Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

In working with revisions for SAND, I've been dealing with adjustments to the world's history, particularly the passage of time between past events and current plot. When first written, I used the passage of centuries to explain the loss of critical knowledge because my younger self viewed knowledge—especially critical knowledge—as resilient and enduring. In revisions, the passage of time is less than three generations because I now know knowledge is fragile and our ability to hold it tenuous.

The loss of skills-based knowledge is easy to see. My grandmother, living in the backwoods of Kentucky Appalachia, knew how to preserve food and dress game. My mother, living in California's suburbs, had no need to preserve food, raise her own meats, or hunt and dress game. Thus I lived most of my life without that knowledge.  Most folks today can't imagine slaughtering, cleaning, and butchering their own chickens. Most folks can't successfully quarter a chicken.

Sure, it's easy to say those skills don't matter in modern life. We've so specialized labor that we no longer need to know how to raise chickens for food. Tyson does it for us. But imagine what those skills would be worth if food-supply specialization became prohibitively expensive for average folks. Imagine what our grandchildren would think of us, letting knowledge that enhances survival go by the wayside so quickly, so easily. But we, living in the middle of that loss, really don't see the problem. To us, it's more important to navigate social media than preserve vegetables. That's not a judgment; it's a

T h ere was a deeper knowledge that drove past skills acquisition, and that knowledge is being lost as well. My grandmother didn't preserve food because she wanted to live a simpler life, or provide her family with healthy alternatives to processed foods, or because it was Next Cool Thing. She preserved food because she lived in a time when there were patterns of plenty and scarcity. If she didn't gather and preserve what was ripe, when it was ripe, her family wouldn't have it to eat the next month. It was simply a known fact that not everything could be had at any future time of want.

B u t the type of knowledge I've been musing about, the knowledge lost in SAND's backstory, is more historical and fact-based. Despite our modern means of storing and exchanging information, this knowledge too is fragile, changeable, and ephemeral. Small groups of people can still successfully hide information and divert attention. Large groups of people can decide which facts get repeated, and which facts get ignored, by deciding to "Like" and "retweet." We can see videos uploaded from folks in the midst of the Syrian uprising, but we don't know what decisions are being made by those holding power over Syria. We may never know. That knowledge will be lost.

I recently read an online discussion about bad clichés in fantasy. The lost sword/book of spells/heir to all things was singled out as particularly silly. One commenter asked how you could just misplace something so obviously important.

Well, we did lose Richard III for centuries. It's suspected the knowledge of his resting place was forgotten within a mere hundred years or so or his death.

If but half a dozen people know where The Secret Thing is hidden, it takes a couple bullets, a pair of fatal accidents, a bad case of pneumonia and one suicide to ensure The Secret Thing is lost forever. If Bob is the only one in the family who knows his sister's kid is actually the result of a one-night-stand with Big Politician, Bob can ensure the knowledge dies with him. If my character's grandfather didn't want his granddaughter to learn the Secret Handshake, the girl isn't going to learn it. She may grow up knowing a Secret Handshake once existed, but she won't know what it is.

Truth is, it's easy-peasy to lose things and the knowledge of things—particularly important things, because we don't necessarily use them on a day-to-day basis—and almost as easy to deliberately hide knowledge, at least for a time.

So the relevant backstory for SAND is far more compressed than the previous version. Everything is more immediate, which makes the interactions and conflicts far more personal as well. And I find myself thinking about how our own histories will be remembered based upon what knowledge we choose to pass on to our children, about the impact time has on what gets retold or withheld, and about the ways we determine what will be important to the future based upon what we know of the present.

In other news, it's snowing tonight.


( 6 comments — Leave a comment )
Mar. 6th, 2013 02:04 am (UTC)
Each generation of a family grows up so differently than the one before. I don't think it would take long at all for knowledge to be lost...along with artifacts, personal effects, etc.

I know I often say that my kids have missed out on so much by growing up in California, in an environment so different from the one in which I was raised. But, I hadn't really stopped to think about lost knowledge except in the case that I always wish for recipes my mom had handwritten and tucked inside her Betty Crocker cookbook.

You write the best and most thought-provoking posts. :D
Mar. 6th, 2013 04:00 am (UTC)
Glad it provoked! Er, you know what I mean. :)

There are so many things we never think to tell our kids. I don't think we can tell our kids everything we'd like, actually. We simply run out of time.
Mar. 6th, 2013 02:24 am (UTC)
The real problem with the lost heir is that there is no way he's got the education he needs to be a good monarch.
Mar. 6th, 2013 04:05 am (UTC)
Eh, yes and no. It depends upon what the heir is to govern and how much power is afforded his role.
Mar. 6th, 2013 05:08 pm (UTC)
Then there's also the problem of personal recall-- if the person who hid the magic sword comes back 20 years later & can't work out what tree it's buried under, then you've lost that in one generation.

I have this amazing journal/letter-to-my-father that has all sorts of useful detail from my first months, and not only had my father forgotten it existed, but my mother didn't remember a bunch of the details that were useful in the sense of being potentially relevant to future generations.

My (unresearched) understanding is that societies with strictly oral traditions also have a lot of mutability as a feature-- if the records are kept by someone who can change history to suit the situation, then they can (theoretically) use that to the advantage of the community (and the frustration of anthropologists.)
Mar. 6th, 2013 06:59 pm (UTC)
Then there's also the problem of personal recall

Combine that with the potential malleability that comes with oral tradition...

And what a great find that journal of yours is!
( 6 comments — Leave a comment )


Blair MacGregor

Latest Month

May 2017


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner