If a hero lives in a city where slavery is legal, would that make the city a bad place? Lot's of people said that slavery is bad because it degrades people. But I don't think it matters in a fictional world, depending on how the slaves are treated. If the story is about a revolution, then it could tell that slavery is bad. However, it would be interesting if the people need to live as slaves in order to survive; like house pets being taken care of by their owners. The only downside is that none of them will have freedom.
Slavery in a made up world
- Thread starter SampleGuy
- Start date
- Status
There's been slavery for most of human history. Some has been more benign, some has been less benign; some has been overt, some has been less so (serfs, for instance). We think it a bad thing, but other peoples in other times have seen it as a necessary evil, as the backbone of civilisation, or as absolutely right and proper. Whatever sort of slavery you can come up with someone's probably done it in history.
Slavery - and perspectives and workings thereof - is a wide-ranging and interesting topic, but one of the standard pitfalls of writing about slave-owning societies is writing people with modern ideals into it without any justification for why they think that way.
Slavery - and perspectives and workings thereof - is a wide-ranging and interesting topic, but one of the standard pitfalls of writing about slave-owning societies is writing people with modern ideals into it without any justification for why they think that way.
There is indeed nothing wrong with having slavery in a fantasy world, because we have slavery in the real world. Even today there is slavery in some places and in some situations. There has always been a monetary value to human life. This will probably never change. People in the past have even sold themselves into slavery, or sold they daughters, wives, sons, whoever. So it is very true to life, so to say.
Apologies in advance if I don't quite see where you are going with this idea, but I did get a whiff of "Save the Pearls" from this description. I'm hoping that's not the case. I think you might give people the wrong impressions of you use "slavery" and "house pets" in a single block of text like that.
If you wish to explore a different kids of relationships, you might look up Roman patronage and see if something like that might fit the story better. Or read up on pederasty, it's much more than just sex.
For me at least, any non-consensual relationship presented in a positive light gets dangerously close to squicksville.
The OP makes the loss of personal freedom sound almost incidental...
Actually, the idea of a world where people - perhaps several generations ago - wound up in a "be enslaved to another race/species or face extinction" situation would present interesting challenges. (I believe some authors have explored this idea, but there's always room for another take.) The slave characters would grow up not knowing any other life than slavery. They might even fear the idea of freedom, of making their own choices while scraping their own living from a possibly-devastated world... and, if there's a sufficient threat that only the dominant race/species is equipped to combat (invading monsters, or a plague, perhaps), then it may well be suicidal to contemplate a run for freedom. The enslavers might see themselves as "saviors" of the enslaved in this situation, and could believe themselves to be benevolent "keepers." (I recall reading a collection of letters from a late-19th/early20th century Southern-born woman, who was rather confused by the Northern attitude toward Southern slavery, as her family always loved their [common period term for African Americans omitted]s. She went on to describe them as others might describe a beloved pet... not even noticing the disconnect, that the whole problem was that these people were not pets but human beings. Such was the attitude she was raised with, however. In other ways, particularly her stance on female independence, she seemed remarkably modern, but she had that cultural blind spot.) Religion could provide justification/rationalization for both enslavers and enslaved - as happens in the real world all too often. Give it a few generations, and slavery becomes "just the way it is" - making it that much harder to shake loose the shackles barring some world-change (shifting economies, new invaders, etc.) opening new possibilities.
It would be tricky to make modern readers sympathize with slave-owners, especially if it's the front-and-center issue of your novel (and not an aside - say, a story with a nobleman in a slave-owning society who occasionally mentions how a slave brought his dinner or accompanied him to the marketplace, when the story itself was about something else), but I suppose it could be done. After all, slavery is - sadly - still a modern thing, even in supposedly free countries like America. So someone's sure capable of rationalizing it... not sure that's the audience you want to court, but it is there.
Just beware of trivializing that "freedom" thing...
Actually, the idea of a world where people - perhaps several generations ago - wound up in a "be enslaved to another race/species or face extinction" situation would present interesting challenges. (I believe some authors have explored this idea, but there's always room for another take.) The slave characters would grow up not knowing any other life than slavery. They might even fear the idea of freedom, of making their own choices while scraping their own living from a possibly-devastated world... and, if there's a sufficient threat that only the dominant race/species is equipped to combat (invading monsters, or a plague, perhaps), then it may well be suicidal to contemplate a run for freedom. The enslavers might see themselves as "saviors" of the enslaved in this situation, and could believe themselves to be benevolent "keepers." (I recall reading a collection of letters from a late-19th/early20th century Southern-born woman, who was rather confused by the Northern attitude toward Southern slavery, as her family always loved their [common period term for African Americans omitted]s. She went on to describe them as others might describe a beloved pet... not even noticing the disconnect, that the whole problem was that these people were not pets but human beings. Such was the attitude she was raised with, however. In other ways, particularly her stance on female independence, she seemed remarkably modern, but she had that cultural blind spot.) Religion could provide justification/rationalization for both enslavers and enslaved - as happens in the real world all too often. Give it a few generations, and slavery becomes "just the way it is" - making it that much harder to shake loose the shackles barring some world-change (shifting economies, new invaders, etc.) opening new possibilities.
It would be tricky to make modern readers sympathize with slave-owners, especially if it's the front-and-center issue of your novel (and not an aside - say, a story with a nobleman in a slave-owning society who occasionally mentions how a slave brought his dinner or accompanied him to the marketplace, when the story itself was about something else), but I suppose it could be done. After all, slavery is - sadly - still a modern thing, even in supposedly free countries like America. So someone's sure capable of rationalizing it... not sure that's the audience you want to court, but it is there.
Just beware of trivializing that "freedom" thing...
Yeah, 'the only downside...'
The reason why slavery is always bad is because you're taking fellow people and turning them into property. The sheer inequity of the situation is what makes it bad. You can have a functioning society where slavery is going on, but you're never going to be able to objectively portray it as, 'no, really, in this situation it's GOOD, honest!'
You can rationalize it however you want, but then you'll end up in a situation like the Gor series of fantasy novels, with their running them of 'female subservience = good.' You can justify it in-universe however you want, but we readers are quite aware of how silly it is.
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2010
- Messages
- 7,063
- Reaction score
- 1,643
This sums up my gut reaction too. You can portray slavery in your books as not too inhumane, but if the slaves are human (or even just sentient), you'd never convince me as a reader that the situation wasn't fundamentally evil. A person shouldn't have their life devoured like a consumable by others.
I have slavery in my books, in different cultures. I portray it as fundamentally evil and warped, and my characters are conscious of that and try (as far as they're able) to effect change.
If you want to read a story about a slave society that perfectly shows that the people IN the society, including the slaves, think it's a good and workable system...
...without the reader ever getting the impression that the author agrees...
Then try C.J. Cherryh's Cyteen and Regenesis.
Beautifully written, but it leaves you a little bit disturbed because of the people you're sympathizing with and what happens...and is accepted...in their society.
...without the reader ever getting the impression that the author agrees...
Then try C.J. Cherryh's Cyteen and Regenesis.
Beautifully written, but it leaves you a little bit disturbed because of the people you're sympathizing with and what happens...and is accepted...in their society.
If your story needs slaves in that world, then have them there. Different people will regard that aspect of the story as they will, but readers' reactions will depend also on how you spin the slaves.
And her...oh, racks brains.,..40 000 to...Somewhere (I forget).
You are in no doubt teh slaves are quite happy with their situation
You are also quite clear this is what the author mines for creepy (and presumably thinks is creepy)
What the character feels is one thing. But you can write it in such a way that we are left in no doubt that it is Not A Good Thing
If you want your slaves to be happy, then have them selectively bred for the characteristics you want. Careful selective breeding would require no more than a hundred generations.
I don't think it's unrealistic to have some slaves who are at least reasonably happy with their situation. Slavery itself is a terrible practice, but there are some people who can still find the positives even in a situation like that.
What I find unrealistic is a setting in which all the slave owners are evil people who abuse their slaves. Yes, those people exist, but that just seems a lazy way to show the evils of slavery.
What I find unrealistic is a setting in which all the slave owners are evil people who abuse their slaves. Yes, those people exist, but that just seems a lazy way to show the evils of slavery.
im tempted to say yes outright. but Im not going to presume i know your storyline or that you havent created some crazy mitigating circumstances. so i say instead almost certainly yes,
there is definitely not enough info here so who knows. are you saying like an anne frank type of necessitity to survive, because she would not qualify as a slave but certainly had no freedom while in hiding
house pets are not slaves, by any definition i can muster. if your gerbils are forced to run on wheels that somehow power your house then that might qualify. (nah. still wouldn't equate - as animals are not sentient and therefore freedom is relative to them so i doubt think even service animals can be called slaves)
why not though? not enough info is provided to really address this question i think. I have seen slavery done in probably dozens of works of sci-fi and fantasy and certainly it permeates human history. Can you do it. no reason not to. will it work for you in your book. who's to say.
good points made by above poster too.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,128
- Reaction score
- 10,900
- Location
- Where faults collide
- Website
- doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
What was squickiest for me about the Gor novels was the inescapable feeling that the author actually thought female subservience was a good and natural thing and was using the books as a pulpit to "illustrate" the truth of his position.
An unequal, unjust society can be an interesting backdrop for a story. And the people living in such a society will have a different take on it than we do (similar discussion elsewhere about human sacrifice recently), regardless of where they stand on the issue relative to the "average" person in their culture.
But these stories can be told from many perspectives. Is the point of the story:
1. To illustrate that slavery can, in fact, be a positive thing?
2. To highlight the atrocities of slavery as seen through modern eyes?
3. Or is it more about showing how people react to and adapt to inequality (including their own) without completely losing themselves?
4. Or is it just there to provide a colorfully (what some would call exotic) alien or foreign backdrop for one's story, perhaps told through the pov of someone who is, in essence, a wide-eyed tourist in that culture?
If it's #1, you'll likely squick many of us out, and for good reason.
If it's #2, you're probably writing something many modern readers can relate to, but some readers might insist you're forcing a modern perspective on characters living in another world.
If it's #3, it might be a really interesting, if still uncomfortable read for many of us. Some will still complain that it's impossible to know what it really felt like to be a slave or a woman or whatever in a culture where your inequality is so a part of the air everyone breathes that it's rarely questioned, and others will complain that you're not condemning it strongly enough.
If it's #4, you might appeal to that old "adventure fiction" sense of SF/F of yore. But some will complain that the wide-eyed tourist is only skimming the surface, and that seeing things through such un-analytical eyes is trivializing an issue that's very serious.
Last edited:
INdeed he author's stance on slavery is going to be key
No doubt there have been happy slaves in history
No doubt there have been miserable/abused ones
OP...if you have slavery in your novels..
Which end of the spectrum do they fall?
Are they all happy/miserable? You should have a mix, if you are gojng to be fair. Because no one section of people is happy/sad about anything
How do YOU feel about it? Are you trying to show it as good? Bad? Necessary? What exactly are you trying to say about slavery? Are you saying something you do not intend?
This is no to say do not write it. It is to say, think about what you are writing
No doubt there have been happy slaves in history
No doubt there have been miserable/abused ones
OP...if you have slavery in your novels..
Which end of the spectrum do they fall?
Are they all happy/miserable? You should have a mix, if you are gojng to be fair. Because no one section of people is happy/sad about anything
How do YOU feel about it? Are you trying to show it as good? Bad? Necessary? What exactly are you trying to say about slavery? Are you saying something you do not intend?
This is no to say do not write it. It is to say, think about what you are writing
The best examples of slavery I ever found in literature were in Colleen McCullough's First Man In Rome novels. They covered events in the Roman Republic from the rise of Marius and Sulla to Octavian coming to power.
The novels give an in depth view of Roman society and a large number of the characters are slaves. And they are as diverse as any group in society could be. There are clever slaves, stupid ones, hard working slaves, lazy slaves, some are devoted to their masters, some betray them, some are capable, and some are useless. They are cooks, maids, whores, miners, gladiators, farm workers, sailors, teachers, actors, and soldiers. The books cover a number of slave revolts, including Spartacus's, and certainly no one who is free wants to be enslaved. However, the majority of the characters appear more or less satisfied with their lives. They certainly don't spend every moment miserable and dreaming of escape.
Their outlook is that being a slave is just their place in life. In much the same way most poor people in modern society view their own lives. Sure, working at the factory may not be great, but what are you going to do? The institution wasn't viewed as a great evil in Roman society, it was just one ordinary aspect of it. Even in some of the slave revolts the rebels are happy to own slaves themselves. They want freedom, but don't have any issue with the practice so long as they are on the other end of it.
It is always a huge mistake to look at another society with our own modern sensibilities. Writing a fantasy story where slavery is a common practice and has been for generations, but all the 'good' characters see it as abhorrent, will ring completely false. Their society would view them the same way we would see people today who want everyone to stop driving cars.
Stop and consider American history. Yes, there was an abolitionist movement that grew out of moral outrage against slavery. People were eventually willing to fight and die to, in part, set slaves free. That is true. But it is also true that the abolitionist movement developed in sections of the country that DIDN'T practice slavery. The movement was virtually non-existent in the states that actually had slaves. The vast majority of people who saw slaves on a daily basis not only failed to consider it an evil practice, they actively and vehemently defended it as just and necessary. And many of them were willing to fight and die, in part, to defend it. And this was less than a hundred and sixty years ago.
Is the assumption that nearly everyone in the southern states was evil? Obviously many of them were good and decent people, but they grew up and lived in a society with a different morality. Any story set in that society should reflect those beliefs. Otherwise you just get people with twenty-first century outlooks swinging swords.
The novels give an in depth view of Roman society and a large number of the characters are slaves. And they are as diverse as any group in society could be. There are clever slaves, stupid ones, hard working slaves, lazy slaves, some are devoted to their masters, some betray them, some are capable, and some are useless. They are cooks, maids, whores, miners, gladiators, farm workers, sailors, teachers, actors, and soldiers. The books cover a number of slave revolts, including Spartacus's, and certainly no one who is free wants to be enslaved. However, the majority of the characters appear more or less satisfied with their lives. They certainly don't spend every moment miserable and dreaming of escape.
Their outlook is that being a slave is just their place in life. In much the same way most poor people in modern society view their own lives. Sure, working at the factory may not be great, but what are you going to do? The institution wasn't viewed as a great evil in Roman society, it was just one ordinary aspect of it. Even in some of the slave revolts the rebels are happy to own slaves themselves. They want freedom, but don't have any issue with the practice so long as they are on the other end of it.
It is always a huge mistake to look at another society with our own modern sensibilities. Writing a fantasy story where slavery is a common practice and has been for generations, but all the 'good' characters see it as abhorrent, will ring completely false. Their society would view them the same way we would see people today who want everyone to stop driving cars.
Stop and consider American history. Yes, there was an abolitionist movement that grew out of moral outrage against slavery. People were eventually willing to fight and die to, in part, set slaves free. That is true. But it is also true that the abolitionist movement developed in sections of the country that DIDN'T practice slavery. The movement was virtually non-existent in the states that actually had slaves. The vast majority of people who saw slaves on a daily basis not only failed to consider it an evil practice, they actively and vehemently defended it as just and necessary. And many of them were willing to fight and die, in part, to defend it. And this was less than a hundred and sixty years ago.
Is the assumption that nearly everyone in the southern states was evil? Obviously many of them were good and decent people, but they grew up and lived in a society with a different morality. Any story set in that society should reflect those beliefs. Otherwise you just get people with twenty-first century outlooks swinging swords.
I'm sure there have been many people over the centuries who said "Better to be a slave than to starve." And there have been many forms of slavery - the racially-based one from North America is sort of an outlier. Most slavery was economic (you sold yourself, or your family, to settle debts, etc.) or the result of being captured in war.
Of the various types, the economic type was probably the least oppressive, and could be temporary. A slave would be viewed as part of society, just someone who had fallen on hard times. If they paid off their debts and obligations, they could be restored to their original place. They even would have some civil rights in many societies, although less than their masters enjoyed.
Prisoner-slaves represented the enemy. Cruelty would be par for the course, and no escape would be likely.
But one thing seems consistent - in cultures where slavery existed, free people viewed falling into slavery as abhorrent, and the term "slave" was thrown as an insult. How happy can you be if you are viewed as inferior by those who have complete control over you? Even if they treat you well now, how secure will you be knowing that this could change in an instant? This is not a trivial issue.
Of the various types, the economic type was probably the least oppressive, and could be temporary. A slave would be viewed as part of society, just someone who had fallen on hard times. If they paid off their debts and obligations, they could be restored to their original place. They even would have some civil rights in many societies, although less than their masters enjoyed.
Prisoner-slaves represented the enemy. Cruelty would be par for the course, and no escape would be likely.
But one thing seems consistent - in cultures where slavery existed, free people viewed falling into slavery as abhorrent, and the term "slave" was thrown as an insult. How happy can you be if you are viewed as inferior by those who have complete control over you? Even if they treat you well now, how secure will you be knowing that this could change in an instant? This is not a trivial issue.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,128
- Reaction score
- 10,900
- Location
- Where faults collide
- Website
- doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
This may be true, but it's going to be hard to convince someone who has been on the receiving end of that institution, or who is still suffering today because of it.
It's one thing to accept it intellectually. It's another to read a book where everyone like you is categorically inferior, because that's how nearly everyone felt back then. Take, for instance, a book where everyone just takes for granted that women are useless for anything except making babies, and their role (in fact) is to pop out babies until they either die, while doing a few very traditional female things that are widely regarded as less important than the Things Men Do, and that a man has the right to beat his wife etc., and in fact, she should be grateful to him for loving her enough to offer firm moral guidance.
Yes, I can possibly understand intellectually that this might be true in the time and place where the story takes place, and that most people (even the women) just accept it and manage to be happy in their inferiority. But it still gives me a sort of sick, panicky feeling. I don't enjoy reading it.
And I had no idea there were virtually no home-grown abolitionists operating in the south. I'm curious if there are any data about how the individual slaves felt about their status as well and whether most of them were, in fact, content with their lot. We get narratives about people like Harriet Tubman and Fredrick Douglas, but of course they're the people who escaped.
This is something I wonder about too, both re slavery and categories of people who are considered inferior (like women). The constant fear thing. I had an argument with someone about patriarchy and whether it was inherently bad. I argued that it was, because when one group of people is in authority over another, the inferior group is always afraid and vulnerable. He said only if the leaders are cruel or abuse their power. I pointed out that some always will, and in fact, having power over someone invites abuse of power. He disagreed, stating that male abuse of women is actually a sign of a man corrupted by the weakening of patriarchy, because he's been robbed of the traditional virtues of his gender (protection of women and benevolent authority). Eck!
He pointed out that children don't resent or fear their parents for being in charge of them, if the parents are gentle, fair and loving (I wonder if he thought abusive parents only exist because modern society has robbed them of their traditional role and virtues).
I'm not sure I buy this. I know I resented and feared my parents, even feared them sometimes, even as I loved them. Even when they were acting in what they honestly thought was my best interest (and perhaps were). Being a kid was bewildering, sometimes frightening, because I had to go along with what grown ups wanted, no matter how I felt about it. And there was always that fear of breaking some rule I didn't understand and being punished for it.
And as a child, you know that someday you'll be a grown up and be your parents' equal.
A slave (unless it's a temporary indenture type of situation) or a woman, or a member of a lower class/caste or whatever will never, ever be free or equal. They may be able to rise in relative status within their lowly caste, but they'll never be equal to their masters. Perpetual childhood. Even if they accept it as the natural order (the way we usually did our parents' authority when we were kids), they may still have been bewildered and afraid a lot of the time.
Last edited:
I don't think that in human history there has ever been such a thing as "benign" slavery, or ever will be. Postulating such a thing in a Fantasy world is . . . well . . . FANTASY. Trying to make it palatable in a fictional work for a sane, sensible human audience is . . . well . . . FANTASY.
caw
caw
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,128
- Reaction score
- 10,900
- Location
- Where faults collide
- Website
- doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
I don't know that anyone here is saying that slavery is benign, just that it can possibly be seen as such by members of a society that practices it, and if you're writing a story set in the pov of someone who accepts it, even sees it as just and good, then do we have to present it as benign and devoid of costs or liabilities? Or is there a way to show the ways it might damage the people who live with it without being overt or preachy and without breaking pov?
Another question: were societies in the old days more monolithic about these issues than we are about moral issues today? I get the impression most HF writers feel that this is the case, as there's a general contempt for people who write HF with any characters who have modern sensibilities (I remember one thread where several people said they loathe HF novels with plucky, rebellious heroines who resent the narrow role their society forces on them, because such women never, ever existed before modern times, I guess).
This creates a real quandry, because in a novel where the character is a slave-owner who honestly believes his human property is better off a slave (or a slave who placidly accepts their lot in life), how do you make a character like that relatable to a modern audience? Especially how do you not lose readers who are going to relate much more heavily (by virtue of their race, personal background, or gender) with the slaves and other victims in your story?
Another question: were societies in the old days more monolithic about these issues than we are about moral issues today? I get the impression most HF writers feel that this is the case, as there's a general contempt for people who write HF with any characters who have modern sensibilities (I remember one thread where several people said they loathe HF novels with plucky, rebellious heroines who resent the narrow role their society forces on them, because such women never, ever existed before modern times, I guess).
This creates a real quandry, because in a novel where the character is a slave-owner who honestly believes his human property is better off a slave (or a slave who placidly accepts their lot in life), how do you make a character like that relatable to a modern audience? Especially how do you not lose readers who are going to relate much more heavily (by virtue of their race, personal background, or gender) with the slaves and other victims in your story?
Last edited:
Or is there a way to show the ways it might damage the people who live with it without being overt or preachy and without breaking pov?
This, I think, is the approach to go with. Some obvious possibilities:
*if you want one slave owner to be fairly humane, to maintain reader sympathy, contrast with neighbors who are not. And don't have the good guy lying awake at night worrying about it. That would be unrealistic.
*I think that keeping humans subservient necessarily implies violence - at least as an acknowledged threat. Domestic slavery implies violence by owners who are ordinary members of the public, your next-door neighbours. You. Even the "good" slave owner will have this lurking in the background - if not directly, as a matter of "Are you happy here, Kap? Would you prefer to work in the mines?" Again, you probably cannot omit this and stay realistic.
*It is probably the case that a slave-owning society cannot afford to show the level of consideration to slaves that we today (mostly) show to domestic animals. Animals that are as ornery as humans don't get domesticated widely. You could probably borrow the attitudes of animal-owners (to animals and to each other regarding their treatment of animals) in 19th century books like Black Beauty, though.
*Even the humane slaveowner's treatment of slaves can be shown as wrong by careful writing - contrast his/her care about a free person's misfortune with casual indifference to a slave, for instance.
Heinlein does a fairly good job of this in his early short story (novelette?) "Logic of Empire." The protag gets indentured on Venus (those were the days, when you could get anything but barbecued on Venus...) and the owner of his contract is shown as well-meaning - but (IIRC) prepared to sell some of his workers to a worse owner in order to raise the funds to send his daughter away to a better life. Details may be wrong, it's been a while.
This, I think, is the approach to go with. Some obvious possibilities:
*if you want one slave owner to be fairly humane, to maintain reader sympathy, contrast with neighbors who are not. And don't have the good guy lying awake at night worrying about it. That would be unrealistic.
*I think that keeping humans subservient necessarily implies violence - at least as an acknowledged threat. Domestic slavery implies violence by owners who are ordinary members of the public, your next-door neighbours. You. Even the "good" slave owner will have this lurking in the background - if not directly, as a matter of "Are you happy here, Kap? Would you prefer to work in the mines?" Again, you probably cannot omit this and stay realistic.
*It is probably the case that a slave-owning society cannot afford to show the level of consideration to slaves that we today (mostly) show to domestic animals. Animals that are as ornery as humans don't get domesticated widely. You could probably borrow the attitudes of animal-owners (to animals and to each other regarding their treatment of animals) in 19th century books like Black Beauty, though.
*Even the humane slaveowner's treatment of slaves can be shown as wrong by careful writing - contrast his/her care about a free person's misfortune with casual indifference to a slave, for instance.
Heinlein does a fairly good job of this in his early short story (novelette?) "Logic of Empire." The protag gets indentured on Venus (those were the days, when you could get anything but barbecued on Venus...) and the owner of his contract is shown as well-meaning - but (IIRC) prepared to sell some of his workers to a worse owner in order to raise the funds to send his daughter away to a better life. Details may be wrong, it's been a while.
Last edited:
I really think most people fail to understand just how different modern society is from most pre-industrial ones. The concept of human equality largely comes out of the Age of Enlightenment. Before that it really didn't exist in the way we think of it today. In the Dark and Middle Ages the Christian church declared all people had souls and were the children of God, but had no issue with massacring or enslaving non-Christians. For that matter the church had no objection to serfs who were forced to work the land and could not leave it without their lord's permission.
The Greeks, who we think of as the fountain of Western Civilization, practiced slavery. The Spartans, who strived to treat every male citizen in the same manner, relied on keeping everyone else enslaved. They even made murdering a slave a right of passage for becoming a man. Look at the caste system in India, where your position in society was determined by birth and there was nothing you could do to change it.
Go back just a few hundred years and you will find almost no people with the concept that everyone is equal. You'll find the exact opposite. Slaves, the poor, women, the deformed, foreigners, and others were seen as being inferior and their lives worth less.
Now, obviously, no one today is going to say this is how things should be. But one of the reasons I love fantasy and sci-fi is for the chance to explore new worlds and people who are different. I loved Colleen McCullough's novels exactly because they immersed me in a completely different world, one that felt real and believable to me. That was because the people who populated it didn't behave the same way we would.
If you are writing a fantasy story where dragons are a regular sight would it make sense for people to run screaming every time they see a dragon flying overhead? If magic is common would people stop and stare every time a light spell were cast? All I am really saying is that, as a writer, you should treat the ordinary things in your world as if they were ordinary. How we would react to a group of slaves working has no relation to how an Egyptian or Roman would.
Slavery doesn't need to be seen as a wonderful thing. I'm sure most people in New York don't go out of their way to brag about the homeless or the working girls walking the streets. But they also aren't going to feel outraged either. They probably aren't going to even give it a thought unless there is some specific incident or reason to.
You don't need to show slavery as something great, just as something ordinary.
The Greeks, who we think of as the fountain of Western Civilization, practiced slavery. The Spartans, who strived to treat every male citizen in the same manner, relied on keeping everyone else enslaved. They even made murdering a slave a right of passage for becoming a man. Look at the caste system in India, where your position in society was determined by birth and there was nothing you could do to change it.
Go back just a few hundred years and you will find almost no people with the concept that everyone is equal. You'll find the exact opposite. Slaves, the poor, women, the deformed, foreigners, and others were seen as being inferior and their lives worth less.
Now, obviously, no one today is going to say this is how things should be. But one of the reasons I love fantasy and sci-fi is for the chance to explore new worlds and people who are different. I loved Colleen McCullough's novels exactly because they immersed me in a completely different world, one that felt real and believable to me. That was because the people who populated it didn't behave the same way we would.
If you are writing a fantasy story where dragons are a regular sight would it make sense for people to run screaming every time they see a dragon flying overhead? If magic is common would people stop and stare every time a light spell were cast? All I am really saying is that, as a writer, you should treat the ordinary things in your world as if they were ordinary. How we would react to a group of slaves working has no relation to how an Egyptian or Roman would.
Slavery doesn't need to be seen as a wonderful thing. I'm sure most people in New York don't go out of their way to brag about the homeless or the working girls walking the streets. But they also aren't going to feel outraged either. They probably aren't going to even give it a thought unless there is some specific incident or reason to.
You don't need to show slavery as something great, just as something ordinary.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,128
- Reaction score
- 10,900
- Location
- Where faults collide
- Website
- doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
I don't think anyone is arguing with this. The question is how to write a story that takes place in such a society in such a way that its relatable to modern readers, particularly modern readers who are more likely (by virtue of their own lingering non-equal status in today's society) empathize more with the characters who are downtrodden as a matter of course in the narrative.
One can know that slavery was the norm, and intellectually understand the logical reasons for the narrative pov treating many human beings being things to be used up (or at best, pampered or valued the way some animals are today). This intellectual understanding in no way diminishes the squick factor or impatience or dislike one feels when reading a character with such a world view.
Closer to home (for me), knowing that sexism and misogyny were part of the world view in many historical cultures in no way diminishes the frustration and sick panic I feel when I read a story where all the characters (including the women themselves) feel this way.
I think different modern readers are going to filter these things differently, depending on who they are and on their own experiences with victimization or inequality in their own lives. If someone's been raped, for instance, they might not be able to calmly and dispassionately read a novel where a slave is repeatedly forced by his/her master to have sex, for instance. Someone for whom rape is merely a hypothetical thing might be able to go, "Hmmm, interesting that these people see it so differently than we do."
A common approach to slavery and other forms of dehumanization in fantasy novels I read growing up was simply to make the victims props. They weren't characters in the stories, just furniture. They're there for flavor, like the horse pulling the cart. How they feel about their situation/subservience is not part of the story. How the pov characters feel about them isn't either.
It's a way around dealing with those uncomfortable questions. But I think modern readers are more inclined to notice and question this approach.
When you write a novel, I think you have to consider who you're writing it for and why you're writing it.
Is it to entertain and transport a person to a fantasy version of another time and place so they can mentally insert themselves into the story (escapism)? Is it to explore a different perspective or world view in a critical way? Is it to create an alternative reality where history unfolded differently for some reason and some people (at least) really were more compassionate? Is it to show them what it felt like to be an outlier in a culture that is different from ours (to be a woman who rebels against her traditional role or a slave who hates being a slave). Is it simply to show people how things *really* were in a way that makes them damned glad they didn't live back then?
Last edited:
The video game Mass Effect 2 deals with 'glossed over' slavery, on the big, luxurious planet Illium. This one alien race, the Quarians, occasionally sold themselves into five-year slavery contracts out of necessity. (I think it was five years. Or maybe three. Or ten. Can't remember.)
Anyhow, temporary voluntary slavery is an idea to play with.
Anyhow, temporary voluntary slavery is an idea to play with.
- Status