AIBU to think outdated terms in literature should be changed?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

@Nanny0gg I don't think for a minute that Guy Gibson sat down and thought about what deliberately racist thing he could name his dog!

However, I also don't think he would have cared that it was offensive or hurtful to call his dog that. It just wasn't the sort of thing that would have even registered on his radar IMO.

Is it right to cover up that facet of his personality? Maybe it doesn't matter in a film where we expect a fair level of fictionalisation anyway, but it just feels a bit to me like some one has said, "Okay, this guy's a hero, no one wants their hero to be complicated, or at least not like this, so just rename the dog, ok?"

If you just don't like it may be just put down the book and read a different one.

My sister and I used to read Enid Blyton books out to each other in the 1970s as teenagers but swapping girl and boys names at times as the girls were so girly and it was sexist so it was fun to swap it. However it never offended me nor does it now - instead it was a useful lesson in how things were then. Just as 2022 may well be doing things very badly which people in older days or in the future might think is dreadful.

I think changing street/place names is an entirely proposition, though, and i agree that is right and proper.

There were several examples in England (not sure about anywhere else) where a street was called Gropecunt Lane. They have all, afaik, been changed. It's The same thing. Like Leningrad reverting to it's pre revolutionary name etc.

I hate the idea of sanitising literature.

I don't think a book written 7 years ago should use terms like that. Even if written to reflect the language of the Times, I doubt it would add much to the story.

It isn't rewriting history and it isn't censorship. But it is moving away from using unnecessarily unacceptable language.

I can't see how any of it is integral to the plot. Unless the plot is about an author who feels Daring and Brave and Edgy for using language that is no longer appropriate.

Dickens, Shakespeare, Chaucer, the Anglo Saxon chronicles, how far back do you want to go OP? One of the things that dictators are keen on is standardising language. If you alter the language then you alter both history and people's ability to express themselves as they wish to. Hands off, Mrs Bowdler.

So you believe in censorship of art?

Maybe read other genres of novels if these things offend you.

@longwayoff

Dickens, Shakespeare, Chaucer, the Anglo Saxon chronicles, how far back do you want to go OP? One of the things that dictators are keen on is standardising language. If you alter the language then you alter both history and people's ability to express themselves as they wish to. Hands off, Mrs Bowdler.

You have missed the point. I am talking about historical novels written today.

This has been a really interesting discussion. And it has made me think. I was shocked/surprised to see those words. But am I supposed to be? Is this what we are told, this is the narrative now?

What book is it?

I agree they are two different issues - censoring old books which I suspect no one wants to do and is someone allowed today to write a book set in the past and use certain terms (or indeed certain acts eg when i got married in the 1980s a husband in England could not rape his wife as there was no rape in marriage so if I wrote a novel today set in 1981 and said that was not rape am I wrong to do so? I would say no and that people writing about a past period could use terms language facts about the past as long as English law does not ban it).

Doesn't matter if it was written today, 2 years ago, or 2015, the historical events and the language used within them shouldn't be changed, unless you want periods of time to be rewritten having been bleached to remove material that doesn't correspond with modern day sensitivities.

My apologies@ValerieCupcake, you are right and I am wrong and should pay more attention. I agree with you.

I doubt a 12 year old saying ‘the people of colour group’, instead of ‘the n group’ would really fit into a novel set in Victorian times.

@risefromyourgrave

I doubt a 12 year old saying ‘the people of colour group’, instead of ‘the n** group’ would really fit into a novel set in Victorian times.

The point here is, that it was talking about a band playing. The race of the band members - was that really relevant?

I think Disney have the right idea, with content warnings
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54566087

Books could contain a similar message

@MangyInseam

I wasn't commenting on the relative offensiveness of 'negro' - just on usage.

The point here is, that it was talking about a band playing. The race of the band members - was that really relevant?

I can’t say for sure, because I haven’t read the book, but I imagine a group of black people in Victorian times would be of note maybe?

@CounsellorTroi

No because I hate it when period drama characters all the "good" characters have 2022 morals and its only the baddies that are racist/homophobic/disabilist etc. Its ridiculous and completely spoils the inaccuracy.

I hated Anne With an E for this reason.

Ugh Anne with an E is the WORST.

Even better to burn books if you don't agree with their content, OP . That's bound to make readers more progressive and teach them how to think correctly.

@110APiccadilly

Very interesting.

When Conrad's novel was published in 1897, the UK reviewers commented on the "ugliness" of the title hence the name change in the US. I'm not convinced Agatha Christie intended to be offensive, and there's no record of reviewers commenting on her title, which implies the term was more acceptable by then.

Whether it was used but not printed before I agree it's hard to know. A key indicator would be phrases, rhymes & proverbs etc. But I can’t really think of any. The ones that occurred to me appear to be be US in origin: ‘Eeeny meeny miny mo’, ‘the n in the woodpile’, & '10 little ns'.

I’ve just looked up Kipling as would be just the man to use is it – and indeed he does in a rhyme published 1919-1923. However, the rhyme is not his own invention, it’s a version of 'eeny meeny miny moe' and use of the word ‘holler’ seems to confirm a US source. I guess he may have popularised the use among British children of that generation.

The race of the band members - was that really relevant?
Definitely in Victorian times because only white bands were allowed to perform in the long established London venues and other prestigious venues outside London. Black musicians had a glass ceiling of sorts where they could only perform at local pubs, usually those that were also black owned.

So a band with black people performing anywhere else would have been a hot topic of discussion as a sort of underground, scandalous, edgy, sneak off to see thing. It wasn’t until the roaring twenties that aristocrats would hire black bands for their avant grade house parties- which made it socially acceptable. This then trickled down and it was during WWII that black bands were finally allowed to perform in regular entertainment venues.

@Xenia
eg when i got married in the 1980s a husband in England could not rape his wife as there was no rape in marriage so if I wrote a novel today set in 1981 and said that was not rape am I wrong to do so?

Absolutely not. In the language of the novel it would be reasonable to have the police, for example say that it's not rape, there's nothing they could do. I think I'd be unable to write it without also making clear/implying/showing how wrong the author thinks that law is, but you should absolutely be able to write accurately about how things were. Although I have mixed feelings about how far an author is obliged to show 'correct' opinions in a work of fiction. We don't just want novels to be for moral guidance.
Apart from anything it's massively instructive as to how far we've come.

Although as a side note, I read something recently saying, yes, we only properly outlawed marital rape in the 90s, but there was some case that suggested there was a legal case against it well before that. Can't remember the details though.

Prior to about 1965, very child's paint box included a colour, Nword Brown, ditto wool shops, fabrics etc. It was a word in common usage in that context although distasteful in everyday language. Also, Nword Minstrels were popular music hall and end of the pier entertainment from mid 1800s I believe.