I have been reading a number of historical/medieval fantasy novels recently, and there are a few particular issues that have irked me.

I find that too many modern authors are trying too hard to emphasize on the mannerism of people living in such a time, to the extend that it starts to affect the story in a negative manner.

The biggest issue with most of these novels is they have a tendency to stereotype characters based on their ethnic origin. A barbarian must be depicted as an uncouth and savage ape and an easterner must be depicted as effeminate and full of intrigue.

Why can't a barbarian king be as cultured as an aristocrats of the richest Empire? Why can't an easterner be more warlike than most people in the west? The stereotyping of characters have practically destroyed any potential of having interesting characters in the story.

There is also a tendency to over emphasize certain manner of speech in a particular era. Such misuse will result in the story and plot setting feeling rather artificial to the readers.

Such problems is especially prominent in a number of author's works. Harry Turtledove, Dave Drake and Eric Flint are some of the authors I have in mind when it comes to their rather boring attempt at portraying ancient and medieval era in fiction.

What are the particular issues irked you when you are reading a medieval (fantasy) world?

 

Two things immediately diminish my enjoyment of stories set in medieval times:

Horses being treated as essentially living cars. You get on, you ride to your destination, you park and get off. They never spook, buck, stumble, shit, sweat, or require care or feeding.

Shoddy descriptions of sword fights. Seriously, would it kill people to do a bit of research? Nine times out of ten, the battles come off campy and unrealistic with moves or techniques nobody would ever use in a real sword battle.

 

A rather traditional cliche, but I find it annoying when the main character(s) in ye olden times nevertheless tend to have more modern, Western social, political, economic ideas.

 

To give props to a local who did a damn good job of it:
https://forums.darklordpotter.net/showthread.php?t=17637

Grinning Lizard did a realy well done historical britain (for as far as he went with it).

 

Isn't such actions often deliberate? Many authors would want to build a connection between their readers and their protagonist.

 

That, I think, is just lazy writing. Plenty of better ways to build connection. People in historical times weren't martians, they were people just like us with emotions, reactions and relationships like ours. For me the charm about historical fiction is reading about and connecting with characters who live in different societies, hold different ideas and values and make different choices. When the writer builds the connection on shared humanity and not on shared (modern) ideas that allows me to appreciate both the differencies and similarities, and discover whole new worlds of thought. That way I can understand and even identify with things I'd never do or think--because I have that connection with the character for whom his/her choices and actions make perfect sense.

 

I for one don't particularly like medieval settings that much when they're too realistic. All the rape and murder and completely backwards cultures in ASoIaF gets old real quick, for example. Though at the same time I think a few things from ASoIaF could stand to be transferred to, say, the Wheel of Time or Lord of the Rings settings.

 

That I can agree with. Too many modern authors seem to willingly to highlight the crude and barbarian aspect of many medieval/fantasy culture, to the extend it becomes unrealistic.

It is certainly weird to imagine aristocrats speaking to one another in such a frank and crude manner.