In which I get hung up on worldbuilding

[luzula]

I'm so confused by the worldbuilding in the book I'm currently reading. I'm reading it for my book club; it is Alix E. Harrow's The Once and Future Witches, set in fantasy New England in 1893. The main worldbuilding premise is: witchcraft exists, and is persecuted (also there are suffragettes).

There is casual mention of saints, priests, nuns and monks in a way that implies that Catholicism is the dominant religion. My first theory about this was that the Reformation never happened in this world, but that doesn't hold water, because there's an off-hand mention of a Quaker. My next theory was that perhaps most of the Catholics in England were driven to emigrate to America, instead of the Protestant Dissenters? But that doesn't work, because there's mention of the Georgian Inquisition, implying that England's government is Catholic in the 18th century. (And by the way, the term "Georgian Inquisition" is not a great idea, because the reason the Georges were on the throne in the first place is to make sure the monarch was a Protestant.) So I suppose my theory is now that the Reformation happened, but was unsuccessful in England and the country remained Catholic, with a minority of Protestant movements like the Quakers.

I probably was not meant to think so much about this (and I might not have if I was more gripped by the book in general), but I can't help it! It's unclear to me why the author chose to make Catholicism the dominant religion. I hope it's not because they thought that Protestants did not persecute witches? Surely not. But why, then? I really can't see any connection at all to what's going on in the story. Is this just very random worldbuilding? Will it all make sense later in the book? Am I too picky about worldbuilding?

Comments

[chestnut_pod]

I read this book a few months back, and I felt like it was very clearly an American cultural Christian who isn't that religious or knowledgeable about religion in general taking what she knew about awful American Protestantism, filtering it through a reading of Atwood, and being like but what if Sexy Organizational Structure. And thus, just kind of not ending up with any coherent theology other than Typical Puritan Misogyny, but Aesthetic and Without Coherent Historical Justification. I feel relatively certain that it is not meant to be Catholicism; rather, it's just kind of a flail in the general direction of history and trope.

[luzula]

Ah, okay. I am not in fact particularly knowledgeable about different Christian denominations, but still, this is driving me nuts.

I think this book is just not for me in other ways as well--it's sort of over-dramatic in a way that doesn't appeal to me.

[desireearmfeldt]

I had a similar reaction when reading Red, White and Royal Blue for a bookclub: it's a romance between the Prince of Wales and the son of a US president (modern setting), and I was left feeling that maybe the author had seen some movies set in England or something but didn't really know or care much about England or its monarchy and history. Pretty off-putting for me, but I mentioned this to a friend recently, who said they'd enjoyed the book as a fluffy fantasy and not been bothered by that issue.

[luzula]

When I read published books with bad worldbuilding/setting/fact-checking, I just wonder what went on with the editing! There are fanfic writers who are sooo much more careful about that sort of thing than many published books...

Like, one would assume with the book you mention, the publisher would have had someone Britpick it.

[desireearmfeldt]

I'm not sure there was anything outright incorrect/in need of fact-checking or Britpicking (it was a while ago and I wasn't trying to fact-check it myself). It was just kind of...thin and generic. I think "weak worldbuilding" is more like a high-level editing issue -- and to be fair, not all books are all about the worldbuilding. (And not all readers care a lot about worldbuilding. Actually, I wouldn't call myself a reader who is all about the worldbuilding -- I'm pretty sure it's less important to me than it is to you, for example -- but apparently I am further along the bell curve than I imagine. :) As an author, I am the pits at worldbuilding, sadly.)

[luzula]

Ah, okay. Yes, thin and generic setting/worldbuilding is a another issue, I guess. And perhaps I do appreciate rich and coherent worldbuilding more than the average reader!

[garonne]

I had a very similar reaction to that "Red, White and Royal Blue" book. Interesting to see I wasn't the only one.

I think what bothered me was that all the drama and PR consequences and public reaction was on the US side. I mean, why make one of the characters the Prince of Wales if you're not going to address the repercussions on the British side? The Prince character could have been the son of a rich British businessperson or a British diplomat or something, and the plot would have been pretty much the same...

[chestnut_pod]

I believe I described it as Ready Player One for 1880s kids. There's a lot there, but in a "spaghetti thrown at wall" sort of way.

[princessofgeeks]

Well, that would really annoy me if I were reading the book!

[regshoe]

That is very strange! I've not read the book, but it sounds as though you may be putting more thought into this than the author did... (good point about the Protestant Georges too, heh). Perhaps they just thought Catholicism made for a better aesthetic for the bad guys?

Thinking about it, the idea that real witchcraft in a world where that exists would be treated in basically the same way as actual historical accusations of witchcraft sounds a bit odd too. Surely that would have influenced religious history more dramatically? Hmm, alternate histories, so many questions...

[luzula]

Thinking about it, the idea that real witchcraft in a world where that exists would be treated in basically the same way as actual historical accusations of witchcraft sounds a bit odd too. Surely that would have influenced religious history more dramatically? Hmm, alternate histories, so many questions...

I think, for worldbuilding like this, you've got to grant the basic premise. Like, I enjoy Temeraire's "Napoleonic wars but with dragons" worldbuilding a lot, but if there were actually dragons affecting history, there would likely not be a Napoleon at all, because history would have gone so differently. But I am happy to suspend disbelief on that, and just proceed from that point on, as long as the worldbuilding is coherent and relevant to the story. But in the witch book it was neither...

[sage]

Oh, wow. Thank you for this post. That sort of thing drives me crazy, as I've got a fair knowledge of the historical setting, and this book has been on my "maybe track it down" list for a while. I still might, but at least now I know it's going to take extra suspension of disbelief to get through it.

Hi! I hope you're doing well!

[luzula]

Glad to be of help, and glad to see I'm not the only one bothered by this sort of thing!

And hi! : ) Yes, reasonably well, given everything.

[princessofgeeks]

You are right; this makes no sense at all. Would that there was an author interview 'splaining all this. Because they've got some 'splaining to do.

[luzula]

I think I'm coming to the book with different expectations than the author intended--I expected it to make sense from an alternate history standpoint (given that it's clearly set in a version of today's world, with places and people that are the same). But I think the author just made changes that they liked, without much caring about how those changes would hang together or how they might arise...

[starshipfox]

I read part of her first book and dropped it because the world-building was so poorly conceived -- so if you are too picky about world building, I certainly am as well!

[luzula]

Well, glad I'm not the only one...

[oursin]

This is something that bugs me even with otherwise well-worked through alt-history - 'if X change, how come still Y at such and such a point in history?'

But this sounds entirely all over the place. (As opposed to just throwing the whole thing up in the air, as with Joan Aiken's Stuart monarchy threatened by Hanoverian conspirators.)

I suppose one could not posit that Anglicanism remained a whole lot Higher than it historically did, or that the Tractarian movement was a lot more sweeping than it was?

[luzula]

Thinking about it more, I don't think the author worked it through in the way that I tried to do--it's probably not intended as alternate history. Probably they just made changes that they liked, without much caring about how those changes would hang together or how they might arise. Ah well.

Thanks for reminding me about the Aiken book! I'd heard of it before, but haven't read it yet. *bumps up reading list*

This is something that bugs me even with otherwise well-worked through alt-history - 'if X change, how come still Y at such and such a point in history?'

Yes--I suppose you have to grant the basic premise. For example, I enjoy Temeraire's "Napoleonic wars but with dragons" worldbuilding, but if there were actually dragons affecting history, there would likely not be a Napoleon at all, because history would have gone so differently. But I am happy to suspend disbelief on that, and just proceed from that point on, as long as the worldbuilding is coherent and interesting and relevant to the story.

[nnozomi]

This is a super interesting post! I don't know enough to comment on the specifics, but I am fascinated by the discussion. (In not unrelated news, I have recently been a) trying to write a couple of books where magic is an established fact and interacts differently with different religions, and b) translating a book about the historical long-term systematic persecution of Catholics (of a sort) in Japan. Which makes me think that "Inquisition" in context doesn't absolutely have to be directed by Catholics against others?)

[luzula]

Glad you found my venting interesting! : )

I dunno, I think of the Inquisition as a Catholic thing, and would probably call it something else if done by another religion. The word itself can of course also be used just to mean inquiry/investigation. But also, as I understand it, it was directed at heresies within the Church, not against other religions! Like, I don't think the Inquisition came for you if you were a Jew or a Muslim (not to say that you wouldn't be persecuted, but in a different way, I would think).

Er, a caveat here that I am far from an expert about this...

[garonne]

That sounds crazy, but also very interesting to think about.

Actually sometimes I do enjoy reading the first third or so of such books, just to have fun puzzling out all the things that don't make sense and trying to guess what the writer had in mind, and also trying to think of ways it could maybe be fixed.

Also, I had to smile at your comment about the Georgian Inquisition. I know you have spent a certain amount of time thinking about the political and fictional ramifications of the Jameses' and Georges' religions :D

[luzula]

Actually sometimes I do enjoy reading the first third or so of such books, just to have fun puzzling out all the things that don't make sense and trying to guess what the writer had in mind, and also trying to think of ways it could maybe be fixed.

Reverse-engineering bad worldbuilding, that does sound kind of fun. : )

Ha ha, yes, the Georgian Inquisition rather made me wince!