Admittedly, I'm biased, but when I read good suspense fiction, a mystery novel, or even historical fiction I have a tendency to critically appraise the storyline and characters within the lens of cultural anthropology. Did the author get the setting correct? Are the book's characters the right actors to bring the storyline to a satisfactory ending? Did the character's religion, social class, circumstance of birth, or socialization play a part in their choices? Is the conflict/resolution paradigm well done or is it forced and contrived?
I decided about 30 years ago that the reading world needed more stories with central themes unfolding with the added perspective of anthropology. Why? They're more interesting if you can portray seemingly odd behavior and motivation as making sense from the perspective of a protagonist. You may not agree with it, but you remain interested to know how things play out. For a long time, there weren't too many people doing this sort of writing. Tony Hillerman was the master for many years and his daughter Anne successfully took over his series with many of the same characters and settings found in her father's books set in the 4 corners area of the southwest and on the Navajo tribe reservation. Margaret Cole has done the same with the plateau Shoshone and Arapahoe tribes, creating a series of memorable reads utilizing anthropology, history, and human greed and malfeasance as standard literary plot devices.
I wrote my 1st novel, Filth Eater, because the actual historical basis for the story was real and fascinating and no one had seen fit to build a story around important events that occurred 500 years ago during the conquest of Mexico and Peru. I write from a 3rd person perspective in order to build interesting characters. I try not to make my characters too archetypal (all bad or all good) and I insist that my characters have personally evolved by the time the story concludes. I also attempt to ensure that no matter how evil or good they are written that they have at least one anomalous characteristic that makes them more human, such as a drug cartel soldier who is actually quite religious, an atheist archaeologist who frequently encounters evidence of the supernatural that is not easily dismissed. Change of perspective or acquiring "aha's!" are part of human nature. Everyone is occasionally surprised by information, people, or events that did not occur as expected that now must be reconsidered or possible even integrated into their personal world view. It's an uncomfortable feeling, but part of the human condition if you are a thinking person.
In the novel Filth Eater I introduced a long buried Tlazolteotl statue as a literary device by giving the goddess a voice that provides social commentary on the events and characters as they unfold throughout the story from the perspective of the Aztecs. According to Aztec tradition, the Filth Eater provides absolution from sin by eating or consuming them just before you die. Sound familiar? Forgiveness of sin, of course, is a central theme in many major religions. This is a classic example of the universality of the human condition and frailties that can best be portrayed utilizing anthropology. I even wrote the conclusion long before writing the novel itself simply because I knew how I wanted it to end. It made it easier to craft the plot around a known ending and ensured that the goddess Tlazolteotl was a main character and spiritual entity who was heavily invested in the characters and storyline and from the Aztec perspective. It whet my appetite for more and ultimately led to the writing Sins of the Jaguar, which is heavily imbued with anthropological themes and perspectives. I'll write more on that in the next posting. Thanks for reading.
Comments