The novel uses 'language analogs,' the use of specific real-world languages to represent individual languages of Gaearth. So far, these are the various languages in D&D and their real-world counterparts used by characters in the novel so far:
English: Common
French: Draconian; Arcane & Magical texts
Esperanto: Ancient Common
Greek & Latin: Ancient religious texts and names
German: Mountain species including Dwarves, Trolls and Giants but not Orcs. Orcs on Gaearth use an adapted version of Elvish
Elven: Elven (yep, using Tolkien for this and there are online translators of course)
This might be a bit confusing, or amusing, for some readers. But to complicate things further we have to also contend with D&D's problematic use of the term 'race' to describe both different species (physical traits) and cultural norms/practices (social constructs). Are languages based on race (whatever that is)? Region? Species? Are there languages exclusive to religious or arcane practitioners? If elves and humans can have kids that can have kids, doesn't that mean they are the same species?
And then of course there's the unavoidable fact that humans are coded as culturally white, the standard from which all other 'races' are stereotypes of the biases and aspirations of the ‘norm’. Consider the term ‘demi-human’ used in early editions of the game to describe all the non-human ‘races’. “Demi” usually means ‘half’ in French. Except when it’s used to describe people. When used in that manner, it is an insult indicating less than whole, lacking, second-rate, etc. Add to this the complete lack of any non-white human characters in any of the illustrations in any of the books in the first two editions of the game,[1] and we can see that D&D has handled ‘race’ poorly in a number of ways in the past.
For sure, WotC has made huge strides in acknowledging this and with each revision, I believe, they have made the game more and more accessible to a more diverse audience, with more diverse creatives shaping and reshaping the fantasy genre, an effort surpassed in intensity and size by the fanbase itself and creatives outside of WotC. I mean, it's called "fantasy" -that's a genre, which by definition, should be limitless in possibility.
One would hope.
During the course of writing this novel WotC made the decision to drop the term ‘race’ in place of ‘species’ to delineate the various sentient beings in D&D. I think it’s the right call and reflects the enormous differences of physiology, life-spans, etc. as not different races of the same species, but entirely different species, ostensibly, each with their own lineage or descent. Each with their own diverse social and cultural adaptations and not monolithic.
I applaud WotC's replacement of race with species in recent editions of D&D. Associating the word 'race,' a social construct, with very real physical differences (in ability, appearances, strength, intellectual capacity) between the many peoples that populate D&D, is problematic as it reinforces the notion of 'race' being something that can be identified biologically. Worse, early D&D imagery often used negative stereotypical, physical, and cultural depictions of real humans on earth as stand-ins for these race/species. And not for nothing, but suggesting that an entire race is monolithically 'evil' and essentially can be killed on site by other races... that always seemed weird and also explains why "Murder Hobos" is not just a great band name but also an accurate description of D&D adventurers in many cases.
In the real world, 'race' is a social construct and always defined by those with the greatest political and economic power within a society. Its use by Tolkien and other authors of epic, generation-spanning tales to describe a unifying concept among a people is not without its own problems given that the races of 'men and elves' bear great similarity to the ideals and failures of Europe, while dark skinned barbaric raiders from the south who must be defeated at all costs lest the race of men die out... well, it's all a bit too on the nose for me (and yes, I still love the books and no, I don’t believe this was an overt metaphor, but far more an example of how dominant ideologies can influence art).
Problem for me is, I’ve been playing the game for 40+ years and have worked on the novel off and on since 2014. Hell, the title of the Prologue is a joke entirely reliant upon this problematic usage of race in the game’s history.
Since race is complicated, its use in this book will be complicated too. It will be used by some characters to distinguish species (Elf from Dwarf), it will be used by others to distinguish between different socio-cultural groups within the same species (groups often marked my consistent phenotypical differences throughout such as skin color, hair or scale colors, pointy tail or fuzzy tail, etc.).
There are no monolithic species in Misfits. Some individual species’ histories often suggest otherwise but written history should not be entirely trusted. I know. I'm an archaeologist. Hell, the Drow in Gaearth are not only not 'evil' but just may be keepers of the real story behind why the Sun and Moon elves went their separate ways tens of thousands of years ago (hint: the First of the Sun Elves was a real dick). But you'll need to read the novel(s) to learn more about all that.
I will, however, rarely use the word 'species' in the book. Not only because it's a term that sort of takes you out of the story cuz it's all 'scienc(e)y,' but also because even 'species' is a bit of a misnomer for what we used to call 'race' in D&D. One of the basic premises of 'speciation,' defining a new species, or determining separate species between very similar animals, is whether or not an individual from each group in question can procreate successfully and if that child can also successfully procreate. This indicates enough genetic resemblance to describe the two animals as of the same species and not simply similar ones (See Ligers, for example, for just how complicated it is to determine 'species' in hybrid breeding).
As ludicrous as it sounds, Lions and Tigers are not the same species, but Chihuahuas and Great Danes are. Nevertheless, breeding the latter two together is still probably a bad and painful idea.
On Gaearth (and in D&D) it seems that most sentient bi-pedal species can have kids together that can go on and have kids. This suggests that all bipedal humanoids might be of the same species according to our real-world definition of species. Hell, they don't even have to be both bipedal. How did the Centaur happen? And let's not forget that while Rocco's mother was a witch (and human) his father was a dragon. How does that even work?
It works. In works on Gaearth. It works in D&D and the answer as to how is ... magic.
Life is magic - science doesn't fully understand whatever the hell being 'alive' or 'conscious' is. Love is absolutely magical in that Love can cause intense emotional reaction leading to taking action in the real world. Love can leave us feeling blessed or cursed, move us to make sacrifices or even take our own lives; it's a spell cast with words and touch that can lead to real physical changes in our lived worlds that physics does not even begin to explain.
Love always strains to transcend any limits placed upon it - we love who we love whether others approve or not. Love empowers us to fight for our love to be recognized regardless of whom we have chosen as our better halves.
Love knows no bounds on Gaearth, and with a healthy dose of magic it can bring the bestest and most beautiful bits of diverse populations together adding to the rainbow-ringed planet's description-defying diversity. Concepts like race, species, or even language are all transcended by the eternal and infinite power of love and magic on Gaearth.
Which is how you know this is a fantasy novel.
References[]
- ↑ Tresca, M. J. (2014). The Evolution of Fantasy Role-Playing Games. United States: McFarland, Incorporated, Publishers.
