Discussing "Obvious" Matters In-Story

[SteveW]

Hi all. I have been pondering this for a while as I've been writing my story and I was wondering if you could help.

To provide some context:
In my story, I have a unified religion that spans most of the world which worships a whole pantheon of gods - half of whom are female. The church was founded by a woman and there are just as many priestesses at the top as there are male priests.

Because of this, in all the lands where this religion is based, it has promoted gender equality. In noble families, the eldest child inherits whether they are male or female.

In terms of a time period where my story is set, it's about the same as A Song of Ice and Fire, so readers may not get why one of my main characters is the ruling lady of a noble house when she has a couple of brothers. But for my characters, this has been the norm for centuries so there is no real reason why they would discuss it without it sounding like I have just levered the explanation in.

How do you think I could introduce this concept in a natural, organic way?

Thanks.

 

[Svrtnsse]

I feel the smoothest way would be to not explain it at all. Just make the characters behave as if it's perfectly normal and leave the readers to figure it out on their own.

By explaining it, you highlight that it's something special, even if within the setting it really isn't, and that can potentially cause a disconnect between what the reader reads and the story you want to tell.

 

[Drakevarg]

Frankly, the best way to treat it like it's no big deal is to treat it like it's no big deal. History is full of exceptions to the gender norm rules and fantasy even moreso. If you simply treat it as an everyday thing in-story that nobody calls attention to, the audience will quickly catch on that this simply isn't a world where gender inequality is much of an issue.

For example, look at the Elder Scrolls series. The games never go out of their way to shout "girl power" at the player, nor do they make any out-loud judgements regarding sexuality, but the simple observation that female guards and warriors are commonplace than that every marriageable NPC in Skyrim is evidently bisexual makes a pretty strong statement that these things simply aren't taboo in that world, despite never outright calling attention to them.

Besides, people tend to exaggerate just how bad things were in the Middle Ages, usually in an attempt to feel smart by subverting Disney or whatever. It sucked for everyone in different degrees, but for example the "stay in the kitchen" stereotype for women didn't really pop up until the Industrial Revolution. Sure, noblewomen were largely bartering tools and producers of heirs, but for the common peasant lady it didn't matter what your bits were - you worked the fields with everyone else or we starved, and female shopkeeps were pretty commonplace, particularly if they inherited said shop from their husbands or fathers.

But back to the point: it's your world. If you don't treat something as weird, neither will your audience.

 

[Russ]

This is a challenging question.

Due to the fact that part of any fantasy story worth its beans is the "stranger in a strange land" aspect I do think you need to signal to the reader that something is different about this aspect of your world than it is in our history.

I think the easiest way to do this would be dialogue, perhaps about another woman inheriting because she is the eldest and an off hand comment that it was good that X (female) was the eldest and inherited the duchy or whatever because her three younger brothers are wankers and would have run the place into the ground.

So I would consider making an off hand comment to give the reader a clue.

 

[FifthView]

Along the lines of what Russ said, if one of your POV characters is a woman leader of a ruling family, you can always have a scene where she has an occasion to think about her younger brothers, who are good-for-nothing or else merely young or drawn to other pursuits than leadership. She could think to herself that her family was fortunate the day she was born first.

 

[glutton]

I would agree with the people saying to treat it like it's no big deal, I never explain that women in my stories have roughly the same potential as warriors as men, but it's obvious from how the top female warriors are portrayed ie. beastly.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

You've already given good advice. The only thing I'd add is the so what factor.

For example, I recently tried rewriting a story about bounty hunters, and I wrote it in third person instead of first. I ended up loving the new character and the dialogue between him and the mains, but I HATED the narrative.

The reason my third-person narrator sucked was, in part, because the narrator was explaining things to the reader that make my fictional world different. When I had a character narrating what she sees, she never narrated things that were obvious to her because that would mean she's thinking about it.

So for me the solution is to stick to first-person because I'm better at it than third. But for you, it may be as simple as this: only narrate what characters in your world would think about. If the glass ceiling doesn't exist, there's no equality issue, no male politicians calling themselves "pro-women," no feminism—equality is just the way things are. You could simply represent that through priestesses and priests, kings and queens being equal in number.

 

[FifthView]

EVERYONE knows that heads and tails on a coin are utterly equal. This doesn't mean that no one will rejoice when a flip lands on heads. Or tails.

Am I the only one who has experienced, many times in my life, being locked into a conversation with interlocutors who could say nothing but the utterly obvious? Am I so unfortunate?

 

[FifthView]

I hope that last comment didn't come out too flippant. It wasn't directed at any other comment in the thread, just some general observations. I think that just because something is "obvious" doesn't mean it will never be discussed or have great bearing on the lives of individuals. For instance, it's obvious that on Earth the sun rises in the East; but if I'm showing my new home's foundation and framework to a friend, the fact that I've designed it so that my bedroom faces East, in order to capture the morning sun, might come up during conversation.

One of the problems may be in knowing, as author, that an entire society might have certain features in toto, but very few characters within that world will have the personality type or reason for looking at their own society from such a broad view. Most will have no occasion for thinking that, hey, women and men can equally rise to top positions in government and the cult/religion. But nonetheless, particular features of that potential may still have great bearing on individual lives. For instance, the ambitious minor noble might rue the fact that his wife has given him only sons if the heir to the throne is an unmarried man: no chance for gaining position by marrying off a child to that heir. And so forth.*

While thinking about this thread, I started imagining a comical/witty conversation between two commoners, perhaps at a tavern over ale, in which one laments the fact that eldest children inherit leadership in the nobility. Sometimes the eldest is plain stupid. And wouldn't it be better, anyway, if the prettiest person always inherited? They could always gain more support among followers, who would have more desire to follow them. Besides, they are better to look at during celebrations, up on the throne. To which his companion would say, You would have only men inherit! And he'd rebut, Nope, only the pretty men.

*Edit: In hindsight, maybe that example isn't best for bringing up the idea that both sexes stand equal chance of being elevated. Perhaps the ambitious noble has only daughters but, darn it, a young unmarried woman is set to inherit the throne.

 

[Devor]

Don't get me wrong - I don't think you're facing a big problem here. As others have said, history was an inconsistent crapshoot, and modern readers are, well, modern.

Still, to give you a more thorough answer, the way I see it, you've got three choices:

- Ignore it, pretend it's normal. This can work really well depending on your novel's tone and the quality of your writing skills. But the more shallow your immersion, the more people might start to notice and overthink it.

- Give it an info dump. It's not usually the best idea for a modern story with a tight POV and minimal narrative voice, but I do think it can be done. At some point you've got to introduce the religion, and mentioning that it was founded by a priestess might be enough.

- Lampshade it. That's when one of the characters points it out, and another character dismisses it. "What if we put the guy in charge? Guys are bigger." "Just, no." My lame example aside, it works because it's kind of funny, and that humor lowers the standard for suspending disbelief. It leaves the reader feeling like you've addressed it, which is all that matters.

 

[CupofJoe]

For instance, it's obvious that on Earth the sun rises in the East; but if I'm showing my new home's foundation and framework to a friend, the fact that I've designed it so that my bedroom faces East, in order to capture the morning sun, might come up during conversation.

Playing the devil's advocaat at it were...
Catching the morning sun may not be immediate to someone looking at you new home's foundations unless they happen to be looking at a compass at the same time.
It may also be that there is a very nice Japanese Maple Tree in you grounds that you can only see from a window that looks east.
Or that you want to be able to "see" down the drive so any child sneaking in after curfew will illuminate the bedroom with their car headlights...
That the sun rises in the East could be utterly irrelevant to the conversation or the facts.
It is hard to do and exposition dump without it sounding like one but it can be just as bad to leave the reader to guess all the blank space you have to leave and guess them in the way you need them to later in the story.
So sort of back to the OP.
If inheritance become important later on in the story [X would have inherited if they'd made their will and died in Y-istan country but they were in Z-land so A will get the title instead...], then that difference has to be established earlier on or at least guided towards.
If it isn't a factor, just a "fact of life" then just let it pass.

 

[FifthView]

Playing the devil's advocaat at it were...
Catching the morning sun may not be immediate to someone looking at you new home's foundations unless they happen to be looking at a compass at the same time.
It may also be that there is a very nice Japanese Maple Tree in you grounds that you can only see from a window that looks east.
Or that you want to be able to "see" down the drive so any child sneaking in after curfew will illuminate the bedroom with their car headlights...
That the sun rises in the East could be utterly irrelevant to the conversation or the facts.

The point is that, if I (or person showing home) had precisely that reason for designing the house in that way, it would likely be mentioned. I have in fact been a party to such a conversation. It's not like I just saw the house and had to make inferences, but the owner specifically brought up the fact, explaining his home's design. (My own thought processes would have been different, since I like sleeping in and absolutely hate having an early morning sun interrupting my sleep.)

The larger point is that "obvious" does not mean "insignificant." Obvious things have bearing on the world, and while they might go without saying, or might not be discussed in the abstract ("Hey, did you know the sun rises in the east?") or directly, their effects, their influence on the world, the repercussions of the obvious, might be discussed. The obvious can serve as a common reference for people:

A: Julia is taking over the family estate? I though John was older.

B: Not according to the midwife. Julia popped out 2 minutes earlier.

–It's not as if they are having to discuss the fact that, strangely, in their society the eldest, regardless of sex, inherits. They both know that. It's rather obvious to them. But the effect of the obvious upon the world might be less certain, depending on the occasion.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

I am going to say this don't ever info dump this kind of information. Talking about this would be boring. Telling the readers about this history is boring. Instead, show it. This can be effectively sprinkled throughout the story in dialogue, in actions, in reactions, and through the narrative. A topic this broad would require the details to be spaced out over a length of time, but you can, of course, do it. This is all a part of showing the world building and is a part of the idea of the pyramid of abstraction I posted about in another thread.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

For me it's a mixture of what everyone has already said. First up, treat it as though it's complete normal and it will hopefully seem fairly normal tothe reader. But because sexism has occurred throughout history, you will still need to explain it at some point. I'd do this through a few carefully chosen asides. Say a mad man or drunk expressing the view that women belonged in the home and five people explaining to him that that would mean men would have to do everything themselves! Life is hard etc.

I think I'd avoid making it a religious thing - largely because that runs counter to everything we know from history. I think this is more the sort of thing that would go underneath religion as simply day to day life. If you have to make it a tenet of a religion than you run the risk that in some lands where different gods are worshipped different rules apply - and don't forget that even in a pantheist land say like ancient Greece - people as in individuals didn't worship all the gods. They mostly chose one to follow and ignored the rest.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[SteveW]

Thanks for the replies, everyone. You have given me a lot to think about.

So far in my story (I'm roughly 35000 words in) I have already established that the founder of the church was a woman. I also mention that my main non-POV character is a woman who inherits when her father dies but there is mention made of brothers. Plus the Empress had a younger brother but she was still the one who took the throne. Hopefully with more bits and pieces like that thrown in the concept should be hammered in just enough.

I think this is symptomatic of writing, really. I am always analysing whether I have put in too much information or not enough, to either inundate the reader with too much knowledge or leaving them floundering with nothing to hold onto. Like one of the main storylines throughout my book is a good old-fashioned whodunit. I want the readers to get a hint of the real perpetrator without making it blindingly obvious. I always find it a difficult line to walk.

But thanks again for all the replies. Much appreciated.

 

[skip.knox]

I agree with the majority opinion here that dialog will probably be a better way to handle it than narrative. You've already seen several good suggestions.

I'll add one thought of my own. You could have someone--a barbarian, a fool, even just a non-conformist--speak. That could provide a foil for being explicit. Also, try to make whatever conversation you have be tied to some conflict--there needs to be a reason for the conversation to happen.

> I am always analysing whether I have put in too much information or not enough
Stop analyzing. You are not a good judge of this. Write it and let your readers tell you if it's too much or too little. None of us, even the experienced ones, are a good judge of our own work. In writing, just write. In editing, you will develop your own library of Things I Shouldn't Have Done and Things I Forgot To Do and Things I Did Poorly. But it won't be enough. You will still need beta readers and editors to achieve balance.