Should I cut fun ideas that don't move the story forward?

[Rath Darkblade]

So, I wrote a few ideas that parody things from the modern day (e.g. marketing gimmicks and EULAs), and re-worked them to fit into (and work in) the medieval world. The marketing gimmick is basically a "free gift", like those 'free gifts' that companies give you if you make large enough purchases. Like many of them,

Spoiler

this one is a nuisance, and eventually the merchant puts it away, muttering about 'debugging'.

It's fun, but it doesn't move the plot along.

So, that's my question: what's your view on elements like this? I've heard the phrase "Kill Your Darlings", and I've done it plenty of times. On the other hand, my genre is a historical fiction/fantasy blend, and the fantasy genre tends to be longer anyway (a fantasy can be from 80K to 100K words).

The sequence doesn't run for very long or doesn't derail anything. The whole point is to have fun, and give the reader a smile. What do you think?
=========
Oh, yes: I had another question, but forgot. *blush* Since there are fantasy elements involved, the story also features dwarves. (This isn't much of a stretch: the setting is Iceland in the year 1,000 AD, so folks back then definitely believed that dwarves and other mythic creatures existed).

Spoiler

One of them is a female dwarf, working as a blacksmith, which is normally a male-dominated area... which is why she pretends to be man. She's not very happy about that.

Obviously, nowadays women can do any job that men can do. But since the setting is the year 1,000 AD, it's probable that the Catholic Church would've frowned on this sort of thing, e.g. "How dare women do a man's job!" etc.

At any rate, my protagonist eventually

Spoiler

figures this out and encourages my female dwarf, e.g. 'If you're not happy, then do what you're good at!' etc... which inspires my dwarf to figure out what she's good at.

Could either of these be problematic? I'm not sure, but I certainly don't want my medieval heroine to become 'feisty' or 'fight for women's rights', because such concepts didn't exist in the middle ages (obviously). I just want her to be encouraging, that's all.

 

[CatrionaGrace]

t's fun, but it doesn't move the plot along...What do you think?

If you have to ask, the answer is probably no.

but I certainly don't want my medieval heroine to become 'feisty' or 'fight for women's rights', because such concepts didn't exist in the middle ages (obviously).

Take a look at Gudrid Thorbjarnardóttir before you jump to any conclusions.

It's interesting that you don't blink at parodying modern marketing gimmicks or introducing fantasy elements like dwarves and other mythic creatures, yet find the idea of feisty medieval women too ridiculous for inclusion.

 

[Stuart Dren]

I don't think it needs to move the plot along per se, but it should at least be topical and fit within the normal tone fluctuation.

Also I don't agree with the premise that darlings are killed to keep the word count down. Rather, they are killed for cohesion. They usually begin as an idea started from without the story that sounds good on its own but won't age well in its context. If you're not sure, time will tell you.

 

[Naomasa298]

So, that's my question: what's your view on elements like this? I've heard the phrase "Kill Your Darlings", and I've done it plenty of times. On the other hand, my genre is a historical fiction/fantasy blend, and the fantasy genre tends to be longer anyway (a fantasy can be from 80K to 100K words).

What do you think it means?

As for "feisty" women:
Hojo Masako, the Nun Shogun (b. 1157)
Empress Wu Zetian (b. 624)
Empress Matilda, Lady of the English (b. 1102)
Zenobia of Palmyra (b. 240)
Boudicca (b. circa 30AD)
Himiko of Yamatai (b. 169)
Joan of Arc (b. 1412)

Obviously, nowadays women can do any job that men can do. But since the setting is the year 1,000 AD, it's probable that the Catholic Church would've frowned on this sort of thing, e.g. "How dare women do a man's job!" etc.

The Catholic Church wasn't some kind of medieval Taliban, you know. They were concerned with propriety between the sexes and morality. They had various concerns about women doing "improper" things, which mostly involved sleeping around, not what kind of jobs they did, especially in the 11th century. Hell, prostitution was quietly ignored. Lots of women went on the Peasants' Crusade - most didn't make it, but neither did the men.

Women were limited by societal expectation, not the Church. In that kind of society, feistiness would almost be a requirement to break out of traditional roles. And Eleanor of Aquitaine worked her way around all of those things.

 

[Rath Darkblade]

All right. First, I'll explain what I mean by 'feisty', before I get jumped on. Of course there are exceptions, and of course women -- especially upper-class women -- could defy societal gender norms, and do anything that men could do. That's not what I mean.

I'm talking about the Western ideas of feminism and women's rights, which simply didn't exist back then. If I make my 11th-century heroine a strident, defiant, independent-minded feminist, who openly declares that all women should be equal to all men in all things and should be allowed to do anything men can do, and should never ever have their marriages arranged for them because she is only going to marry for loooove, no matter what ... then she would probably regarded as a lunatic or a witch. :-(

That's not to say that every woman in male-dominated societies throughout history were subservient, ignorant, subjugated, or dependent. Far from it. Plenty of widows owned and ran their own small businesses (some inherited from a husband, some created with their own initiative). Lots of medieval noblewomen routinely managed their husbands' estates when the men were off to war.

But working, warring, or ruling women of the past didn't agitate for women's rights in a world where the idea hadn't been born yet, or loudly protesting that male chauvinists were oppressing them. Even Elizabeth I -- one of the strongest, cleverest, best-educated, and most successful women in history -- didn't have "gender equality for everyone" on her to-do list.

So ... that's what I mean by 'feisty': taking a woman with 21st-century attitudes and putting her in the 11th century (a 'Mary Sue defies the constraints of her era' scenario). Spunky, liberated, accomplished at all guy stuff like fencing or shooting, ahead of her time ... and still getting her "happily ever after" with an perfect man who is amazingly open-minded and has no problem with that.

Having said that, is it possible that a woman might have been unhappy with her lot in life (e.g. "I'm a dwarf, and a blacksmith ... but I don't like smithing, but it's all I know!") but shy, and doesn't have the courage to try something else. My heroine comes to this blacksmith for help, and they start talking, and the blacksmith is gradually, bit-by-bit, inspired to try. "You've travelled so much and seen so many things. I wish I could do that", etc. Does that sound plausible?
=============
As for the idea of 'marketing gimmicks' or dwarves and other mythic creatures ... well:

1. The ancient Norse clearly believed that dwarves and other such truly existed. It wasn't just myth or fantasy to them. So, here's my premise: if dwarves etc. do exist, in parallel to humans, how would humans adjust?

2. Marketing gimmicks aren't just a modern idea. They existed in ancient times too, albeit in a cruder form (e.g. a scrawling on the wall in a pub - "for a good amphora, see Methodios in the agora!" etc.) Sure, they didn't have radio or TV, but they knew how to advertise their wares and make them more attractive.

 

[CatrionaGrace]

Strident, huh?



Have fun, Rath. I'm sure it will be a delightful story.

 

[Stuart Dren]

To an extent, modern framing will always affect historical fiction, but you can decide by how much. For example, they certainly won't speak like AD 1000 peoples, but they won't speak like California girls either. Same for conceptions of what are and are not consentual romantic pairings, or what is or isn't domestic abuse.

It's all sort of a wash because the historical pretense of a legitimate setting is somewhat at odds with what a modern audience wants to read, despite it being what they've sought out. They actually want a modern interpretation of the setting, or at least modern enough that there's less or tolerable ick factor and characters that can be wholly rooted for.

This moving island of plausibility that author, enthusiast, and reader (some anticipating exceptional traits, others only believing generalised ones) end up bickering about seems like a pain in the neck.

So that's why I drink. write fantasy.

 

[TWErvin2]

Content does not have to move the plot forward.
But, if it doesn't, it should offer characterization and/or world building.

Often the best scences or chapters move the plot forward while including characterization and/or world building.

As has been indicated in a post above, if you're asking, it's likely not something to include.

Will it wreck your tale if such is included? Probably not. It's not like some years back, where one was competing for shelf space, and 7500 words of, say, unplotfocused content meant 30 pages of "thickness" to take up bookshore shelf space, or additional printing costs, because much of the publishing world today is digital (ebook and audio). Yes, whether print on demand or an offset print run, 30 more pages does mean more cost, and an additional 7500 words and additonal 45 mintues of audiobook, where the cost is usually upwards of $300 dollars per finished hour. And although not very significant, the volume downloaded will be higher...

Yes, I sort of went off on a tangent. But all that said, if the content proposed increases the quality of the read and is enjoyed by the readership, it's a good idea to include.

If you secure a publisher (and possibly an agent along the way), they and folks on the publisher's editorial staff, might have input based on experience reguarding the content in question. If self published, it's up to you and the editor you might hire (depending on the type of edits you engage the individual(s) for). And readers will fill in for the editorial input by their reactions and if they pick up a subsequent book you publish. (And they do that whether you have had editorial input or not).

 

[Banespawn]

Every scene should change the story in some way. Characterization and world building are great, but they can both be done while moving the story forward.

 

[Louanne Learning]

my medieval heroine to become 'feisty' or 'fight for women's rights'

I think the modern fight for women's rights was a reaction to the suppression of women that only grew after the middle ages.

Before 1000 AD you'll find lots of independent-minded women, who acted on their independence, especially in the Celtic and Viking traditions.

Are you familiar with the The Saga of Erik the Red, which is set around 1000 AD?

Chapter One introduces us to "Aud the Deep-minded, daughter of Ketil Flatnose, son of Bjorn the Ungartered, a noble man from Norway," - she decided who her daughter should marry, and then led the expedition to Iceland -

Then she caused a merchant-ship to be secretly built in the wood, and when she was ready, directed her course out into the Orkneys. There she gave in marriage Thorstein the Red's daughter, Gro, who became mother of Grelad, whom Earl Thorfinn, the Skullcleaver, married.

Afterwards Aud set out to seek Iceland, having twenty free men in her ship.. Aud came to Iceland, and passed the first winter in Bjarnarhofn (Bjornshaven) with her brother Bjorn. Afterwards she occupied all the Dale country between the Dogurdara (day-meal river) and the Skraumuhlaupsa (river of the giantess's leap), and dwelt at Hvamm ... There came with her to Iceland many men worthy of honour, who had been taken captive in sea-roving expeditions to the west, and who were called bondmen.


She certainly had to be feisty to accomplish all that.

The knowledge of women back then was respected - according to The Medieval Magazine article -

Women and magic in medieval Iceland: The story of Þorbjǫrg​

After consuming the food. Þorbjǫrg told Þorkell that she would answer all his questions only after that night. The following day, in order to perform the divinatory ritual, she required the help of women who, “knew the lore needed for the performance of seiðr and that was called ‘warding songs’”. Once again, it seems clear that a fundamental resource for the community – divination – depends on the knowledge and memory of women.

 

[Rath Darkblade]

I think the modern fight for women's rights was a reaction to the suppression of women that only grew after the middle ages.

Before 1000 AD you'll find lots of independent-minded women, who acted on their independence, especially in the Celtic and Viking traditions.

Are you familiar with the The Saga of Erik the Red, which is set around 1000 AD?

Chapter One introduces us to "Aud the Deep-minded, daughter of Ketil Flatnose, son of Bjorn the Ungartered, a noble man from Norway," - she decided who her daughter should marry, and then led the expedition to Iceland -

Then she caused a merchant-ship to be secretly built in the wood, and when she was ready, directed her course out into the Orkneys. There she gave in marriage Thorstein the Red's daughter, Gro, who became mother of Grelad, whom Earl Thorfinn, the Skullcleaver, married.

Afterwards Aud set out to seek Iceland, having twenty free men in her ship.. Aud came to Iceland, and passed the first winter in Bjarnarhofn (Bjornshaven) with her brother Bjorn. Afterwards she occupied all the Dale country between the Dogurdara (day-meal river) and the Skraumuhlaupsa (river of the giantess's leap), and dwelt at Hvamm ... There came with her to Iceland many men worthy of honour, who had been taken captive in sea-roving expeditions to the west, and who were called bondmen.


She certainly had to be feisty to accomplish all that.

The knowledge of women back then was respected - according to The Medieval Magazine article -

Women and magic in medieval Iceland: The story of Þorbjǫrg​

After consuming the food. Þorbjǫrg told Þorkell that she would answer all his questions only after that night. The following day, in order to perform the divinatory ritual, she required the help of women who, “knew the lore needed for the performance of seiðr and that was called ‘warding songs’”. Once again, it seems clear that a fundamental resource for the community – divination – depends on the knowledge and memory of women.

Yes, I'm very familiar with Eiríks saga rauða, and also read other sagas. For instance, I own (and read multiple times) the book Viking Women by Lisa Hannett. I'm currently reading Eleanor Barraclough's Embers of the Hands (a cracking read! I thoroughly recommend it).

I feel nothing but respect for such women as Unn the Deep-Minded, Bergrotha, Solveig, and Breeches-Aud.

So I think the word "feisty" is probably the wrong way to describe what I had in mind. Sorry. These women were very brave and stalwart, and incredible perseverance. But they did it to secure the success of their own family or tribe, not to promote the concept of women's rights (which didn't exist at the time). That's all.

Coming back to my own story: I think my secondary character is a good singer and knows how to play the lyre, but rather than being afraid of religious or societal expectations, she is afraid of performing in public because of a fear of being laughed at. So, she works at the forge (because she's good at that, too), but she wishes she weren't so shy.

Along comes my protagonist, who encourages her to sing. After a false start or two, the secondary character realises that performing in public isn't something to be afraid of.

Does that sound reasonable? I think so - after all, many performers (myself included) were shy when they were just starting out. What do you think?

 

[Louanne Learning]

But they did it to secure the success of their own family or tribe, not to promote the concept of women's rights (which didn't exist at the time). That's all

They did not have to fight for "women's rights' because the concept of "women's rights" was woven into their society

 

[CatrionaGrace]

But they did it to secure the success of their own family or tribe, not to promote the concept of women's rights (which didn't exist at the time). That's all.

Kinda like men, hmmm? Wow. Do you suppose women were considered human beings at one time?

Obviously, nowadays women can do any job that men can do. But since the setting is the year 1,000 AD, it's probable that the Catholic Church would've frowned on this sort of thing, e.g. "How dare women do a man's job!" etc.

Could either of these be problematic? I'm not sure, but I certainly don't want my medieval heroine to become 'feisty' or 'fight for women's rights', because such concepts didn't exist in the middle ages (obviously). I just want her to be encouraging, that's all.

I get the feeling we aren't giving you the answer you wanted. Applying another age's concepts of a woman's position in society to 1000 AD is problematic. You propose applying modern prejudices toward women doing "men's work" to an era where women still had considerable flexibility in their choices.

There is nothing anachronistic about female blacksmith who wants to be a singer. Encouraging another human being to follow a dream is something any good person would do. Let the women in your story be human beings, and be done with it.

 

[Rath Darkblade]

They did not have to fight for "women's rights' because the concept of "women's rights" was woven into their society

Kinda like men, hmmm? Wow. Do you suppose women were considered human beings at one time?




I get the feeling we aren't giving you the answer you wanted. Applying another age's concepts of a woman's position in society to 1000 AD is problematic. You propose applying modern prejudices toward women doing "men's work" to an era where women still had considerable flexibility in their choices.

There is nothing anachronistic about female blacksmith who wants to be a singer. Encouraging another human being to follow a dream is something any good person would do. Let the women in your story be human beings, and be done with it.

Hmm. I apologise; I guess I was overthinking this, in the vein of "It won't be believable if there were no challenges", which made me look at it the wrong way. *blush* Thank you both for giving me the right perspective to look at things.