My story focuses on two members of an indigenous culture—one who longs for traditional ways and the other who embraces modern culture. In the course of the conflict between them, they both make valid points, and both can see the others viewpoint even if they disagree. The POV character is the one who embraces modern culture. At first I was going to split the POV but didn’t like how that turned out. What pitfalls, generally speaking, would you all look out for? And no, I’m not a member of the culture I’m writing about. And yes, it is a real world culture although my story is a bit of an alt-history/timeline.
A pitfall that comes to mind is acceptance. If the two characters can see each other's viewpoint, there has to be a core reason they are sticking to their choice. Whether it's a bunch of small reasons or a large point that can't be resolved, at least one of the two must have a very important reason they do not agree with the other, and it should be important and weighty enough to the reader that it can withstand the length of your story. I would also suggest they not accept the other's viewpoint straight from the get-go; internal struggle might be advantageous from a story telling perspective.
Since you are looking at this culture from the outside in, you should do a fair bit of research, especially if you write about a specific indigenous tribe. You should probably consult with people from that culture too. It bothers me a lot when an English writer don't even bother making sure that the one line of French told by a French character in their 90K novel is correct. I can't imagine how I would feel if my whole culture was misrepresented... In her novel The Heaviness of Things that Float, Jennifer Manuel, who has worked closely with aboriginals, still writes the story through the eyes of a white woman. I'm also thinking of Gail Anderson-Dargatz's The Spawning Grounds, which bridges the native and white cultures as well as the choice between traditional/modern lifestyle.
@-oz Those are good points. The characters never really "accept" each other views, in the sense that neither of them becomes convinced that the other is right. They can understand one another's views, and empathize with them, but in the end each remains rooted in her own convictions. The internal conflict comes to a head when one character is confronted with the possibility of having to act contrary to those convictions. @Quanta I've done quite a lot of research on the culture. It is more useful as background, in this case, since the story is an alternative history where the world diverged from our timeline around 1000 years ago, but there is still plenty that is meant to be true to the real-world culture, and I've spent quite a bit of time researching that aspect. I have not, however, consulted anyone from that culture. That is something to consider, though of course the real world culture no longer exists in the form it would have 1000 years ago, and in fact lost most of its own history for quite a long time, so a lot of this is pure speculation.
Cultural appropriation is quite a big issue if you're an outsider commenting on that culture in a novel.
I've been trying to figure out what is making me go "huh?" about this, and realized that it's "modern culture". Is it modern culture in the sense that the indigenous culture changed on its own, or is it a culture from somewhere else? Because if it's from somewhere else, I wouldn't see the contrast so much as indigenous/modern, but instead as indigenous/foreign, or something of that sort.
Yes, I’ve seen that element that exists out there but I don’t personally subscribe to the view that this is, or should be, a problem.
Yes, I can see where that wasn’t clear. The indigenous culture managed to maintain something of a separation from the rest of the world—not isolationist, but a strong sense of their own identities. At the tome the story takes place, that is starting to be overwhelmed by the prevalence of American and European commercial culture (TV, clothes, and so on). One character embraces this, the other wants to return to a more traditional life.
The notion of 'indigenous culture' in itself - the idea of one community arriving on a strip of land being more or less authentic than another arriving 800 years later, or 30 000 years later. ... I think it'd be better as sub-text. In your face it is potentially - a little trite - is one word...I'm thinking on.
Yeah, "indigenous" and "modern" aren't necessarily opposites. I take it you meant something more like traditionalist vs. modern. Or maybe conservative vs. progressive? I'm not sure I have any good advice, but the questions this scenario raises for me are: in what way are they traditionalist, and not? Does the "traditional" character want to maintain something that still exists? Or resurrect something that used to exist? Does she reject everything modern (like the Amish), or just some things? I'm guessing you probably have answers to all these, and if you do you'll probably be fine. The point is just to think things through enough that you're writing about realistic people and not broad categories like "indigenous" and "modern". And especially not artificially setting them up to oppose each other when they don't necessarily have to. I mean I could believe that two people like you've described exist, but whatever conflict they have has to come from their personalities and circumstances, not vice versa.
It's the point you make that matters. One can have a scene from the POV of Hannibal The Cannibal, arguing the pros of eating people. And that can be okay if the overall plot teaches a lesson how eating people is a bad thing. But it won't be okay if the plot ends up with recipes. If you are talking about the clash of two cultures, then it will be important not to offend and claim that the indigenous culture is inferior in some way. But that will be judged from the plot as a whole, not from one conversation.
Resurrect something that used to exist. There are magical elements in the story that play into this. I feel like the conflict does come at least in part from their personalities, as they are expressed in the story, but that's something I'll look at further. Thanks for the input!
I wouldn't say one is inferior over the other, but I think either character could prevail and still result in a good story.
To answer the POV question you asked, each scene can have a different POV and if this is well introduced, I think it would add to your story. The danger is mixing POVs in scenes, which is something easy to do if you have the two characters in the same scene. That's one of the reasons why I like yWriter as each scene requires a character to be allocated a POV focus.
