AIBU to think outdated terms in literature should be changed?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 talk about all the sellers in the markets. One of them is a 'midget' and there are the n* bands playing. The narrator is a 12 year old girl.

I'm a little curious about what your "n-word" actually represents, as in recent years it's broadened to include terms that were not even slurs, and that seems like it might be the context you mean.

But no, OP, I don't think what you are proposing is a good idea. In part because there is no place to stop. Writers have always been allowed to avoid words they don't want, and readers can stop reading. But once you say that writers should be censored in some way, the calls to stop people saying things will grow.

In fact it's already happening, publishing is a mess right now.

Writers who want a wide audience will tend to try and avoid things that the audience won't like, but that doesn't mean it is a good idea to tell them what they can say.

@CrossStichQueen

Do you think a TV drama made today would use those terms? Cripple, and the ones I've mentioned? I haven't seen or heard any. Except for the Stephen Lawrence drama and documentary. Any others?

I am pretty sure the word cripple was used in Call the midwife as were other now outdated terms for disabled people, gay people and anyone not white british as this program is set in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s.

Yeah, cripple often appears in historical dramas. It's not unusual at all.

No where I am from setewale is an archaic English term for valerian. Honestly!

@BoredZelda

I mean, every generation think they are the pinnacle of enlightenment until the next one comes along. Things people are saying and doing right now will be seen as ridiculous and viewed with just as much contempt as we currently view the past.

You mean, every generation learns more about why they should treat minorities better and adjust language accordingly.

I assume you aren't suggesting that's a bad thing.

But that is not necessarily what is happening. It is Ex Post Facto.

It is judging the past based on todays words and definitions deliberately dismissing context. And not just judging, but also holding the past accountable and leveling punishment to todays standard.

And we will encounter the same thing, even those who are at the top of virtuosity, saying and doing everything that is currently correct will get their comeuppance in the future.

Ones behavior today will be judged by tomorrows standard.

I’m really not sure those that have suffered racism would want it airbrushed out of history so we can pretend it’s never happened? Happy to be corrected.

@Blinkingbatshit I’m really not sure those that have suffered racism would want it airbrushed out of history so we can pretend it’s never happened? Happy to be corrected.

I agree with you - as I said in a PP I have been subject to racism, it was far worse for my Father and grandparents, I certainly want people to know how people of different ethnicities were treated, I want people to know the kind of names people were called because they reflect attitudes of their time. I think it is really important that future generations don't forget what happened in the past. The terms of abuse are the tip of the iceberg, people died because of their race and still are dying to this day. We can't sweep it all under the carpet and say 'oh no it's not nice, people will be offended' of course it's not nice, it's disgusting and dangerous, but pretending these terms were never used and these attitudes never held is denial of the worse kind. Don't deny the past, face up to it and lets make sure we do better in the future.
Of course I can't speak for everyone only myself and my own experience. But those are my feelings.

The whole point of a historical novel is it is in keeping with its time. Sanitising it to make it compliant to what we know to be acceptable really means it’s not historical. Pretending these words were never used and trying to rewrite history benefits no one.

@BoredZelda

I mean, every generation think they are the pinnacle of enlightenment until the next one comes along. Things people are saying and doing right now will be seen as ridiculous and viewed with just as much contempt as we currently view the past.

You mean, every generation learns more about why they should treat minorities better and adjust language accordingly.

I assume you aren't suggesting that's a bad thing.

I assume that what she means is that you shouldn't edit the past to represent present norms, because those norms are temporary anyway.

And there's damage in misrepresenting experiences in the past. There's already a broad, false assumption about the presence of ethnic minorities in the UK in the past. Eliminating their experiences is eliminating a part of that history. What's more, it often overlaps with the Americanisation of history - because American standards are more of an international norm.

That is a huge issue for obscuring lessons of the past and learning from them. For example, did you know that American service men in the UK were beaten up for trying to enforce segregation in public in the UK? British people would NOT countenance it, because there is something fundamentally different about the two forms of racism.

The closer we get to healing from the past, the easier it is to view previous norms neutrally.

I would recommend that you read Go Set a Watchman, the much maligned sequel to To Kill a Mockingbird. The whole point of the book is Scout coming to terms with the difference between her perception of her father's progessiveness with the more accurate picture of him she has as an adult.

@BoredZelda

I mean, every generation think they are the pinnacle of enlightenment until the next one comes along. Things people are saying and doing right now will be seen as ridiculous and viewed with just as much contempt as we currently view the past.

You mean, every generation learns more about why they should treat minorities better and adjust language accordingly.

I assume you aren't suggesting that's a bad thing.

But that's clearly not true, is it?

You think that German Jewish people in the 1930s and 40s looked back longingly to the 20s?! Or, to give a less incendiary example, don't you think it's possible Shakespeare was less racist with his Othello than the generations later who were squeamish about putting on a play with an actual black man as the hero?

Attitudes shift with time but they certainly don't always shift in a positive way.

[quote AmyDudley]**@Blinkingbatshit* I’m really not sure those that have suffered racism would want it airbrushed out of history so we can pretend it’s never happened? Happy to be corrected.*

I agree with you - as I said in a PP I have been subject to racism, it was far worse for my Father and grandparents, I certainly want people to know how people of different ethnicities were treated, I want people to know the kind of names people were called because they reflect attitudes of their time. I think it is really important that future generations don't forget what happened in the past. The terms of abuse are the tip of the iceberg, people died because of their race and still are dying to this day. We can't sweep it all under the carpet and say 'oh no it's not nice, people will be offended' of course it's not nice, it's disgusting and dangerous, but pretending these terms were never used and these attitudes never held is denial of the worse kind. Don't deny the past, face up to it and lets make sure we do better in the future.
Of course I can't speak for everyone only myself and my own experience. But those are my feelings.[/quote]
But what we are seeing today goes even beyond this. Words are being redefined and then the new definitions are being applied to old context.

Perhaps the most obvious example right now is how the suggestion of a biological women only safe space is viewed as transphobic hate speech. The fact that it even has to have the clarifier "biological" shows how quickly things can get redefined.

It is easy to point to the more egregious examples that have long historical negative context, but what we see happening today is far more subtle.

@loislovesstewie

No where I am from setewale is an archaic English term for valerian. Honestly!

I believe you! I just didn't quite follow what you were saying and wanted to check I was understanding rightly. That's really interesting! They're totally unrelated plants AFAIK, but obviously people back then wouldn't have known that so I can imagine the same term got used for different plants in different parts of the country. (Sorry to derail thread with this geekery but I love the history of medicine/history of plants.)

@Blinkingbatshit

I’m really not sure those that have suffered racism would want it airbrushed out of history so we can pretend it’s never happened? Happy to be corrected.

But equally, surely we don't want a situation like Call the Midwife (which has been mentioned on this thread), where there's a really shallow representation of racism (or sexism, or homophobia, or whatever other thing Dr T is solving this week).

It’s written from the POV of poor 12 year old Victorian, so the author is using the words she’d use. They are doing it (I assume) to bring alive the brutality and prejudice of the age, which the main character has to navigate.

If creators didn’t do this, we’d be white washing history, wouldn’t we? And being jolted by words like this can help make us more alive to prejudice that exists now. Screen content also does this, although it would have a warning/age limit to stop people stumbling into it by accident.

I wouldn’t worry about the writer getting hate mail. There is tons of historical fiction that is brutal like this, written by people of all sorts of backgrounds.

This post is nuts. Of course that kind of language is allowed on tv of the character demands it!

How would you represent a historical attitudes or indeed contemporary racist attitudes without allowing characters to us language in-keeping with this?!

I’m trying to think of actual Victorian novels or letters that use the n-word but I can’t think of any. Negro would be a more likely term I’d think.

[quote Thatswhyimacat]@Clymene but that's my point, people DO write historical fiction using entirely modern language, and then say oh, but we must have the offensive terms left in, for accuracy...as if we couldn't possibly guess than a historical character (already inaccurately speaking in mostly modern english) could be e.g. racist through their actions rather than needing them to use SPECIFIC words.[/quote]
but is their speech not one of their actions? Are you saying it would be ok to rape and beat a slave but not call then a N***r?

@DottyHarmer

Nomination for world’s most stupid book ever was The Miniaturist in which the young female heroine was nipping about Rotterdam in the 17th century unaccompanied and of course being absolutely cool with her Dh/fiancée (can’t remember) being gay.

Similarly a daft tv thing called The Crimson Fields (?) about WWI nurses. Everyone sympathetic to deserters and men having assignations with each other. I don’t think so in 1914 !!! (Most - certainly women - would not know what was even going on.)

oh The miniaturist annoyed me! supposed to be such a big mysterious denoument and it wasn't

I’m trying to think of actual Victorian novels or letters that use the n-word but I can’t think of any. Negro would be a more likely term I’d think.

Joseph Conrad and Agatha Christie both wrote novels (I know Christie isn't Victorian) with the word in the title. It was certainly more common in the US before the 1960s but I think it's probably right for someone of the time and class OP mentions.

I'm not against changing things in limited circumstances. So renaming Christie's book to And Then There Were None I'm in favour of; a)It was in the title b) The word wasn't serving a particular purpose so it feels retrospectively gratuitous. So change it there. But I was reading about a book where a black author had purposely used the word in the title and it was meant to be shocking. To bring home the racism he was writing about. That feels different.

In other places you go back and watch some TV you watched as a kid and then view things very differently. I think it's on the whole important to keep this. One, it's very unnerving if these things are quietly cleaned up, you start to doubt yourself. Two it's really instructive seeing how things have changed for the better. And it makes you realise just how much the values you take for granted may shift. It makes you both more thoughtful and discerning, but also a bit less judgemental. I think we are quite bad at applying our own values and situation straight onto history. When that doesn't always work. The way we think is good now will shift again.

@donquixotedelamancha

I’m trying to think of actual Victorian novels or letters that use the n-word but I can’t think of any. Negro would be a more likely term I’d think.

Joseph Conrad and Agatha Christie both wrote novels (I know Christie isn't Victorian) with the word in the title. It was certainly more common in the US before the 1960s but I think it's probably right for someone of the time and class OP mentions.

So leaving aside AC who is not V, one.

I’ve read all of Austen, Brontes, G Eliot, Dickens, Wilkie Collins, Mrs Gaskell, most of Henry James & Edith Wharton, almost no Trollope so I can’t vouch for him, about half of Conrad including the offending one which I forgot about (interestingly it was published in the US as The Children of the Sea). So that aside, none of the others use the n word that I can recall.

Charlotte Bronte manages to write about Bertha Mason’s Creole Jamaican heritage, and Austen Lord Bertram’s plantations in Antigua without using the term.

You could certainly write a convincing piece of historical fiction without it - Essex Serpent, French Lieutenant’s Woman, Possession, Woman in Black. Not that they have non-white characters in them - but I think the point stands

But I was reading about a book where a black author had purposely used the word in the title and it was meant to be shocking. To bring home the racism he was writing about. That feels different

Well yes a black writer using the word is always different, context is everything. Which is not to say it’s not offensive to other people of colour - some really don’t like the term being used full stop.

So leaving aside AC who is not V, one.

That was off the top of my head. I have no clue how many times the n word is written in that period, except that it certainly was used then in the UK.

You could certainly write a convincing piece of historical fiction without it

I don't disagree /(although I would not expect to find it in most of the type of books you cite) it certainly might be exploitative and unnecessary in OPs example. I'm sure OP would say it is.

Thing is, I don't trust anyone who favours banning words to be able to accurately weigh context.

@TatianaBis

I’m trying to think of actual Victorian novels or letters that use the n-word but I can’t think of any. Negro would be a more likely term I’d think.

I don't know if this is a thing in the UK, but many people in the US are now freaking out about the word negro, not allowing it to be said/used even in historical contexts, etc. Where I live in Canada several place names have been changed because they contained the word, which was in no way meant to be disparaging to anyone within the context of the name.

@girlmom21

If you find it uncomfortable to read language used in a certain time period maybe it's not the genre for you.

This. Honestly OP do you want everyone to sound like they live in the 21st century? The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there. Demanding that authors write so as not to upset you is immature and unreasonable. As they say online, don't like? Don't read.

@TatianaBis

I’m trying to think of actual Victorian novels or letters that use the n-word but I can’t think of any. Negro would be a more likely term I’d think.

You might be onto something - my period reading suggests it's actually more likely to turn up from maybe the 1920s to 1950s (at least in British literature.)

Among other books of that era, there's a Noel Streatfeild children's book which uses the word.

Whether people might have said it but not written it prior to that era (perhaps because it was viewed as slang, rather than due to any awareness of racism) I don't know.