AIBU to think outdated terms in literature should be changed?

[ValerieCupcake]

I'm reading a book at the minute. I am not going to share the title, but it is historical fiction. Set in Victorian London. It was written only about 4 years ago. But it uses words that are now inappropriate. Dwarf, midget and the n-word. This is an attempt to replicate speech and terms of the time. But should this be allowed?

I find it uncomfortable. But that is how they spoke. It is not allowed on TV. So should it be in literature?

They've edited Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes for the language.

Completely fucking ridiculous. The whole point is that the modern character is unhappy with the normal use of language.

There's lots of ways to write sensitively and censorship isn't a legitimate one of them. As a writer I feel strongly about this.

These terms existed and were used. That’s a historical fact. I don’t think sanitisation and pretence that people didn’t speak like that achieves anything but ignorance whether it’s a work from a century ago or five years. It’s important that the conversation and facts are kept relevant and discussed. We can’t do that if we shroud facts in mystery and shy away from them.

I'm uneasy about the Dambusters example because that was a real dog, who was really called something very offensive. Do we want to pretend he wasn't, because the man who owned and named him was undoubtedly a very brave man? Are we not able to cope with the idea that someone can be heroic (and if you look at what Gibson did, that's not really debatable) but not perfect?

I think you should stop reading historical fiction as your sensibilities are clearly too delicate for it.

The author is aiming for the authentic mindset of someone from that era. They would have used that language. I'd far rather get an honets insight into how people spoke, thought, lived than some anodyne woke 2022 version of history.

So you want a so-called historical fiction book to use terms that were anachronistic for the time in which it’s set? Or would you just prefer history to be rewritten without the bits that make you feel uncomfortable?

I’m not sure about this. I’m not comfortable with editing things to meet current sensibilities. Having said that, I tried to read Gone With the Wind a couple of years ago and couldn’t. It wasn’t just the specific words, I found that the racism wasn’t so much an undercurrent as the main flavour of the book, and it completely put me off.

@Itwasntmeright

So you want a so-called historical fiction book to use terms that were anachronistic for the time in which it’s set? Or would you just prefer history to be rewritten without the bits that make you feel uncomfortable?

It’s not just language that would need to be sanitised. What about attitudes towards women, and gay people? Those would be offensive too. Do you want characters to have modern views there too?

YABU. They’re only words.

I voted YABU because not sharing the name of the book is really excessive pearl clutching at its best.

I think it depends on the book/narrator.

If we did this young people would be very confused. History can be taught through literature. Where do you draw the line? Child slavery is disgusting but are we going to rewrite Oliver Twist?

Many books are vetted by publishers for sensitive subjects. I don't think that authors should be censored.
It's up to readers not to continue if they don't like the book. So, personally I would rather see offensive content than censorship.

Up to a point!
It should stay within the law.

Woke censorship No thanks. YABU.

@pussycatunpickingcrossesagain

But that is how they spoke

So it's either a fair representation of the times, or it gets sanitised for a modern audience.

Isn't that trying to cancel history?

This.

We can't learn from history if we cancel out the bad stuff

No we absolutely shouldn't rewrite history 😳

@SVRT19674

Woke censorship No thanks. YABU.

In fairness, no it's not. But there is massive difference between historical fiction written 5 years ago using terms which would have been used in that period of history and an Enid Blyton book full of not so casual racism. As the OP doesn't seem to see the difference, then maybe, as others have said, stop reading historical fiction.

I think it's fine for writers to use offensive and discriminatory terms when writing about people, places and times when the words were commonly used.

To do otherwise we deny history and we minimise the harm that was done when those terms were generally accepted.

If we censor the language because we think it is wrong nowadays, why would we not also censor behaviour that we think is wrong now?

For example imagine a writer was creating a work about slavery in America. If it's wrong to have white characters using the n-word because it's not acceptable now, surely it's equally wrong to have a depiction of slavery at all (which is probably even more unacceptable these days). Imagine Roots - it would hardly have had the same impact if the author hadn't been able to show slaveholders being verbally and physically abusive to their slaves. (I know Roots wasn't entirely fictional, but there was a lot of poetic licence/plagiarism used to flesh out the story.)

Whether you censor the language or censor the behaviour you are denying the reality of what took place. I think this is a dangerous route to go down.

Say if we did start to write out the offensive stuff .... who decides what goes? How do we make sure they are suitably qualified for this position? It's a slippery slope ...

@Boood

I’m not sure about this. I’m not comfortable with editing things to meet current sensibilities. Having said that, I tried to read Gone With the Wind a couple of years ago and couldn’t. It wasn’t just the specific words, I found that the racism wasn’t so much an undercurrent as the main flavour of the book, and it completely put me off.

In which case, I think you're entirely missing the point of the book! Gone With the Wind is so much more than the love story between Scarlett and Rhett - it's about the whole backdrop to the American civil war and slavery - therefore it's bound to be racist!

FFS.

Hey listen up, @ValerieCupcake

Do you swear?

I think you do.

YABU btw :-)

@tellmewhentheLangshiplandscoz

Say if we did start to write out the offensive stuff .... who decides what goes? How do we make sure they are suitably qualified for this position? It's a slippery slope ...

Well quite.

Where does it all stop? The language of 18th century writers is too archaic for us to understand, so let's re-write it in modern language?

It's historical fiction - so a 'story' that's based in past times. In the past people would have used those words, and had attitudes that we might find offensive or inappropriate now. It's necessary to include them to make the story feel historically correct.

I don't think that we can or should erase the past because we are offended by it now. We don't have to like the words used but to say that they shouldn't be allowed is crazy.

It's all about the context and we should be very careful not to remove the everyday injustices that many people experienced for decades and still do.

So if a 12year old girl as the narrator in the book looked at a group of adult musicians and used their race to define them that is correct for victorian or even 1980s england. If the narrator is an observer to the scene, not a character it would be totally wrong in 2022 to use those terms, which is presumably what makes Agatha Christie an uncomfortable read. I'd still argue that my discomfort was helpful in understanding Agatha's background, class etc and 20th century attitudes.