I did see yours, thanks it's very helpful. I'm just wanting to keep the thread open to get more opinions; I didn't mean to seem like I was ignoring anyone's contributions. Actually, considering the two semesters of anthropology that I've taken so far, I'm well aware that a younger marriage age is in the majority of cultures; it's not something that bothers me personally. However, I'm also aware that, since I'm publishing in America, I'm going to have to contend with the common views of an American audience, meaning that having "underage" characters needs to be adequately justified in-universe or I face the possibility of being rejected for publishing or having the series maligned after being published. I'm just trying get advice on how to achieve that.
First, while it's true some societies still condone marrying young, the author of the this forum's original post lists his or herself as a resident of the United States. The author is presumably writing for the US audience, a place where it's generally unacceptable to condone sexual or marital relationships between minors. I don't think her question is egocentric given what is likely her intended audience and its prevailing opinion. Secondly, just because one society believes something is correct doesn't mean we aren't allowed to criticize the practice in question. I am critical of the practice of marrying children to adults because I believe the practice to be morally and ethically wrong. Being culturally sensitive is all well and good, but being culturally sensitive to the point of turning your back on or blindly accepting atrocities in the name of accepting another society's "norms" is... well. I'd rather be labeled "egocentric" than watch a nine year old child bride get married off to a 40 year old. That's what the author of this thread is asking about, anyway--how her audience would react to such a scenario should they be against young marriages. What's egocentric about keeping your audience in mind while composing a work of fiction?
I wish I'd waited to post my last reply until after you'd posted this. Exactly my point, stated by the author his/herself! There is nothing wrong with considering your target audience and their most probable reactions to a touchy subject.
Not a problem I tend to compose posts somewhat slowly so it doesn't surprise me that other replies slipped by while I was writing. I appreciated the thought out response you gave.
There are plenty of books that have done quite well in the U.S. that features young love and marriage. Some have been on the top sellers list, "Fifty Shades of Grey," comes to mind. What's egocentric about it? How is it fair to be worried only about if the majority are offended and not everyone? So are you saying that John Doe who is Christian and lives in Mayberry with a wife and two and a half kids is more important than the gypsy who got married at thirteen and has grown up believing that is normal? Fact is, if the story is strong, all of this won't matter. Funny thing is, many that follow the Bible don't think it is right to get married at an early age, while it happens all throughout the Bible. I personally don't think young children should get married, but that's my belief, and it just happens that I live in a society that most people agree with me. That however, doesn't make me right.
If they gypsies are not going to be offended by the content then there's no reason to worry about how they'll react to the content. Your point just collapsed in on itself. It might make you right--not because people share your tastes (truth doesn't lie in groupthink, after all) but because your tastes might reflect a greater ethical truth. Despite what PC-pushing people might tell you, cultural relativism isn't an excuse for moral corruption. Universal moral values is an important concept in the study of ethics. I suggest researching the topic.
Wrong, gypsies would be offended if people were debating whether to write a story about something they see as normal and call their values dissonant. I've taken many ethics, cultural anthropology, and other subjects. Maybe you should follow your own advice? There is no universal moral values other than doing what is right and what is wrong based on the values of YOUR society. So therefor the details are NOT universal. I don't know whether to give you duct tape or toilet paper for all this b.s. that you are spewing. This has nothing to do with being politically correct, but instead it's about giving courtesy to others and not putting yourself before them. As they say, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." It's not, "When in Rome, tell them how morally corrupt they are and that they need to start acting like you."
I gave you my answer, and I'll re-iterate it one last time as my final post to you. If you write a good enough story, this point means absolutely nothing. As you admitted yourself, there are many cultures out there that marrying and reproducing at a young age is accepted as the norm. So what it comes down to, do YOU have a problem with writing about it? If so then the answer is simple, don't write it. If not, write the story the way you see it, and then worry about whether people have a problem with it later, and if they do, then more than likely it was the story itself that was the problem and not the detail. After all people have written about cannibalism (Hannibal Lecter) and all kinds of taboo subjects a lot worse than this, and their works have turned into best sellers.
No problem! Back on topic, I've faced a similar issue. I think you need to consider the differences between shock value and fact. I often write about my young life on a rural ranch; I've published stories about childhood experiences that were EXTREMELY violent. I worried, like you, how general readership would react to my violent nonfiction. My most violent piece involved a disemboweled animal, beating an animal to death with a rock, mercy-shooting an animal, and mocking an animal that had been violently paralyzed, all within the span of 20 pages or so. I worried that these events constituted mere shock-value violence as opposed to something meaningful; I worried that I would alienate my readers when I chose not to mince words and to purposefully describe the violence in unflinching detail. It was gory stuff. It wasn't stuff your average American is accustomed to, but the events are a standard part of rural living. I didn't want to lie to my audience so I presented the facts as facts. Ho hum. I figured that if I toned the truth down, the piece would lose its authenticity. I didn't want to lie to my readers, and neither should you. You should present the facts (even if they're oxymoronic fictional facts) exactly as they are to preserve the genuine truth of your story. If you're able to portray your underage marriage and sex as a mere fact of the world, bare boned and stark, as opposed to an exercise in "OMG look how edgy I am!" no one should mind the ethical squikyness. It's all in the presentation. Acts of horrible depravity (The Road, anyone?) can be portrayed with a kind of grace and elegance that make a person think instead of lashing out in uncomfortable emotional response with no critical intent. It's when things are used for shock value that they start to distract from the story's truth. So long as you keep the underage stuff out of the realm of shock material, I think you're good. Now go get 'em. You can do it.
@Lewdog @graphospasm talking about offending people - the politicaly correct term is Roma, not "gypsies" (which is seen as derogatory by some). About the marriage issue: I think westerners usually think "being married" = "having sex", which is not the case in many cultures that practice toddler marriages there is still the diffeence between arranging a marriage and the actual joining of the bride and the groom... Sex has little biological value outside the realm of procreation, and procreation has little chances to succeed before sexual maturity of acting participants - have this in mind when defining a fictional culture... And also, note the difference between "child" as an english word and "child" as a legal term, not defined as "younger than 14" before 1920s I think...
I'm not at my sharpest right now, but what was the reason your characters have to be teenagers yet you portray them in adult relationships (as most of us understand said relationships)? I mean, why aren't they 17 or 18? Unless your reason is the life-expectancy thing... but what you have is pretty close to what we have in first world countries right now... I think Jazz already said it pretty well; some people are always gonna grumble, some people love to be self-proclaimed offence hunters who can't stand the idea that e.g. a homosexual character has any flaws or negative aspects to him/her because THAT'S OFFENSIVE, you know, who think it's better to be absurd than offensive. You can just flip 'em a big fat middle-finger and write the best story you can. As pointed out, this seems to have varied from culture to culture. If you talk about e.g. Victorian or Edwardian England and refer to the majority of the people, then no, not really. Even nowadays, there are corners in our world where a poor family can sell their 8yo daughter to a 40yo man. Is it a surprise, really, that the little bride dies of internal injuries soon after the wedding...
Um.... I think the majority of us were making this exact point, because it refers to the article, the link for which was provided by the OP. The article deals with the error of applying modern-day social rules and mores to historical or fantastical settings. The point to all my figures and historical references is that the life expectancy we have today has been around for like a second and is utterly artificial. When you take into account the life expectancies to be had less than a 100 years ago, and from there on back, younger relationships don't play out as so unusual. If you're only going to live to 50, 15 is already a really big chunk of your overall time, so hopefully you've gotten some notches in your belt by then.
Ok, I know I'm being pedantic but this: is definitely not true. Sex has enormous impact on human's health and well being. Regular, safe, consensual sex helps prevent a whole host of illnesses, both physical and psychological, through release of various hormones that have effect on anything from blood pressure to mood, immunity etc. The actual age at which benefits of consensual sex kick in is open for (legal and ethical) debate, but medically speaking, they are once they reach sexual maturity (menarche for girls, and a few years later for boys) and they feel ready. On the other hand, non-consensual, unsafe, coercive sex has the opposite effect, it can seriously compromise both physical and psychological health through the effect of stress hormones and the rest that goes with it. Just thought it would be valuable to make this point.
What's with the whole "life expectancy of 100 years" thing?? Where do you people live? Because I wanna move there! @jazzabel I agree there sorry if it sounded too simplified - the issue of sex and marriage is of course a complex one - the economical aspects of marriage are often completely missed by modern westerners; the ritualistic and deeper cultural (not to mention religious and spiritual) sides of both marriage and sex are downgraded and misunderstood, etc...
Which ones? How many? Where? Now or in the past? I suspect (given her lack of response to my question) that @Duchess-Yukine-Suoh may think I was giving her a hard time. I wasn't (I'm actually quite impressed with how she has handled herself since joining our merry band and look forward to further contributions from her). But assertions like the one above can be extremely misleading without proper support. To @Lewdog, I would point out that no one has said that portraying a society of people marrying in their early or mid-teens would be inherently bad. Some have suggested that it might strain credulity or cause offense to certain segments of your target readership, and that such might be a consideration when writing it. As it happens, I would consider the first but not the second. To the extent that the portrayed world is similar to what readers know, they might experience some cognitive dissonance when certain aspects don't ring true. So, I think it's something to be kept in mind in describing the setting, not a reason to change what one is planning to write.
Well, I did think that, but kind of knew that you meant nothing personal by it. And thank you! That's so nice of you! It's sort of a "family story" thing. But distant relatives, it's not like they were closely related.
I thought that might be the case. I've found that one of the greatest barriers to human understanding is the tendency to take what we have been told and apply it universally. I heard a number of such things growing up and later found many of them to be flat out wrong. It might well be that marriages such as the ones you speak of were common in a specific place with a specific group of people.
I was wondering the same thing. Is the fact of maturity/marriage at a younger chronological age adding value to the story, value that makes up for this worry? Even if the slightly shorter life expectancy adds value, I don't see that it requires the correspondingly younger maturity.
