My Protagonists Own Slaves

I didn't equate the two, I meant, certainly in the Greek and Roman world, the relationship between slave and free was much more complex than black slavery in the South. Writers of the time (Cicero & Seneca) acknowledged that no free man would ever prefer to be a slave, and no slave would prefer slavery to freedom. Incidentally, Seneca advocated the abolition of slavery, as it was in his view immoral for one person to own another, a few millennia ahead of his time.

I think when writing historical fiction, the writer has to be careful not to impose 21st century viewpoints on past times.

 

Oh, damn. I put 21st century morals into time periods that didn't have them, didn't I?

 

It sounds like you're assuming that the two choices are to make zero attempt to shield the reader from the ugly realities of slavery, or creating wildly unrealistic characters.

But I don't see that the advice in this thread has been for wildly unrealistic characters. It's tended toward not pushing slavery right in the reader's face, or finding ways (narrative distance, the way that the reader engages with the character, etc.) to avoid repulsing the reader quite as much as they might otherwise be repulsed.

 

Naughty boy, don't misquote our philosophers. Go look it up.

 

But on the other hand, it doesn't seem all that likely that the characters would have said, "The man who cooked this food is a slave. Got that? A SLAVE." I'd think that they'd refer to him as the cook. It would be a modern mindset that would be extremely, and uncomfortably, aware that he's a slave. If it's a fact of life, it's not necessarily worthy of comment. And if that lack of comment makes the reader more comfortable, I'm not going to go out of my way to make the reader less comfortable, unless it's relevant.

Just as I don't say, "I'm going to walk, by way of the slightly dangerous, populated-by-homeless, Burnside crossing, to Powells." It could come up ("I'm headed to Powells." "It's getting dark; don't go by Burnside." "Oh, yeah.") but there's a spectrum between over emphasizing it and working too hard to hide it.

 

Since this thread seems to have morphed into a more general debate about how to do historical fiction, I'll just say that I don't think the question is necessarily one of accuracy v. inaccuracy. You aren't writing a textbook about the history of slavery. You're writing a story about some individuals. And the thing is, it's probably a pretty safe assumption that, no matter what historical era or region of the world you're talking about, there would have been a wide variety of living conditions and points of view, any of which could be the plausible basis for a story.

We know that slavery in the New World was always controversial, for instance. A number of Europeans criticized the institution of slavery here from the very beginning. @Lew 's point about Seneca wanting to abolish slavery even way back then is another illustration. Did most people subscribe to these views? Maybe not, but I'm arguing it doesn't matter. You aren't writing a story about most people.

And then of course there's the issue that the history we're trying to be true to is itself biased, because it's a record of the thoughts and actions of slave-owners (or higher-status people) far more than it is the thoughts and actions of slaves. Perhaps when we're trying to write a slave's reaction to their lot in life we just have to use our imaginations more, because the history itself isn't as well-attested.

Anyway, I'd just advise everyone to treat claims of "your historical fiction is inaccurate" with skepticism. Usually the people pushing historical fidelity the hardest are really just taking a certain facet of history and treating it as if it's the only one. In fact the world has always been a lot stranger than most stories fiction writers can come up with--this to me is precisely one of the most important lessons you can learn from studying history.

 

The reason a subject/or anybody submits to subjugation at the hands of a monarch, or a tyrant, or a state/government - is that the alternative - a 'life in a state of nature' is 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.'

Neee

 

Yeah, I realized after hitting Post that it has an air of throwing tomatoes at you, personally, and that wasn't the intent. I was going to the extreme to make the distinction, and should have just started a fresh post from scratch. My apologies on that part. If I post again on this thread, I will start it from scratch.

Which is not to ignore what you're saying in the rest of the post. I assure you that I'm reading it, but the danger of tomatoes seems too close for me to respond in any detail.

 

Speaking of tomatoes, and slavery, and old versus new attitudes, my understanding is that if you buy out-of-season tomatoes in a cold part of the US, the odds are fairly significant that they were grown and picked by, effectively, slave labor.

Life is depressing.

 

A/ The Morecambe Bay cockling disaster (Chinese: 拾貝慘案 Shi bèi cǎn'àn, "Cockle-picking tragedy") occurred on the evening of 5 February 2004 at Morecambe Bay in North West England, when at least 21 Chinese undocumented migrant labourers were drowned by an incoming tide after picking cockles off the Lancashire/Cumbrian coast.[1]

Disaster
David Anthony Eden Sr. and David Anthony Eden Jr., a father and son team from England, had unlawfully hired a group of Chinese workers to pick cockles; they were to be paid £5 per 25 kg of cockles, (9p per lb), far less than the typical local rate at the time.[2] The Chinese had been imported unlawfully via containers into Liverpool and were hired out through local criminal agents of international Chinese Triads. The cockles to be collected are best found at low tide on sand flats at Warton Sands, near Hest Bank. The Chinese workers were unfamiliar with local geography, language, and custom. They were cut off by the incoming tide in the bay at around 9:30 pm.

B/ Slavery 'worse' 10 years after Morecambe Bay tragedy. A decade ago 23 Chinese cockle pickers drowned when they were trapped by sweeping tides while working in Morecambe Bay, Lancashire. Yet, 10 years on, campaigners say workers are still being dangerously exploited in the UK.

 

I haven't read many other comments on here, but I'm just going to answer for myself.

This is actually your answer then, ultimately. True, you need to weigh the factors and see if you are approaching it properly, but if you don't see it being told better any other way, then that's what you should go with. That goes for pretty much any decision you make for your story too. I am curious why all the MCs have slaves though. I guess it would just be a norm, but you could have a character that didn't, and give them a great and interesting reason why they don't. Just a suggestion, and I'm not the writer so keep a salt shaker nearby if you need to toss a few grains back.

1. I am currently writing a story that has slave owners as part of one of the main two cultures. The "antagonists" own slaves, but as it goes along it's obvious that these "bad guys" aren't bad, so much as this is their culture, they just happen to be the enemy, they aren't actually all that evil as they're portrayed by in propaganda. It's not like my MC switches sides or anything, but it's mostly there to show that the line between good and evil isn't so cut and clear. People's opinions are often what makes something inherently "bad". I'm not advocating for slavery here, I'm personally very much against it, I'm just saying that opinion and culture is what decides your morals, and those will differ from one to another.

2. No, not at all. Morally I'd disagree with the slavery, but that wouldn't disconnect me from the character. We all love to watch movies about Romans, I've enjoyed movies and TV shows just fine where the MC had slaves. The rest of their actions are what count, not their cultural differences, if that makes sense. Do they have other moral conflicts where they make the humane or proper choice instead of the selfish one? Then yeah, we'll relate just fine.

3. Certainly mixed. I haven't gotten to much interaction with slaves in my WIP yet, but I've worked some of it out mentally. There's all types of slave owners, and some would be cruel while others more benevolent. Kindness, however, isn't the cultural norm for that society though. Fairness is, and often times back stabbing politics is normal, but acts of kindness in that culture I'm building are not the norm, it's less common while still not unheard of. Cruelty is probably slightly more common, and typically not frowned upon since everyone stays out of other people's business. This is why that culture obtained a bad reputation in my WIP, even though the commoners aren't really all that different than other people.

4. You want to avoid simply telling the reader "This person has slaves, they've had them in the family for a long time, the current slaves are named blank, blank, stank." That's an info dump. Just have the character interact with them in some way, just sorta' write it in naturally. We don't know anything about this world or the characters, but those characters live in this world, and they know it very well, so you have to write from their perspectives. The characters aren't going to sit down and tell us all about the slaves they own. They're going to go about their day instead, and along the way we'll most likely find out that they own slaves. Make sense? Have conversations going between characters, there's all manners of ways to do it, and you also never really have to say they're slaves, if it's written the right way it can even convey that knowledge without ever using the word.

 

Let me clarify that I wasn't saying that Diokles would never be freed. He's a child/teenager when the story takes place, and manumission would be impossible until he came to the age of majority at the very least. Penn also knows that Diokles would probably never be accepted as an heir because of his disability, so the adoption could do more harm than good. Typically, you also had to be able to provide for yourself before being freed as well. Also, since Diokles is mute, he could potentially become a victim of people who don't have his best interests in mind. Penn is able to protect Diokles through Diokles' legal status as Penn's slave. So those are the reasons why Penn is officially keeping him as a slave through a large chunk of the story. In all likelihood, Diokles will eventually be granted his freedom. He might even marry into the family because his love interest is Corinna, Penn and Glykeria's only child.

 

Wouldn't Diocles be a more authentic name?

 

Not sure if this helps but I think I read somewhere that in ancient times they had a day where slaves masters would switch places. I think it was called Saturnalia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturnalia

 

I hate to agree it was very common in older civilizations to abandon the handicapped, misshapened, or oddities of society. In some of the sicker parts of the world, they would hunt these people. Even still in modern society. For example, the albino blacks of Africa are hunted by black folk because they believe if they cannibalize it will give them magical powers. Doubly so if it's an albino female virgin. Among other things as well https://answersafrica.com/increase-of-albino-attacks-in-tanzania.html Look at the game of thrones Tyrion's character is still lucky per say because even the wealthy did this to their own if they were ashamed or in fear of its (disability) bringing shame on the family.