If it quacks like a duck?

[TheEndIsNigh]

Hi folks.

So, here's the question.

I have a character in my WIP who is in charge of a deeply religious group and is responsible for their safe, spiritual guidence. They live in a large complex andhave extensive influence on the local region and to a lessor extent the far reaches of the province in which he is based.

Now I could go into detailed descriptions of the setup, with careful attention to the hierachy of his organisation, the various jobs and titlesof his underlings and how he reports to his superiors and generally spend three of for pages helping the reader to fully understand the politics and social strata of which he is a part.

Or I could just call him 'Abbot smith.'

Everyone reading that would already be fully equiped with knowledge of the situation and it would save pages and pages of boring info dump and allow m to just get on with the tale.

Which way would you recomend I go.

 

[Montero]

I would certainly go for the one word job title approach.

You've not said if they are a Christian type religion - so might not want to say "Abbot" unless the other resonances are also correct. As in

celibate (for later Christian monastries not early Celtic ones but later Roman Christian is far more familiar to readers),

in for life (except for very odd exceptions),

single sex etc.

 

[Venusian Broon]

My initial thoughts were:-

Go with 'Abbot Smith' and straight into the tale. You can always have flashes of insight that reveal deeper structures about the abbot, how he operates and the organisation he's in small bursts related to what's happening to the characters.

But I suppose it does depend what is happening in your plot later - are the details relevant for the plot further on, so perhaps a tightly worded summary would be very helpful for the reader?

However you do yourself describe it as 'boring' so perhaps it's just unnecessary ?

 

[Bowler1]

Three for three, stick with Abbott (or other crystal clear title) and fill in the day to day as your plot unfolds.

Last question, where's the duck, I don't see any ducks around here?

 

[ctg]

TEIN, if you take out the back-story and just stick with Abbott Smith couldn't you do that same thing with any other character? Like for example couldn't you just say that HP.otter is a great wizard and therefore JKR could have skipped six books explaining what happened before?

What I'm saying is that if the MC needs fleshing out, then you should flesh out as just titles doesn't do anything to anyone. They are just are just that, titles without content and you would be doing telling instead of showing. But that's the thing, when you should be telling instead of showing?

 

[Biskit]

Like for example couldn't you just say that HP.otter is a great wizard and therefore JKR could have skipped six books explaining what happened before?

Memory is a bit fuzzy, but didn't Rowling say/strongly hint from the start that Harry is going to be a great wizard, and then spent 6 books showing (as opposed to explaining) how and why?

 

[BetaWolf]

It's safe to call him 'abbot,' but you should spend the time explaining in particular how he is different from any medieval Christian abbot. Monks had very regulated schedules, so that should be part of it. Or maybe your monks don't. But I'd start with some action and slowly let things like the daily life of a monk in your world unfold. Starting with a big religious ritual or celebration might be a good way to showcase all the different relationships and tensions within the community and with their superiors and secular authorities.

For religious communities, I'd read Ursula LeGuin's The Tombs of Atuan and Ellis Peter's One Corpse Too Many (the first of the Cadfael mysteries--also on Netflix).

If you are writing about a religion that you made up, I would spend time explaining its ins and outs. I would avoid just replacing "Christ" with "Bob" for example and have the abbot and monks be just like medieval Christian monks in every other regard. Just one of my pet peeves in fantasy lit. Hope that helped.

 

[ctg]

Like for example couldn't you just say that HP.otter is a great wizard and therefore JKR could have skipped six books explaining what happened before?

Memory is a bit fuzzy, but didn't Rowling say/strongly hint from the start that Harry is going to be a great wizard, and then spent 6 books showing (as opposed to explaining) how and why?

Sarcastic Biskit. That info was repeated so many times throughout the books that it became overused. But that is exactly the point, why to skip the back-story, when you can spend better part of the decade explaining what is what and why everything had to happen the way it happened?

 

[Ursa major]

Go with 'Abbot Smith' and straight into the tale.

I agree. Otherwise you'll have the logical equivalent of the Abbot talking to someone saying, "As you know, I'm in charge of a deeply religious group and am responsible for their safe, spiritual guidance. We live in a large complex and under my leadership we have extensive influence on the local region and to a lessor extent the far reaches of the province in which I am is based. Please look at this organisation chart...."

But here's the key point:

You can always have flashes of insight that reveal deeper structures about the abbot, how he operates and the organisation he's in small bursts related to what's happening to the characters.

It's key, because:

1. it allows you to show rather than tell;
2. by definition, if these insights are attached to incidents that were already to be in the story, the reader is only told what they need to know (as opposed to seeing all the aspects of the job, most of which will be irrelevant to the story).

Regarding boy wizards: the tale in the Potter series is about Harry's growth (his 'journey', if you're a fan of Cheryl Cole) until the final** confrontation; by definition, it isn't back story. If, however, the story was about that final confrontation, all the stuff before that would be back story.


** - I haven't read the books or seen that last three films, so this 'finality' is an assumption on my part.

 

[Biskit]

Sarcastic Biskit.

Sorry. Guilty. Frequently.

Imagine the Biskitetta delivering a slap.

 

[TheEndIsNigh]

OK. Thanks one and all for the excellent feedback so far.

My Abbot isn't Christian - He isn't even on Earth.

But he does for his particular religion what a Christian Abbot would do.

Yes there are differences (which are not compared to the Christian equivilant - in fact he doesn't have any knowledge of those). The nice thing about using Abbot, Prior, Monk and Monastary is the reader gives himself a preconception of the type of community, but he will already know that it isn't exactly the same set up by the time he's in there.

The abbot in question is the boss of the the Prior mentioned in this section. (2000th post). He doesn't play a big role here, but will do later on.

http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/531497-lords-of-creation-2000th-post-critique.html#post1499329

 

[Bowler1]

I still want to know where the duckies are?

 

[BetaWolf]

I think it's fine using the titles people are vaguely familiar with. I am using Prefect, Consul, etc. in my space opera. You can call someone a monk or abbot and it conjures up an image for you to play with--how are this writer's monks and abbots different from those I might have some information on. It can be quite powerful stuff if done well.

I think that Frank Herbert handled titles and religion rather well in Dune for example. Here is another example, albeit using Christianity, in an extraterrestrial context: http://www.lightspeedmagazine.com/fiction/the-way-of-cross-and-dragon/

 

[AnyaKimlin]

My Abbot isn't Christian or on Earth either - he is called The Abbot because it is what his title would translate to in English..

Not all Abbot's on Earth are Christian either. Any religion with monasteries can have Abbots.

 

[BetaWolf]

My Abbot isn't Christian or on Earth either - he is called The Abbot because it is what his title would translate to in English..

Not all Abbot's on Earth are Christian either. Any religion with monasteries can have Abbots.

I agree. The alternative is to invent new titles that won't be that memorable for readers. I use English or Latin words, sometimes in compound: First Scribe, High Acolyte, etc., as necessary.

 

[TheEndIsNigh]

I think it's fine using the titles people are vaguely familiar with. I am using Prefect, Consul, etc. in my space opera. You can call someone a monk or abbot and it conjures up an image for you to play with--how are this writer's monks and abbots different from those I might have some information on. It can be quite powerful stuff if done well.

I think that Frank Herbert handled titles and religion rather well in Dune for example. Here is another example, albeit using Christianity, in an extraterrestrial context: http://www.lightspeedmagazine.com/fiction/the-way-of-cross-and-dragon/

Betawolf:

Thanks for that. If old GRRM can get away with it then I should have no trouble .

Interestingly enough the opening few sentences did invoke the kind of associated imagery I desire.

However, I found the whole too OTT, which is surprising given the source.

Thanks again

 

[hopewrites]

showing up late and not to be utterly contrary but...

I would go ahead and tell it. I once gave up on a series because the author assumed I knew way more about Catholicism (I assume it was Catholicism anyway) than I do and even 7 books into the series I felt utterly lost when it came to the religious bits. Heavy politics both in and out of the church in her books though. And I follow that even less well than I follow religion.

I think that's the biggest tragedy of the Three Banned Topics for social discourse. I know absolutely nothing about what is going on in them.

 

[TheEndIsNigh]

showing up late and not to be utterly contrary but...

I would go ahead and tell it. I once gave up on a series because the author assumed I knew way more about Catholicism (I assume it was Catholicism anyway) than I do and even 7 books into the series I felt utterly lost when it came to the religious bits. Heavy politics both in and out of the church in her books though. And I follow that even less well than I follow religion.

I think that's the biggest tragedy of the Three Banned Topics for social discourse. I know absolutely nothing about what is going on in them.

Not a problem in my tale as the religion isn't based on any of Earths religions.

What are these three banned topic - banned by who - oh possibly the site?

Brian does run other sites that are just as good as this one (mostly different people though) where such discussions are full and in depth (though of course they are not allowed to get abusive).

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/ for instance.

 

[BetaWolf]

Betawolf:

Thanks for that. If old GRRM can get away with it then I should have no trouble .

Interestingly enough the opening few sentences did invoke the kind of associated imagery I desire.

However, I found the whole too OTT, which is surprising given the source.

Thanks again

No problem. It is early Martin, the period when he says fiction writers should make their mistakes--by publishing a few stories to get their feet. It's also nice to read someone whose work you admire early on in their careers.

 

[Montero]

What are these three banned topic - banned by who - oh possibly the site?

I'd vaguely assumed it was the three that are allegedly banned in Officers' Messes - women, religion and politics.