, a thug, really a good idea. Once again, it begs the question of why the other members of the group, who are always author-controlled perceptive enough to recognize the hero’s value as a leader right away, have stayed with him. He may be able to make himself scary, but almost certainly the rewards of staying with such a person are outweighed by the rewards of turning him in to the powers that be. Someone who cared more about their skin and sleeping without fear of a slit throat would have done it long ago.

If you do want to write a hero who becomes a rebel leader, I think it’s best to have him come in at the start of the actual revolt, rather than introducing him into it when it’s been going on for months or years. That means that the group’s tactics and grievances have a chance to form around him, rather than him thrusting out someone already in place in a power struggle that the group can hardly afford.

2) Why are these people rebelling? Most of the time it’s not that hard to come up with a good motive. Intolerable conditions can be found in all matter of circumstances: rule by an undeserving elite, famine for the lower classes while the upper class feasts, people taking one segment of society too much for granted, new ideas being introduced that prompt social change, a matter of economics shifting and bringing in money from new quarters (or imposing higher taxes), unhappiness with a particular king or church or way of life, and, yes, if you must, persecution of a Speshul Group like witches or the members of one particular religion. In fantasy, there’s also the matter of magic, which perhaps takes the place that technology holds in our own world. There were revolts by workers in our nineteenth century who feared that machines would take their places. What about farmers who fear that earth mages will replace in them in the fields?

Given all that, it’s hard to imagine fantasy authors inventing paper-thin motives for rebellion, but they manage it. Revenge is a favorite one. Someone sees her family die, and she runs off and promptly joins a hard, dangerous life of guerilla warfare for years for…

What?

That’s the part that’s usually not explained. The heroine somehow learns that the evil queen was behind ordering those soldiers into her village, again usually through paper-thin contrivances. So she becomes a rebel against the queen, and uses her magic to kill the soldiers. But wouldn’t it make more sense to just use her magic to attack the queen directly? Most fantasy heroines seem powerful enough to do that. If she can make the ground shake and dump a whole bunch of soldiers off a cliff, it seems she should be able to do the same thing to a vital section of the queen’s palace, especially when Evil Queenie doesn’t have magic herself.

Or perhaps the person who sent them wasn’t the queen, but a mage hiding out in the hills. The heroine joins the rebels because the rebels are in the hills, and uses her magic to kill the mage’s friends and hurt him…

Because that’s just what he did to her family.

Wait. Something’s not right there.

Revenge is one of those things that gets the double-standard treatment a lot in fantasy, and as a motive for joining a rebellion, it’s not the greatest. Now, a lot can be done if the author is willing to recognize that the revenge-driven person is falling into the same darkness that claimed her opponent’s soul, and works with it. But usually that doesn’t happen. We’re supposed to applaud the character’s apparently good and direct revenge, even as she goes about it through the most circular and indirect means.

Come up with rebels who have reasons to be in a rebellion, rather than simply hunting down and killing an enemy.

3) Inject some pragmatism. One favorite trick in fantasy stories of rebellions is for the rebels to have some marking—a drawing of a particular animal, a slogan, a symbol—that they leave when they win some victory or kill someone. It can work, in situations where the author is portraying the rebellion trying to emerge into the light and work their way to victory.

I don’t think it works as well when the rebels are supposed to be a secret, conspiratorial group. They kill someone who’s their opponent, and then on the body leave a marking that points straight to their identity? (For example, a snake symbol left by a rebel leader whose name means Serpent).

The usual explanation is that the rebels want to put fear in their enemies’ hearts. In that case, the better trick would be to a leave a symbol that’s not so easily identifiable, and make themselves true shadows. Let their enemies spin complicated and confused theories about them rather than handing them the keys to the mystery gate.

Similarly, the dramatic speech to the evil defenders of the status quo, or letting a group of soldiers go disarmed so that they can tell the ruler of the rebels’ glory? Dramatic, yes, but not necessarily effective. If the evil ruler has a teaspoon of gray matter in his head, he’ll memorize the rebel leader’s appearance and be on the lookout for it again. Similarly, a party of soldiers could easily include a skilled tracker who might be able to lead the way back to the rebels’ den. Either could be death for a group who wants to remain secret and in the shadows.

Decide from the beginning what your group’s modus operandi is, and then pick tactics that fit it.

4) Be prepared to keep track of spies, contacts, and informants. A lot of fantasies spin tales of rebels who live a double life. By night, they work against the evil empire; by day, they’re ordinary citizens, or scribes of the evil empire, or even high-ranking nobles who look for important information and pass it on.

This can work, but it has the same peril as other fantasies with mystery and intrigue at their heart: the author can start dropping threads, and making the characters know things they shouldn’t know, or learn too much by coincidence, or let them walk out of situations where they should have been trapped.

Spying is, and should be, perilous, especially if the evil empire has spies of its own, mind-reading magic, and so on. Unfortunately, in too many fantasies the author wants the aura of danger without ever letting anything bad happen to her characters. (Just like the way many fantasies treat “uncontrollable” magic, really). Let a spy come close to being caught, especially if she’s continued for a while without a mistake and gets overconfident. Let someone figure out that it’s very odd, isn’t it, that she leaves her home every full moon night for two hours and returns at the exact same time, every month. Let someone at least try to follow her; some spies never get followed despite an utter lack of precautions, which bewilders me. The rebels shouldn’t be so superior in the spy department that the evil empire’s agents never suspect anything, or I’m going to question why they didn’t win a long time ago.

Also, take note of realistic motives for spies as well as for rebels. If they simply pass along information, they might not be deep into the rebellion—in fact, they might have been kept ignorant for everyone’s protection, including their own—and might not believe in the same deep ideals the rebels do. If they only meet with their contacts, they might not know the ultimate destination of their secrets. And if the evil empire comes along and offers them a sweeter deal, or just tries to hire them without knowing they’re spies for the other side, why wouldn’t they become double agents? That’s another thing most fantasies lack, as well. The spies working for the rebel side are always right, and if they turn to the evil empire they’re dirty traitors. There seems to be a distant lack of cynical, observant people who just want money, even though being a professional eavesdropper would seem to breed cynicism like nobody’s business.

5) Keep up good relations with the neighbors. I’m sure that villagers who are trying desperately to make a living from the land just adore rebels trampling through their fields and yelling at them about how they should fight the evil queen.

One thing that guerilla warriors need is a good knowledge of the land, and the ability to disappear into it effectively. That advantage goes to nil if the people who live on the land, farming it or hunting it or otherwise occupying it, don’t like them and willingly give their location away to the evil queen.

Here is another reason not to have a teeth-gratingly stupid or offensive person as the rebel leader, or as the liaison with the villagers. After two minutes with some of the people the authors put in their rebel groups, I’d march straight up to the evil queen’s palace and betray them, too.

On the other hand, it’s possible for a relationship between rebels and villagers to work out. If, say, the rebels rob the queen’s soldiers and then spread the money around in the village, or give it away freely, then the villagers are much more likely to make round eyes at the searchers and shake their heads. “Rebels around here? Nope, nope, never seen one.” Or perhaps the rebels help them with their farming, foraging, hunting, or child-raising. They can’t plot forever in smoky rooms, after all, and as well as increasing good-will with the villagers, it could help with their cover. “That man is Rebel Leader Bob? You must be joking, Officer. He’s Robb the Half-Wit, who comes in every morning to chop our wood.”

There’s really no reason to make rebels Speshul and the villagers stupid. They can and should share what’s safe to share.



A second part on this tomorrow. I have a lot to babble about on it.




(Post a new comment)


[info]tavalya_ra
2004-08-03 08:13 pm UTC (link)
I am really glad you wrote this rant.

I've got a rebel group that's realizing people might start to starve considering the way food is being distributed, doesn't want to fight in a war with another country across the ocean, doesn't like the caste-like system of unequal taxtation, and was started by someone who says the current system of government is against her religion.

They aren't the Speshul Group. They're the guys getting pissed off at the Speshul Group for telling them that they aren't speshul.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]limyaael
2004-08-04 12:00 pm UTC (link)
That sounds great. Are they going to attack Tarena? Or some other place?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]tavalya_ra
2004-08-04 08:21 pm UTC (link)
Tarena. The witches get to run the government for no other reason than that they are witches and some people are getting sick of it.

There's going to be so much chaos there... it's going to be fun!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]sabotabby
2004-08-03 08:24 pm UTC (link)
Ooooh, one of my favourite topics! (And has nothing to do with the fact that much of what I write has some sort of rebel group or equivalent in it.)

There's enough real-life examples that one should be able to convincingly write a rebellion, but I'm trying to think of the last time I saw it handled well in fantasy. (Sci-fi is a different matter. Red Mars made me drool, for instance.)

I would absolutely love to read a story where a hero rushes in to join the rebellion, thereby exacerbating already existing tensions and causing the group to splinter and fall apart and break into factions, as so many rebel groups do. That'd be so much more interesting than Evil Overlord versus Noble Rebels.

Point five made me think of the relationship between the Zapatistas and the Mayan villagers in Chiapas. Most of the villages are not inhabited by the Zapatistas themselves (they live in the mountains), but they supply food and shelter to the guerrillas when the occasion demands it, because they have good reasons for sympathizing -- the Zapatistas promise political independence and tangible improvements in their quality of life. On occasion, government troops have massacred innocent civilians because they live in Zapatista-friendly villages, giving the peasants another good reason to sympathize with the rebellion (and conversely, a good motive for an individual to give a fighter up because he's concerned for his family's safety).

And then there are villages that support the government (for various reasons) or some other faction (usually because people in that faction come from that particular village). It ticks me off when there's only one generic village in a fantasy kingdom, anyway.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]limyaael
2004-08-04 12:02 pm UTC (link)
One place in fantasy I did see it handled realistically (as in consequences, not as in letting the rebels win) is Steven Brust's Teckla. There's a group of humans and lower-caste nonhumans who quite rightly feel they've been treated unjustly, and having got hold of a Marxist-like book of ideas, are rebelling. The problem is that the Empire they're rebelling against is not only vastly better-armed and trained, but is destined, by the world's metaphysics, to continue ruling for thousands more years. It's heartbreaking to see the rebels struggle. But they're also very practical, and do things (like offer reading lessons to the poor) that could eventually make a difference.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]jetamors
2004-08-03 08:29 pm UTC (link)
Good rant, but I'm not sure I agree with the example you used in #3. The question isn't whether or not the Ebil Rulers know that Serpent is the leader of the rebels, it's a question of whether the ERs know who Serpent really is. Having a symbol, especially if it's taken up by the populace at large, can be very effective as a propaganda tool and a way to strike fear into the ERs. I guess you're talking about people who would sign "John Smith, who lives at 101 Dumbbutt Lane", but I haven't really seen that in my reading.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]limyaael
2004-08-04 12:04 pm UTC (link)
Sure, it could be effective if they didn't know who the Serpent really was, but if the hero's name means Serpent in his native language, or if he's called "John Serpentflower" or something, then they know exactly who they're looking for. It's like trying to hide with the alias Emily when your real name is Emilia. I wouldn't choose a name or symbol that's so close to mine if I really want to remain hidden.

The Dark Mark always strikes me as kind of an example of this. The Death Eaters are apparently supposed to be secret, since they wear masks and so on, but they have a unique symbol on their freaking left arms. Come on! Why not at least locate it on the inner thigh or somewhere it's less likely to be discovered? All someone really has to do to reveal a suspected Death Eater is stun him and roll his sleeve up.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]jetamors
2004-08-04 01:56 pm UTC (link)
Ah, that makes sense then. I guess I haven't been reading the right wrong books then.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]robling_t
2004-08-04 07:54 pm UTC (link)
Why not at least locate it on the inner thigh or somewhere it's less likely to be discovered?

Because it's nominally YA and that's a bad pornfic just waiting to happen... :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]tavalya_ra
2004-08-04 08:26 pm UTC (link)
It would be an interesting pick up line.

"Hey, baby, can I see if you're a Death Eater?"

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Anonymous)
2004-08-09 01:52 pm UTC (link)
I think they got the mark when Voldemort was terrifying the wizard community. I mean, there was a time when everyone was scared to death (bad pun) of them, they didn't even have to hide anymore.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]farmercuerden
2005-03-07 07:43 am UTC (link)
Doesn't Snape's mark reappear at some point around Book 4? That'd imply that the Dark Mark was usually invisible.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]diannaskye
2006-11-30 12:54 pm UTC (link)
It was only invisible because Voldie was...dead(ish)...
And it was visible, just not very strong; it was faded. As Voldie got more powerful, the mark burned and darkened and such.
Despite my hatred of JKR and her awful writing, she did do something right (Snape) so I know a fair bit of cannon...
Did I mention I write HP fanfic sometimes, when I'm really bored?

And yes, I know this is like a year late, but forgive me for my ignorance of Limyaael until six days ago...

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]draegonhawke
2004-08-03 08:52 pm UTC (link)
Really, just once, I'd like to read about an evil group of rebels comitted to tearing down a society that's worked its butt off for the welfare of its citizens--and all because the rebels are some elitist class that's not going to get special treatment anymore. Or something.

Why is it that rebels are all automatically good?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]jetamors
2004-08-03 08:55 pm UTC (link)
There's the Death Eaters in Harry Potter.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]draegonhawke
2004-08-04 12:02 am UTC (link)
Point taken. Still, the vast majority....

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]mysticpenguin
2004-08-03 11:33 pm UTC (link)
I know that it was aimed at fantasy writers, but I just couldn't help thinking of Star Wars as I read that. I think that a lot of recent writers get their ideas of revolution from George Lucas--it's just there, it's dualistic, and it has no warts or plan for what happens afterward. What really irks me is the assumption most fantasy stories make, that the rebellion is something noble and romantic. Fighting is fighting.

One of the characters in the project I'm chewing over right now used to be highly-placed in a gang of nationalist thugs that was largely modeled on the Irish Republican Army and Hamas. His group causes more trouble than the people it's protesting do. There's no real master plan to their rebellion than a vague hope that if they make enough of a mess, the couple thousand foreign troops based in the area will leave. In his mind, he's the Hope of His People. I really don't think that many of them were hoping for the sort of monster who doesn't feel sorry about bombing a busy public square. The area where the "freedom fighters" are centered is close to evenly divided on the issue of whether the rebels or the foreigners should go away. The whole thing is just violent, ugly, and really rather childish.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]limyaael
2004-08-04 12:07 pm UTC (link)
What really irks me is the assumption most fantasy stories make, that the rebellion is something noble and romantic. Fighting is fighting.

Exactly. It's like the assumption that one king has to be better than the other just because he's got the right blood. It really doesn't make sense when you look at it from a slight distance.

I think many fantasy authors who write rebellions have "underdog" syndrome: someone must be right if he's outnumbered and the member of a persecuted group. Well, not always. The two groups you mentioned can't be seen as winning all their struggles, but they're surely not holy and righteous either.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]vulgarweed
2004-08-04 02:40 am UTC (link)
Yay! Great!

I've always hoped to see something like the Contras in fantasy--you know, the counterrevolutionaries who look all grungy and heroic but are funded by a shadowy Over-overlord....

say....

where are all the counterrevolutionary populists? You know, the ones who think the deal the 'heroic' rebels are offering would no doubt be worse, and so back the monarchy 'cause at least they get squares?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]limyaael
2004-08-04 12:07 pm UTC (link)
I don't know where the counterrevolutionaries are. The same place all the non-stupid evil spies went, I think.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]robling_t
2004-08-04 08:05 pm UTC (link)
Or perhaps the person who sent them wasn’t the queen, but a mage hiding out in the hills. The heroine joins the rebels because the rebels are in the hills, and uses her magic to kill the mage’s friends and hurt him…

Because that’s just what he did to her family.

Wait. Something’s not right there.



Ehh, welcome to George Bush's America. Kidding aside, one does get the impression that too many writers bring in the rebellion idea because it "looks cool", without turning to the volumes and volumes of historical examples of how rebellions of various natures have played out -- sometimes you get the American Revolution, sometimes you get Che Guevara, and sometimes, alas, you get Osama bin Laden. No shortage of models out there they could be using, but no, it's always Luke and Vader.

(Reply to this)


[info]sparrow_wings
2004-08-05 03:57 pm UTC (link)
What really irks me is the assumption most fantasy stories make, that the rebellion is something noble and romantic. Fighting is fighting.

Completely agreed.

Actually, I have a couple of rebel situations going... In the first one, the government (technically an absolute monarchy) tries to be nice most of the time, but they smack down rebellions like that. They feel bad, but they figure that anyone who takes up arms against an established government is at least theoretically prepared to die.

In the second one, the current king killed the previous king and his immediate family, except for one daughter who went into hiding quickly enough. Now, the dead king's family and old allies are making trouble for the new king, and the main character objects to that because he's friends with the new king's son. [shrug] That's all. I'm going to try and keep it straightforward and unromantic.

(Reply to this)

Freedom fighters vs. Terrorists
[info]caremel
2005-05-30 01:41 am UTC (link)
Another problem with rebels is the fact that they very often one dimentional, when in the real world the issues are so much more complicated. Think of the IRA. The Irish consider them freedom fighters. The English, terrorists. What is to differentiate them in your world? in any world? Just something to ponder...

(Reply to this)


[info]waywardoctagon
2007-05-16 12:49 am UTC (link)
In that case, the better trick would be to a leave a symbol that’s not so easily identifiable, and make themselves true shadows. Let their enemies spin complicated and confused theories about them rather than handing them the keys to the mystery gate

Or even have multiple symbols/means of death that they use, that seem full of meaning but actually aren't (and have them not start doing all these things at the same time, but rather stagger them somewhat). So you have the rulers/whatever thinking that there's multiple groups with multiple agendas--that the Order of the Whisker is going around strangling priests and leaving a violin bow behind (and possibly issuing a manifesto about religious persecution), while the Waterfall Brethren drown nobles and always cut off their left thumb, and meanwhile there's a rash of merchants being mugged and killed, apparently for their money, with no calling cards being left behind. But actually, there's one group behind all this, and their goal is to get rid of people with power and certain veiwpoints. The strangling and violin bows and drowning and thumbs seem to have symbolic significance, but it's all smoke and mirrors. And making the merchant ones seem unrelated to each other further conceals the group's true motives, until someone happens to connect the dots.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…