For those of you who have read any of my guns and gnomes stories in Fand F I think you will see what I am referring to. They are not sterotypical gnomes (though they are very well researched)
In my Gnome murder story I am dealing with people misunderstanding what CULTURE my gnomes exist in. Actually some people in Denmark and Sweden understood perfectly where I was coming from. But some others are having problems and I am scratching my head on how to do show the culture and context.
Olaf Nisse and nisse or gnomes look just like the lawn or porch gnomes your grandparents might own. They are very long lived (almost 700 years for some) and they were once a very warlike race. Living side by side with humans until the middle ages when they went underground to escape the tyranny of the inquisition. But by that time they had for the most part lost their pagan ways. Though not their magics and violent natures. Their culture is puritanical germanic (old world danish). Imagine swedish immigrants or even the Amish. A closed secret society tht lives on the borders of humanity even sharing religions, magics and some customs. They are Christian after a fashion, in the same way the rural germans of the 1800's were. Really more of a system of magics, rituals, taboos, and superstitions versus modern protestantism. Olaf doesn't hate humans in a way he envies them. He is locked out of the human world by the iron bars of his culture. Rikard has escaped and is doing exactly what Olaf would do if he could (minus the drugs and sex.) He blames the humans for seducing his son away? Why becuase he is to blame. Why blame yourself when you can blame the humans. We do that. Our kids do drugs because of their friends not because they choose to. Olaf is only two hunded years old but he is carrying that old mentality with him to america. Rikard is in his thirties. Furthermore his family is somewhat infamous as a criminal family. Using magic and terror to hold their power in New York especially among the superstitions europeans. If it was found out Olaf could not control his family he would lose respect and possibly lose his right to rule as patriarch. Rikard was threatening the whole structure of the Olaf's clan. Of course there are noble peace loving gnomes who help out farmers and animals. But not Olaf's family.
Now how in the name of sanity can I introduce this into this story effectively?
How realistic would it be to have the main character lecturing to himself about gnomes?
quote:
"How can you turn from the old ways?"Rikard snorted. "The old ways! Hang the old ways. I'm getting what I want, Father."
OR:
"You shame the family name, Rikard. Gnomes from here to Siberia will laugh at me. They'll call your mother a freak-whelper. I'll lose my place..."
"Maybe it's a place you don't deserve!"
You don't have to be super-detailed. Just let us know that there actually IS some tradition that Rikard is diverging from. Show us by the gnomes actions and reaction what is normal for them and what is not.
Or you could mainly sketch that during the beginning, and later have Olaf hash out the justificaton for his actions with another character after the septic system overflow starts to hit the air circulation system. When things get out of hand, he has to explain himself to the rest of the family.
Whatever. Since this is information that is vital to Olaf's decision making processes throughout the story, it is in no way something that is difficult to show through his POV.
One you can cheat and have an expositional prologue that briefly outlines the history of the gnomes and their relations to humans. This is not involving for the reader but it does allow you to convey alot of condensed information to give the reader a frame of referrence when he begins reading. I would avoid this if you can.
You have a golden opportunity to reveal a good chunk of the gnomish ways when Olaf,, staunch conservative, faces off with Rikard, progressive opportunist. You could build a very interesting argument between them that outlines some of the broader aspects of gnomish society and why Rikard is rebelling against them.
If neither of those is appealing, then you can just sprinkle it throughout the body of the work and the reader will build a complete picture as he moves along, I like this way, but it can result in a reader being confused if you have what appears to be contrary actions taking place, that are explained later as the gnomish culture is more fully revealed.
Something else to consider is the lifespan involved. I find very few authors actually take into account the radically different priorities a long lived race might adopt. As often as I get irritated with Robert Jordan he does address this with the Ogier.
So maybe stress the age differential and what gnomes consider radical. You could add some sympathy and maybe a little humor if what gnomes consider radical is something humans would consider pretty mundane.
The main difference is how having lived a long time affects a person. A rat that has lived for three years has a lot more experience than a rat that has lived only one, that doesn't change whether the one year old will live another three years or will die tomorrow. If someone had accumulated a century's worth of experience before reaching puberty, that person would not become a normal teenager.
And of course, the innate mental equipment specific to your species makes a big difference too. A rat isn't going to have human concerns no matter how long it lives. The same is probably true of gnomes...being short isn't enough to become a fairy tale, you must have a built in penchant for hiding yourself.
I beleive it was from a text called the book of adam.
I normally agree with you, but increasing the lifespan of one or two generations of rats is not going to create a significant change in the behavior of the animal.
I would also think that the change in mindset would be less an issue of the percentage of life increase and more in line with the actual amount of time.
You comment that kids today do not behave any differently, even though lifespans have increased. I'd have to disagree with you there. Childhood has been extended DRAMATICALLY in the last 100 years. It was not uncommon for 8-9 years olds to be working on a regular basis in 1900. It wasn't unheard of for a 13 year old to be married. Over the last 100 years quality of life has increased and society as a whole has extended "childhood" from 6-7 up through 13-15. When taken to the extreme, you have stories about a "kid" who burned down his parents house because he didn't get any Christmas presents, this "kid" was 21.
So I would say longer lifespans and the social issues that arise with it have dramatic effects on how individuals progress and react.
Another issue is time perception, several studies have been done of small children and senior citizens (80+) and there were drastic differences in their perceptions of the passage of time.
Just tell the story. When a cultural detail is something Rikard would be thinking, or must be given for Rikard's current thought/action to make sense, give it. You may find that lots of details get omitted, and I'd imagine that would be ok.
My point is that regardless of how you define "childhood", the various effects we see on the affect of children of any given age aren't predominantly affected or effected by expected lifespans. By the way, a rat gets a lot more experienced in just an extra year of life. In rat society, being a year older is a big deal.
Old women being simply forbidden to have marital relations...that's a new one. It sounds a bit unlikely to me, I think something got garbled somewhere. More likely, guys in their 600's were marrying teenagers, then dying and leaving behind a woman who would be widowed for centuries. Not only that, but her sons (if any) probably wouldn't have inherited much of anything (though in the antediluvian world, there really was only one thing worth inheriting from a father, and that would be passed on regardless).
Is it relevant and necessary for the telling of the story?
oops, hit the enter key by accident. Dang fingers..
Anyway, the point I was making was that, if the detail is needed, it can usually be worked in somewhere. And it isn't always necessary to have everything at the beginning. Spread it out, where applicable and possible.
Don't be afraid to let a little mystique in. It's what keeps us reading.
[This message has been edited by Netstorm2k (edited January 02, 2005).]
[This message has been edited by Netstorm2k (edited January 02, 2005).]