posted
Apologies for derailing the "Female heroes getting degraded" thread. Here's a place to continue.
I really thought the replies were interesting. Looks like one of the issues to face is how gritty to be with the realism. The infant and child mortality rate in the past was much higher than it is now in developed nations. So even if you weren't forced to take your kid to war, you'd still have to face the perils of disease and illness. I can only think that people must have become numbed to death and pain far faster back then - losing, say, half your children before they reached adulthood, even in peacetime.
In my case, there is a prophecy that applies to the four-year-old as well as a group of adults. At the end, when the adults get too caught up in politics and war and forget the prophecy, it's the kid who starts the magic ritual which was foretold. It draws the others in like a domino effect. The kicker, though, is that the protagonist is *not* one of the people in the prophecy. She saves the day indirectly by protecting the boy's life long enough for him to fulfil it, but as it happens, she can't do much but watch from the sidelines.
Would people find that too passive?
It was also really helpful to get a sense of how people would react, as parents, to their young kid being forced into danger - and how the kids would react, for that matter. I can't help but think of One Child by Torey Hayden - it's the true story of a six-year-old who tried to kill a three-year-old by tying him to a tree and burning him. In rare cases very young children do apparently have the capacity to kill other people.
posted
Harry Potter. Golden Compass, Amber Spyglass.
And, a wonderful 'almost-first contact' story with a child protagonist, though more philosophical than violent--Ursula K Le Guin's "Decision at Doona."
posted
Wups, a senior moment in pubic <blush>. Thanks, Grant John, I got the author wrong. I sincerely hope there was a child as a significant character in Decision at Doona ...
posted
I'm not sure "numbed to death" (which, out of context, sounds kinda funny) is entirely accurate. I think death was better accepted, if that makes sense.
Literature is full of immortality themes, but, overall, societies before the 20th century seemed to understand that death was part of life. I don't mean to imply that the 20th century citizen doesn't understand that he or she will die (as Hank Williams said, 'no one gets out alive'), but we've gotten used to medical breakthroughs and science as a way of extending our lives that we seriously consider living into our hundreds as being attainable in this generation's lifetime.
We take it for granted that we will live to be cranky, old people, and we seem to be willing to do just about anything to stave off death; whether it's trying to fool ourselves that we're getting older by using Botox or plastic surgery, or taking antioxidants from a bottle to prevent us from getting cancer.
Death has become the enemy, something to fight against, as opposed to accepting as part of life.
(And so the cops don't show up at my door to wonder about the heeads I've got in my fridge, I'm painting with a very broad brush here, speaking in broad philosophical terms. For the record, I don't accept death, and will fight it to my, well...death.)
posted
I’m hesitant to respond to topics such as this, because my experiences seem at odds with most people’s. Regardless, I’ll share a couple anecdotes, in case they help.
A woman much like a second mother to my husband continued training in fighting arts, even contact sparring, through three pregnancies. Her attitude was that if someone jumped her while she was nine months pregnant, she needed the ability to respond as if she weren’t carrying a child. She is unusual; most woman fighters take a break from training or modify their routines to minimize risk to themselves and their neonates. This same woman, a martial arts instructor, also allowed her youngest child to run and play on the training floor during class; presumably, doing so gave her students practice in spreading awareness and keeping kicks high, even when fatigued, and taught her daughter about risk and the importance of speed.
Later on, when her daughter no longer ran under people's kicks, her daughter still managed to break an arm during class. The girl had been playing around a soda machine, which had then fallen on her. Though the girl rushed to her mom, explaining what had happened, she was told to wait until class was over to go to the hospital. (For those that don't know, a broken arm is rarely life-threatening.) Let me note here that the woman works in a hospital, though I don't remember if she was a nurse or a medical researcher at that time.
Obviously, not all parents believe in coddling children. My own parents didn't. My dad sometimes threatened me, as a means of instruction. For example, I learned at nine years old how to how throw him--close to 200 pounds at the time--off balance; I had to so he could no longer shove me into streets with moving traffic. I think my parents’ greatest fear when I was little was that I would be dependent and weak in dangerous situations. Most of their words and actions throughout my childhood indicated a greater concern for how I acted than how I felt. They didn’t rush me to a doctor whenever I was injured because of one of my stupid experiments; I was expected to make do and suffer the consequences. They wanted a strong, independent daughter. In many ways, they achieved in me what they wanted, though my husband and I have different methods in mind to achieve the same results with our future children.
posted
As for your story... I’m often the first, or loudest, member of a group to point out children are often capable of more than adults typically acknowledge. However, I find the age of your character extreme. In my observations, self-awareness doesn’t form until a child is five years old. Before then, a child is a purely reactionary creature. Unless your four-old-year accidentally starts the magic ritual, I would not find your plot believable.
I think writing about the boy’s actions from another POV could be too passive. Conversely, if the woman warrior manages to keep readers’ interest to that point, moving from her POV could create frustration. I can imagine an effective scene from her POV, compelling based on her internal reactions to what she sees.
posted
Aspirit - thanks for the response. This is the kind of thing I was looking for - a perspective different to the norm of our safety-sensitive culture where children younger than 12 aren't even supposed to be alone in their own homes.
There are a lot of factors complicating the picture in my story. I didn't want to bring them into the discussion until people had had a chance to respond, so I didn't dilute or bias it. Despite the things that supposedly make this magic kid special, I want him to talk and act and feel like a normal four-year-old.
How he manages to get involved with the ritual is because of irrepressible curiosity, not an awareness of the consequences. For example, in another scene, with his mother's permission and implicit encouragement, he sticks his hand into a magical object everyone else has been afraid to touch. When he doesn't get hurt, his innocence acts as a catalyst to show the other characters they shouldn't have been so hesitant.
I know it's hard to judge without actually reading the story. I'm hoping to have the first chapters ready to post soon. I'd be very interested in your response to them later if you have the time.
[This message has been edited by Pyraxis (edited December 17, 2008).]
posted
I'm gonna have to comment on aspirit's anecdotes.
The age of the child isn't given, but, in my opinion, if the mother has her young child running around, dodging students in martial arts, she's an idiot. These are students, and I'm assuming not all of them are Bruce Lee. It's a needless risk to the child.
As far as the arm being broken, and the mother's response, I think that's needlessly cruel.
And contrary to Pyraxis' implied agreement, it's got nothing to do with "our safety-sensitive culture". A parent not letting her kid play on the jungle gym is not the same as letting a child run around, playing around a soda machine, and hoping the martial arts students don't kick the kid in the head.
posted
I think, Pyraxis, you have an example of a real life parent who is willing to let their child be in harms way, and the reaction of others who hear about it. It would add believability to your story if you showed other parents' being shocked or critical of your MC's parenting decisions (even if it is out of necessity). I don't think that our culture is more protective than in times past, but that we have a greater ability to protect our children. They don't have to grow up fast and take on responsibilities at a young age. Also dangers are different today. It's no longer safe to let young children play outside unsupervised, traffic, stranger danger, drugs are all new threats to children. We've adapted to these.
Posts: 968 | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think, Pyraxis, you have an example of a real life parent who is willing to let their child be in harms way, and the reaction of others who hear about it.
Yes. That's exactly what I was thinking.
That's part of the advantage of sounding these things out in advance - it'll help me target the writing better.
quote:Also dangers are different today. It's no longer safe to let young children play outside unsupervised, traffic, stranger danger, drugs are all new threats to children.
I don't think they're new threats. I think what's "new" is the culture. I think parents are different than they were fifty+ years ago. Why they're different is an interesting question, and could be anything from the advance of the suburb to parental guilt to the ability to gather information without much effort to the increasing reliance of media to highlight low-percentage fears to the fear of what will the neighbors think...
I would think most threats to children come from the parents themselves, as opposed to "outside" dangers.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
