Alpennia Blog: Writing Outsiders

[hrj]

One common feature most of my central characters share (not just the point of view characters, but the core "community" of the Alpennia novels) is some aspect of their lives that made them dis-invested in the status quo. Some feature that sets them outside the normative paradigm of respectable marriage and motherhood (or the equivalent, for male characters), and so gives them a certain amount of emotional freedom to choose to diverge from the safe, expected path. In contrast, they also all have some aspect of social vulnerability that makes that divergence even more risky than it might otherwise be. (Simply being female in a patriarchal society is a basic vulnerability that most--though not all--of them share.) That dis-investment isn't necessarily universal throughout their story arc. It may simply occur at a crucial time to shape their decisions.

What do I mean by this? Let's look at some examples. Margerit's dis-investment is, to some extent, simply not wanting that normative paradigm. In choosing not to become a wife and mother, she isn't rejecting anything she specifically valued. It's something of a passive characteristic, perhaps. Her vulnerability is primarily the restrictions put on an unmarried woman in her society. The major aspect of Barbara's dis-investment is also her initial vulnerability: her unfree condition. But even after that is resolved, she is dis-invested in a normative life because an enormous part of her self-image is rooted in the gender-transgressive occupation of armin and the personal freedom that legacy allows her.

Antuniet's major dis-investment comes after her family's disgrace. She's lost everything and therefore has very little left to lose. But the flip side of this is her vulnerability: she wants that honor and respect back, if not for herself personally, then for her family legacy. So while she has the freedom to engage in occupations and pursuits that she wouldn't have been allowed when her mother was still alive and in control of her life, she bends those pursuits toward regaining a position where she will once again have something to lose.

Anna Monterrez has been set outside the expected paradigms of her life, not by her apprenticeship in alchemy, but by her disfigurement, which most of those around her (and especially her father) assume will stand in the way of her chances of a good marriage. Within the context of Alpennian society, her particular vulnerability is her religious/ethnic background--an aspect that I've tended to downplay, assuming that anyone familiar with European history can sketch in the gaps without me having to emphasize the point too much.

Luzie Valorin's dis-investment is her widowed status: counter to the normative paradigm, she must work outside the home to maintain the appearances and expectations of her class. Her vulnerability is her ambition to ensure that her sons don't slip from the class expectations their father had for them. Serafina Talarico's dis-investment is the absence of any existing social context in which she naturally fits, the lack of grounding. Her vulnerability is the lack of any clear safety net, as well as her foreign status.

I've tried not to re-use the same dis-investments and vulnerabilities too much. Working class origins occur regularly as a vulnerability for those moving within higher levels of society, as will be the case for Rozild, the protagonist of Floodtide. Physical disability would be easy to over-do as a basis for dis-investment, but it will play a part for Rozild's friend Liv (whom you haven't met yet).

But as I was thinking about this topic, it occurred to me that, if some sort of dis-investing characteristic can make transgressive personal choices "easier" in some ways, it would also be interesting to explore a character who has every reason to be completely invested in the status quo, in the normative paradigm, and in the power structures of society…and then to give her a reason to go against all that and make choices that create vulnerabilities that didn't previously exist. I'm contemplating that. There's a character a few books in the future who would fit the bill nicely. I don't know a great deal about her yet, but I think getting to know her will be very interesting.

As a side note: the finalists for the Golden Crown Literary Awards have been announced, and The Mystic Marriage is among them. It's quite likely that Bella Books will have some sort of promotional sale related to this announcement, so if you've been waiting for a chance to pick up a copy, keep your eyes peeled.

Comments

[aryanhwy.livejournal.com]

Strangely enough, I suspect not that much different from you. I've never been one who had 'the ear of the royalty', or who had close friends on the thrones, and my experience being on the throne myself was singularly different from many other peoples, I suspect. I also never had any interest/desire in participating in that power structure in the way I did until the opportunity was raised -- i.e., about four hours before we submitted our letter of intent on the day letters of intent were due. :)

But otherwise what you describes resonates a lot with me. I will likely never become a laurel because I am not invested enough with jumping through the hoops I'd need to to become a part of the right clique. But that there is my vulnerability -- I'll probably never become a laurel, even though it's been a long-held desire.