AIBU to think outdated terms in literature should be changed?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

@SarahAndQuack
Does your desire for 'truth in literature' extend to every single detail?

Yes. Historical fiction is meant to be fictional character and story line but the time and place setting they are in and how they are and are treated is meant to be as historically accurate as possible down to every detail. I agree historical fiction often has historical errors in it that the editors do not catch, which is frustrating to those of us who genuinely read and study history.

However the author and editors are meant to research the real history and present the story in an historically accurate light.

[quote EmpressCixi]@SarahAndQuack
Does your desire for 'truth in literature' extend to every single detail?

Yes. Historical fiction is meant to be fictional character and story line but the time and place setting they are in and how they are and are treated is meant to be as historically accurate as possible down to every detail. I agree historical fiction often has historical errors in it that the editors do not catch, which is frustrating to those of us who genuinely read and study history.

However the author and editors are meant to research the real history and present the story in an historically accurate light.[/quote]
When you say 'is meant' - meant by whom?

Can you name me any authors you think write this perfectly accurate historical fiction?

I'm just bemused. I read quite a bit of historical fiction, and I'm a historian by training, and I just don't really think you see total accuracy. No one goes around writing about Elizabethan England and having someone put on their bodies and partlet and eat a dish of stewed costards before buying the setewale in the spicery. But if you were being accurate, I suppose you would? And someone would be looking up every third word.

@PleaseBeSeated
Because reading it would be too difficult. Depending on when and where it was set, a historical novel might require you to read a dialect of a language so archaic it's not comprehensible at all

I disagree. Just like novels in foreign languages, you translate the dialogue from middle or old English or Norman French into modern English. Historical fiction set in Imperial Rome you don’t write it in Latin, you write the equivalent into English. This doesn’t make it historically inaccurate any more than a historical novel set in 1920s England being translated into Italian for Italian readers doesn’t render the novel as not historically truthful.

[quote EmpressCixi]@PleaseBeSeated
Because reading it would be too difficult. Depending on when and where it was set, a historical novel might require you to read a dialect of a language so archaic it's not comprehensible at all

I disagree. Just like novels in foreign languages, you translate the dialogue from middle or old English or Norman French into modern English. Historical fiction set in Imperial Rome you don’t write it in Latin, you write the equivalent into English. This doesn’t make it historically inaccurate any more than a historical novel set in 1920s England being translated into Italian for Italian readers doesn’t render the novel as not historically truthful.[/quote]
Ok, so you translate.

So ... you can, presumably, translate terms, which is the entire subject of this thread, right?

@Lesperance

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

I don't want the author to have to face any complaints. This is not pearl clutching.

If it's crucial to the story them go ahead, but scripted shows aren't documentaries and aren't obliged to use marginalised people's historical pain for your entertainment and desire for historical accuracy.

I don't particularly enjoy a lot of what is on TV. And i do think that content warnings, used properly, would alert people as to what might be coming. If I'm reading a historical novel, set at the time of the American Civil war, and characters are speaking to each other - i would absolutely expect authentic language. I wouldn't expect the exposition moving the novel forward to use that same language.

I also think that using racist language (or sexist, or homophobic) in literature, or "torture porn" in TV shows (Criminal Minds is one that springs to mind, just hours and hours of torture porn) for shock value is cheap and doesn't generally get past my internal censor. What doesn't work doesn't work as far as i'm concerned. But unless I'm reading fantasy, i don't want 21st century morals imposed on an 18th century character.

PP mentioned Bernard Cornwell. I only really like the Sharpe novels, the rest are a bit bloated for me. But i don't want Sharpe being OK with gay soldiers and whatever because back then it wasn't allowed. Far from it. He wouldn't be going "ok, chaps, don't mind me, don't ask don't tell" he'd be "oi, yer bastards" and then punch one of them. I also don't want past racism or homophobia or whatever all over a novel where the focus isn't, say, the abolitionists. But equally I don't want modern sensibilities in there unless it's an alternate reality fantasy book. Then it can be a really interesting literary device.

I don't read historical novels because i get a thrill if someone makes anti-semitic slurs at a Shylock type character. But i do expect some measure of authenticity.

Also pp are conflating two things here. We're not talking about revising books that were written in the past. We're talking about modern literature which is in a historical setting.

I note there are a few people on the thread who work in publishing. What would help people not having to read novels where they encounter things like this (either, authentic historical-style speech or modern speech in historical settings) is if there would be a proper blurb on the back of the book instead of a dozen simpering reviews of how great it is with no clue as to the content. But that's a whole other AIBU

[quote EmpressCixi]@PleaseBeSeated
Because reading it would be too difficult. Depending on when and where it was set, a historical novel might require you to read a dialect of a language so archaic it's not comprehensible at all

I disagree. Just like novels in foreign languages, you translate the dialogue from middle or old English or Norman French into modern English. Historical fiction set in Imperial Rome you don’t write it in Latin, you write the equivalent into English. This doesn’t make it historically inaccurate any more than a historical novel set in 1920s England being translated into Italian for Italian readers doesn’t render the novel as not historically truthful.[/quote]
But into what kind of 'modern English', given your preference for 'historical accuracy'? Many 19thc novels in English, for instance, contain large portions of untranslated foreign languages the reader was considered to be capable of coping with, which would not be considered acceptable in a modern novel set in the 19thc.

@SarahAndQuack
I never said anyone writes perfect historical fiction. There are always errors. But historical fiction isn’t meant to be a fantasy where you can change facts.

There are also what were thought to be historical facts being later found to not be true and so say a book from 1990 might be historically accurate for what they knew then, but is no longer historically accurate for what we know now.

Regarding various language issues, you translate to equivalent in modern English or modern whatever wherever the book is also to be sold. This doesn’t make it imperfect or not historical accurate.

I think you have to put faith in the intelligence of the reader to realise that this is an attempt to replicate how people spoke in the time the book is set. It would be very inaccurate for characters to use modern terminology when we all know they didn't, and in order to capture the spirit of the times you need that language. As a reader you can say to yourself 'wow did people actually call people 'that word' how awful' and reflect upon how times have changed for the better on some areas and not in others, that is surely a good thing.
As long as the author has done their research about language of the times and is representing it accurately then it is what it is. People used words we do not use now. People used words in the 1970's we don't use now, but I am old enough to clearly remember people using offensive language and I would find a book set in those times that didn't reflect that very unrealistic.(as long as it was character appropriate)

I find it more annoying when authors use language that people of those times or from those places definitely wouldn't use, because it is lazy writing (recently read a book by an American author writing about the English upper class and throwing in loads of Americanisms that were totally out of place and very jarring. Ditto a book by a well known Scottish author that had a Yorkshireman using very Scottish terms and sentence construction) Irritating.

@Brefugee - YY, I agree, I find historically implausible attitudes much more jarring (and ethically problematic).

To put it more succinctly I don't think it is racist or offensive to show that people in times gone by were racist and offensive.

@PleaseBeSeated
Yes, historical fiction has always used the languages best suited to its audiences over the centuries. I don’t see that as an issue.

[quote EmpressCixi]@SarahAndQuack
I never said anyone writes perfect historical fiction. There are always errors. But historical fiction isn’t meant to be a fantasy where you can change facts.

There are also what were thought to be historical facts being later found to not be true and so say a book from 1990 might be historically accurate for what they knew then, but is no longer historically accurate for what we know now.

Regarding various language issues, you translate to equivalent in modern English or modern whatever wherever the book is also to be sold. This doesn’t make it imperfect or not historical accurate.[/quote]
Why do you think you have the monopoly on defining historical fiction, though?

And why do you think translation is an acceptable form of change, but other things are not? The OP is about changing terminology - how is that not translation?

I think the real problem here is that, writing a novel in 2015 that's set in the past, you have to 'translate' your terms even if they're authentic, or they won't have the effect you intended.

Taking the example of Sharpe that's just been given, yes, I reckon Sharpe would have had big issues with gay men and it would have been routine to use offensive language about sex between men. But it wouldn't have been remarkable, would it? It would have no shock value.

If a writer then uses a term that does now have shock value, then they're going to give a slightly weird impression. You need to hit a middle ground, where someone can say something and it's clear it's a slur, but it doesn't jolt a modern reader.

If i really think about it, for me it will depend if it is something that adds to my understanding of the character.

If we take Ivanhoe for an example, if you wanted to make it completely accurate to its setting you'd have to have the Saxons speaking one language, the Normans another and so on so that it wouldn't be understandable. So it's all in English (and yes, i know it wasn't written in Norman times) and we can understand. But we also get the cursing of the Jewish Rebecca's father by the people who owe him money, in some fairly explicitly antisemetic terms (IIRC) and the normans & saxons using unsavoury language about each other. Without that, a lot of the motivations for the characters' actions are pointless and incomprehensible.

So it is important to the plot that the antisemitic Norman kidnaps Rebecca because she's beautiful and he wants to possess her, while at the same time having some heavy conflict with himself because she's Jewish. I don't need to read antisemetic words in that case, but i do need to know that he hates Jews just because of who they are. And so on.

So on reflection and on balance, i don't need to read the actual words, but i do need to know the motivations. And i can imagine that in some writing it is better to have a quick expostulation by a character than half a page of exposition telling me he's racist. Show don't tell and all that.

Interesting theread. Thanks, OP.

"I don't think 4 years ago is all that far back to be fair!!"

OP, you said it was SET in Victorian London. So I would expect the book to accurately describe the language and social attitudes of that period.

If words we shouldn't use in real life are banned from fiction, surely it follows that actions we shouldn't do in real life would also be banned from fiction. So, no murder, rape, theft, no crime of any kind, no unkindness, no slavery, no discrimination, nothing?! There would be nothing left if you apply this logic. It doesn't make sense.

@SarahAndQuack
Why do you think you have the monopoly on defining historical fiction, though? I don’t. I’m expressing my opinion as are you. However the definition of historical fiction is “the genre of literature, film, etc., comprising narratives that take place in the past and are characterized chiefly by an imaginative reconstruction of historical events and personages.” Which implies historical facts and a certain level of accuracy.

And why do you think translation is an acceptable form of change, but other things are not?
Translation isn’t change. It’s substituting like for like so the reader can understand the text.

The OP is about changing terminology - how is that not translation?

The OP is not about changing terminology but about erasing historical terminology, ie the example was historically used racist, sexist, ableist terms and the OP is making a case for them to simply be deleted and not used. This whitewashes history which is morally suspect.

You can definitely write a novel and it be deliberately very historically inaccurate- but then it should be in fantasy or general fiction and not call itself historical fiction.

[quote EmpressCixi]@PleaseBeSeated
Yes, historical fiction has always used the languages best suited to its audiences over the centuries. I don’t see that as an issue.[/quote]
You're not understanding my point. How archaising or modernising an idiom do you choose if you are, for instance, setting a novel in Tudor England? Do you treat direct speech differently to free indirect speech or the point of view character's internal thought processes. Does your narrator accost someone backing off from conflict as a chicken or a caitiff or poltroon?

You couldn't be more unreasonable!

[quote EmpressCixi]@SarahAndQuack
Why do you think you have the monopoly on defining historical fiction, though? I don’t. I’m expressing my opinion as are you. However the definition of historical fiction is “the genre of literature, film, etc., comprising narratives that take place in the past and are characterized chiefly by an imaginative reconstruction of historical events and personages.” Which implies historical facts and a certain level of accuracy.

And why do you think translation is an acceptable form of change, but other things are not?
Translation isn’t change. It’s substituting like for like so the reader can understand the text.

The OP is about changing terminology - how is that not translation?

The OP is not about changing terminology but about erasing historical terminology, ie the example was historically used racist, sexist, ableist terms and the OP is making a case for them to simply be deleted and not used. This whitewashes history which is morally suspect.

You can definitely write a novel and it be deliberately very historically inaccurate- but then it should be in fantasy or general fiction and not call itself historical fiction.[/quote]
Well, actually, you set it out as an absolute truth rather than an opinion, which I think was my point!

If translation isn't change, why is it ok to translate 'setewale' to 'tumeric' but not to translate an ethnic slur?

You say that the latter is 'erasing' but you're fine with the other kind of translation. That doesn't make any sense to me. It suggests you feel some kind of attachment to preserving racist language, whereas other kinds of language are disposable. I'm just not clear how that can be justified.

How archaising or modernising an idiom do you choose if you are, for instance, setting a novel in Tudor England? Do you treat direct speech differently to free indirect speech or the point of view character's internal thought processes. Does your narrator accost someone backing off from conflict as a chicken or a caitiff or poltroon?

YY.

And doesn't a word accumulate meanings from its context? So we will find it more jarring to read one historically accurate slur marooned in a sea of 'translated' terms than we would if we were reading a bona fide old document, where it appeared in its original, vernacular context.

I didn't think turmeric was valerian or am I wrong?

The point about words that are offensive nowadays is that they show attitude. Changing the word for Turmeric doesn't matter because turmeric is a noun with not connotations other than its straightforward meaning. A word which is a racist/ homophobic etc slur show the way people thought, the way that these attitudes were integrated so deeply in society that people used the words freely with no thought that they were offensive.
People from my ethnic background have been subjected to abusive terms for centuries. I have heard every one of them, my Father was abused on a daily basis growing up in the 1920's and 30's. I would find it offensive if a portrayal of my ethnic group in past times failed to include the type of abuse people were subjected to and the type of prejudicial attitudes that meant people were treated as a lower type of being or even as subhuman in some eras. We can't clean up history, these things happened to actual human beings, people went through their daily lives dealing with abuse, I want people to know about that. I want people to think about how wrong it was, I want them to understand that in days gone by people thought it was OK to treat people like this and because it was so ingrained in society, terrible atrocities were allowed to happen.
It is a totally different scenario from translating the word that was used to describe a vegetable or whatever so that people know what you mean. Because vegetables and spices have no history of being the victims of prejudice. If you change the words that were used out of bigotry you eradicate the experience of those who suffered from the bigotry. We need to know where we've been to understand where we need to go.

@loislovesstewie

I didn't think turmeric was valerian or am I wrong?

Do you mean, you did thing?

I said setewale was turmeric, which it is. Valerian isn't related.

I guess this is maybe another context where translations really matter! Or maybe we're all wiser than to try out medical concoctions from fiction.