Racist terms in old books - should they be removed?

[LunaNorth]

I’m a big fan of books from the 1930s and 1940s, but I’m not a fan of being confronted by the n-word, or terms like ‘working like a black’ within an otherwise totally innocuous crime novel, such as the Josephine Tey I’m reading right now.

On the one hand, I fully understand the need to show society as it really was, and not try to whitewash the past. There’s no way I’d suggest removing such language from something like To Kill A Mockingbird, or Of Mice and Men.

But on the other, nobody picks up an old crime novel in the hopes of being educated about race relations in the 1930s, do they? So you end up being yanked out of the narrative and feeling a bit guilty for even reading it in the first place.

I dunno. I’m probably massively wrong, and I’m happy to be told so, but leaving phrases like ‘n*** brown’ in a book, with no disclaimer or warning anywhere, smacks a bit of condoning it. And how the hell do you recommend or lend the book to anyone without looking like a massive racist? ‘Here, read this, it’s a cracking little crime novel, but of the old racist language in it, but don’t let that bother you.’ No, can’t do it.

I picked up the book after hearing a podcast about it, and nothing at all was said about the language. Should it have been?

I’m normally the last person to recommend censorship, but I don’t see the point in letting such language hang about in light fiction books, really. It’s like finding a razor blade in your sandwich.

Or am I completely wrong?

I think most readers can put 2 and 2 together and realise that back then such language was unfortunately acceptable. Same applies to many other themes and subjects which used to be depicted as normal but would look terribly out of date today and may cause upset.

Books are a part of historic past and should of course stay as they are. Times have moved on thankfully and that's what we should focus on.

Disney has taken the approach of leaving historical works intact and adding a disclaimer that says it contains racism, which was wrong then and is wrong now, and rather than removing it they’ve chosen to acknowledge its historical impact and spark conversation about a more inclusive future. That’s perfectly fine imo, people have been forewarned and can choose to avoid if they wish.

Yes it WBU but I don't think it's hard to put a disclaimer at the front. Disney movies do it now!

I totally see that point of view - on the other hand, I just wonder if letting it stand is necessary in a book like that?

It’s never going to be read as a social document, and having grown up with parents who were born in the 1930s and were very much products of their time (unfortunately), I’m well aware of how things were.

And some of them are changed - Agatha Christie’s ‘And Then There Were None’, for example.

So why are some altered and some not? Is it up to the individual publishers?

I think a disclaimer is a good idea, yes. I have the Britbox channel, and a lot of programmes on there have disclaimers.

Just a bit of warning can help people make an informed decision.

I tend to feel that a book is a product of its time, as is everything really. Disclaimers are better than editing history and pretending things never happened.

It would really piss me off to read a book that had been sanitised in this way. I agree with @ClearMountain that books are a product of their time.

I understand that Titty in Swallows and Amazons has had her name changed in updated versions. That's irritating. One of the things I like about old Agatha Christie's, etc is that they were written in the 1920s and 30s and are a genuine reflection of their time, mannerisms and speech.

I would not dream of using the n word, but neither do I want books nannying and sanctifying. In my eyes that's a little like the Lady Chatterley trial over a banned book - or people in the Bible belt burning books on Evolution or Harry Potter.

I dislike censorship far more than I dislike outdated language we now consider not acceptable.

I understand that, NovemberR. It would normally be my point of view.

For whatever reason, it really jarred tonight, though. Maybe I’ve read too many books from this era lately.

A disclaimer is probably the answer.

Have you ever read Enid Blyton books that gave been written by a current writer. The books are not as good and I dread to think what they'll do to the Laura Ingalls Wilder books. Can't disclosures be put in?

I’ve not read them, but I know of them. They’re apparently rubbish.

Urgh NO. I hate this delete culture that seems to be fashionable now. Just because things dont align with the current paradigm doesnt mean they should be deleted.

I agree, a disclaimer, but NOT deletion.

I used to be a great reader of early 20th Century books and was brought up by a father from that era so I appreciate that the whole social scenario so to speak was very different. But that is what also does make the novels, essays (eg George Orwell's automatic despising of homosexuals and vegetarians ), plays, social studies and films social documents of their time. I watch old films now on TV which do have frequent language and attitude warnings but I am fascinated by what they reveal about what would have been considered normal and acceptable socially, sexually and racially.

To me it is far less offensive than the Downton Abbey portrayal of the past. Though of course I do realise that is very much not the point of Downton Abbey et al.

I totally disagree and think that even a disclaimer is overkill. We know it was written then and it's not acceptable now, and just leave it there.
Even to suggest removing such words gets on my nerves.

Don’t read them find another book

I agree, it can pull you out of a book (I was reading Jaws the other day, and Sherriff Brody was referring to faggots and other homosexual slurs in the first few chapters offhandedly), but I had to remind myself of the time period it was written and get on with it. (And to be fair, in the authors books written several decades later, he was far more PC.)

Censorship is too close to book burning in my opinion. If you don't like it, vote with your (metaphorical) feet.

Still made me instantly dislike his character, though.

No, because history, while not always right, should not be changed/edited.

@LunaNorth

I totally see that point of view - on the other hand, I just wonder if letting it stand is necessary in a book like that?

It’s never going to be read as a social document, and having grown up with parents who were born in the 1930s and were very much products of their time (unfortunately), I’m well aware of how things were.

And some of them are changed - Agatha Christie’s ‘And Then There Were None’, for example.

So why are some altered and some not? Is it up to the individual publishers?

But books are used as social documents. I'm a historian, I frequently use novels in my research, and they're even older than the one you described so some of the language and attitudes are really jarring. But, that stuff does need to be there if we want to understand the past

The same is true when books are taught in schools, the students need to see the real text to understand it, not an anachronistic modernised version.

I think the idea of a disclaimer might be useful though, so people are aware and can read something else if they want to. Or maybe there could be two versions, one for people who just want to read, and one for study purposes.

To me it is far less offensive than the Downton Abbey portrayal of the past. Though of course I do realise that is very much not the point of Downton Abbey et al.

I must admit, I find the sanitised version of the past portrayed in material like Downton Abbey far more problematic.

Having read the comments, I can see you are right. Leave them as they are, but provide fair warning.

I just hate the thought of a black kid, or adult, picking one of them up and merrily reading away until they come to some horrible term, having read no warning or disclaimer.

Not having a disclaimer just seems a bit like condoning it.

A disclaimer I think.

No. Books should not be changed. I don't even understand why you would want to and how you would go about it. Just words or whole storylines? A disclaimer would be fine but surely most people are intelligent enough to realise attitudes and language changes?
By the way- I mean fiction here. I think there is an argument for removing out of date non-fiction from libraries but it still shouldn't be censored.

I just hate the thought of a black kid, or adult, picking one of them up and merrily reading away until they come to some horrible term, having read no warning or disclaimer.
This sounds a bit condescending tbh.

Yeah, it does.

I can only apologise. I’m coming at it from my feelings on seeing old films that demonised albinos when my son has albinism. That kind of thing. When it becomes personal.

But I can see how it came across and I apologise.

I think it's an excellent 'barometer' of social change. It forces us to confront bias in the past, what bias remains now, and how stand out obvious it to clearer eyes. There will undoubtedly sayings and attitudes now that horrify future generations.

Casual sexism and violence against women, for one.

I think it should remain as it reflects the attitudes of the time. However, sometimes this makes me very uncomfortable. I may read a book and feel uncomfortable but others may read it and feel it supports a view I don't agree with or, it may normalise racism. I've just listened to Live and Let Die and the amount of time the word negro was used felt unnecessary. White characters didn't have their skin colour or ethnicity emphasised so much. I finished the book feeling I'd had a reminder of acceptable this was in the past. There is a balance somewhere I think, I'd like to see some books start with an explanation of the language used.