How to Write Deliberate Values Dissonance

I'm working on a high fantasy novel in a ambiguoulsy Medival Europe setting. It wil be at least somewhat accurate (some characters/society objects to the poor, people of different religions, and believe women should be in the kitchen, etc.) Obviously, will be characters that defy these beliefs, but how can I write the 'slightly close-minded' characters without it sounding like Unfortunate Implications?

I know it's not possible to control audience reactions, but asistance would be appreciated.

Chill. Some subforums move slower than others; you don't need to bump it if it goes a half a day with no replies.

I am not sure. This is something that I have difficulty with times myself.

My advice is to get into their head and write their emotions and their reasoning for such things. Is the piece in first person or third person?

edited 12th Aug '12 4:35:06 AM by LoniJay

My recommendation would be to do a lot of research and then, when you're writing the characters, do your best to write as if you believed what they do. Don't write in a way that screams "this is what they believed back then and isn't it just horrible?"—that's going to break suspension of disbelief quickly.

You'll probably inevitably have readers who are rubbed the wrong way, but most readers will pick up on the fact that you're trying to reflect the actual values of the time period and run with it, even if the characters' views clash with their own.

You may also want to look into modern fictional books which do a good job of presenting historical perspectives. Off the top of my head, I can only think of Larklight (despite the fact that it's actually an Alternate History), which is set around 1850; the author does a great job with Myrtle's views, in my opinion, even though she's definitely not presented all that sympathetically, at least at first.

I'd say just write the characters as though they truly and deeply hold the beliefs as would any true product of that time. To the readers they will appear "flawed", which is a good thing in its way, and believable.

A character who's a rather nice chap and helpful and brave and heroic but is "flawed" in that he's a typical product of his time is going to make a good character.

Personally, I can't abide the revisionist/politically correct representations of earlier eras where all the main characters hold 21st Century (or very late 20th Century) values and those who don't are painted as "evil" for doing so.

The people back then weren't "evil". They did things that we do not agree with because they truly believed they were right in what they were doing and, as appalled we might be about what they considered "acceptable" - be it subjugating others due to sex, religion, race, social standing or invading neighbouring lands and ravaging the place - they would probably be equally appalled by what WE think is acceptable (if they were somehow dragged through time to observe our current era).

I much prefer to read/watch stuff set in that time reflecting the true attitudes of people, it's a) more authentic and b) seems less like the author's banging on some drum about the "evils of the way people used to be". Having the heroes pretty much quoting the Declaration of Independance in Medieval Europe and rescuing slaves from "evil slave traders" with the assistance of their very headstrong and emancipated female lead is way too baldly saying "LOOK, THIS IS THE GUY YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE ROOTING FOR!"

In the Alt-Hist/Fantasy I'm working on, the narrator sees absolutely nothing wrong with slavery as it has been a part of his culture for centuries and is still common practice. He also is a firm believer in the responsibilities of a slave's owner and the rights that slaves have but he sees no "shame" in being taken a slave or in buying one.

Doubtless some readers are going to be saying "hold on, the hero agrees with the slave trade" and being repelled, but I'm hoping the intelligent readers are going to say "yeah, well he would think that way, wouldn't he."

And no, the slavers aren't going to be "evil", they're just going to be people who make a living by selling people.

One good idea is to pay attention to the damage that their beliefs do. It's when both the characters and the narrative hold said beliefs up as useful and virtuous that you're running into Unfortunate Implications territory.

Also, remember to do your homework on what sort of beliefs would, in fact, be appropriate for the world annd time-period you're covering. A patriarchal society in a relatively 'realistic' setting will behave a bit differently to, say, a patriarchal society where the women can shoot lasers from their foreheads, for instance. Boning up on your history can help with this, too - whilst medieval Europe kind of sucked if you were a woman, it wasn't always as gleefully, universally rape-happy as, say, A Song Of Ice And Fire suggests (women were generally considered property, yes, but this also meant that you did not fuck with another guy's property).

Very true. I read a very good Hist Fic written in the 1st person where the narrator/protagonist's contentions and beliefs (especially what he believed about himself and his own nature) are directly contradicted by events as he reported them - and he couldn't see the dissonance (rather like everybody IRL, when it comes to their own beliefs, actually).

Since the story was told after the events, it's pretty safe to say the views espoused by the narrator did not alter due to the way the events unfolded - this was his attitude before, during and after. And demonstrably incorrect.

So, it can be done in first person, it's even easier in third person.

You can also have the character believing fully that women are possessions and acting on that belief but show him infuriated that some other bloke mistreats/abuses women, because "believing women are possessions" does not automatically equate to "believing women should be mistreated". (After all, one should look after one's possessions...)

But it's entirely possible to convey a Values Dissonance on the part of the characters; show that you, the author, do not agree and that the consequences of such values/attitudes are not good and still have the characters remain fundamentally unchanged in their outlooks so it doesn't become just another "story about the evils of whatever" where the "evil" people realise the error of their ways and are forever changed.

If you conveyed "Chivalry" as it was truly applied to women back then, you'd have Values Dissonance aplenty. IIRC, single women were to be wooed and courted, married women were off limits but if you wanted one badly enough, you simply fought and killed the husband and the woman, as one of the vanquished man's possessions, became yours by right of conquest. And it was her duty to obey you.

Reading this i cant help be be reminded of Fallout 3 and the Mesmetron, i would often mess guys living in shacks eating roast rat who where trying to put a bullet in my head and send them off to the safety and luxury (comparability) of Paradise Falls only for 3 Dog to labast me for doing slave trading even though said actions also let me get in and free the enslaved children.

Values Dissonance? To 3 Dog it was but from my (and by extension character) perspective there was nothing wrong with it.