i’m kind of against kings in fantasy because i feel like most people don’t really think about them: either it’s a Tolkien-esque “the King has returned again!” or they’re just sort of…there b/c this is Fantasy, we do Kings, but have they considered
- dying kings, king-of-the-year, the king who has to fight every year to reclaim his throne, the king who knows that he’s only king for as long as he keeps his strength
- the king and the land are one, but not, like, in a triumphant way, in a way where the land claims the king for its own
- a king who must be physically perfect (the king is not physically perfect and has to hide it)
- the divine king and what it would mean to actually be ruled by a god
@torablaze said “I don’t know what’s wrong with traditional kings and kingdoms. They have existed and still exist in some parts of the world. So, why are you supposed to write bullshit kings/kingdoms when you can just use what historical ones have been like?”
1. Because the point of fantasy is to do things that aren’t like the way they were done in history. and besides, no one does medieval kings the way they actually were done in history, so you might as well make shit up.
2.
- The concept of the dying king has a long tradition behind it
- The Fisher King’s health is linked to his land’s
- Having lost his arm, Nuada was no longer eligible for kingship due to the Tuatha Dé tradition that their king must be physically perfect, and he was replaced as king
- Divine kingship was one of the fundamental tenets of ancient Egyptian religion
Links to follow up on.