AIBU to think outdated terms in literature should be changed?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?

If it was only written 4 years ago, then it does seem inappropriate. But we shouldn't rewrite literature that was written historically.

@Jaxhog

If it was only written 4 years ago, then it does seem inappropriate. But we shouldn't rewrite literature that was written historically.

But it was written using that language of the time. It wasn’t just the writer choosing to use those words for the fun of it. It was a reflection of what was in common usage back then. That’s historical fiction.

Totally depends on the book, without you naming it, it is impossible to make a judgement. Can you give the name of it please?

These words would have been used at the time. Is there a content warning or a discussion of teens used in the prelims? That's what I'd add if I had edited the book.

There's a lot of talk currently about conscious language and the t harm that words can do. I'd hope the publisher has discussed this with the author.

Terms, not teens🙄

People being uncomfortable with acknowledging the historical reality is how we end up with “2 sides of slavery”. There’s lots of fiction which sanitises reality which is fine, not every book should have you breaking your heart. But pretty sure in Victorian Britain some of the language used commonly would be extremely offensive today. And 20 years ago and today.

You can write a racist or homophobic world without your writing itself being racist or homophobic. If a gay man is called a f**t by another character, it's unpleasant but reflective of the time or the place: if the author has thoughtlessly depicted that gay man as just mincing around limp-wristedly making arch observations, and there is no further character development than that... that's homophobic. A sensitivity reader would take more issue with the stereotype than with the word.

Historical fiction is written for contemporary readers, if it were faithfully authentic to every detail of the past, it would not be accessible or interesting to a lot of people. Might as well just go and read Henry Fielding.
This doesn't mean leaving out all the slurs or attitudes that were normal to the era but cause us discomfort now - it does mean using them judiciously and in a context that doesn't normalise them. The reader needs to know they aren't acceptable outside the context of the book, not even to the book's author. But however thoughtfully handled the subject is, if a reader feels personally that it's too uncomfortable for them, they are well within their rights to dislike the book and stop reading.

That's it. No drama.

Let's just start burning books we don't approve of shall we? Then we can turn our minds to art works and music that offends and destroy that too and old films, they can be pretty offensive.

Why don't we just join the Taliban and go the whole hog

yes yabu.. and sanitisation of literature is not new. Google Thomas Bowdler....also to a certain extent, Lamb's Tales From Shakespeare.

So, what would Snow White and the seven dwarves have been called if it had been written today?

The original 1970s Upstairs Downstairs had racist and anti semitic language and attitudes, but it was meant to be an accurate portrayal of attitudes in the Edwardian/World War I/1920s eras and would not be the programme it was without them.

Dwarf is the correct term though. The people have dwarfism.

Deadwood, the series on HBO had an interesting way around this. They wanted to depict the shock factor and normalisation of really foul language in a tough cowboy town. Blasphemy - bloody, Christ almighty, etc just doesn't cut it today so they went straight for fuck and count, liberally. It really, really works, shocking 21st century ears, giving full force to a community no where near polite society.

'fuck and cunt'

@etulosba

So, what would Snow White and the seven dwarves have been called if it had been written today?

They wanted the remake to be called "Snow White and the Seven Little People"

Dwarf is the correct term though. The people have dwarfism.

Yes. I have done a bit of Googling and it seems that dwarf is acceptable. Midget is most certainly not.

I don't agree with rewriting anything that was written back then, but I do think going forwards modern writers should avoid those terms in their writing.

People are perfectly happy to read novels set in Tudor times where they speak in modern language, but get up in arms about the need for historical accuracy in using offensive terms. A good writer can depict attitudes of a time without using offensive language. Anything more now is just an attempt to shock.

So a historical work of fiction could presumably have a lynching/hanging of a black personal but couldn’t feature the N word? Doesn’t that seem ridiculous?

Django Unchained came out in 2012, should all use of the N word been edited out?

The banning of To Kill a Mocking Bird is an excellent example of how rewriting/censoring literature is a slippery slope. It seems the people who want to ban or censor literature are those who cannot understand or appreciate it.

It should definitely be allowed and not 'cancelled' (loathsome term)

I went to see a brand new play with Ralph Fiennes THIS WEEK - set in the early/mid 20th Century called Straight Line Crazy
It's based on a modern book by David Hare

The term 'coloured girl' is used. It's appropriate for the time.

If we pretend that the past was perfect, we won't ever learn from it, or recognise the great wrongs that were committed.

Far better to depict periods of history honestly in my view, and provide warnings/context where applicable.

It is ridiculous to expect authors who are trying to achieve an authentic voice in historical literature don't... use an authentic vocabulary.

If you're that sensitive: read only sanitised, pre-checked by 25 different sensitivity readers, books that have been written this year (just in case an outdated term from 2021 slips in)

That is not to be said there shouldn't be discussion about outdated language and why some words aren't appropriate now. But. No.

@theworldhas

That's an interesting point and I suppose you're probably right. I guess it boils down to why a book/character/event is being written. Are you specifically writing about historical racism? In which case yes, the language is part of that. Did you just throw in some n words into a book to be 'historically accurate about how they spoke'? Not needed.

It really, really works, shocking 21st century ears, giving full force to a community no where near polite society.

I once listened to an after dinner talk on the former impolite street names used in Oxford. It was an ear opener.

Gropecunt Lane was one of them. Now changed to Magpie Lane, if I remember correctly.