OK. So.
You’re going to have forgive me for delaying the big
giveaway; ye olde Vegas vacation reared up a little to fast for me to get out
of its way, so’s that’s gonna have to waits for nows.
But more importantly…
Had a very frank discussion with one of my editors today.
Turned out she was pretty upset because:
A)
A rural sheriff’s deputy mentally refers to a
Japanese farmer as “oriental.”
Annnnnd…
B)
An essentially good guy, in a moment of extreme
mental distress, mentally refers to a person of Jewish descent as a nasty word
that rhymes with “bike.”
Her issue is that she feels that having characters acting in
any way bigoted is lending credence to bigotry itself. I, on the other hand,
believe that it is of a primary importance for a character to be honestly
written.
So tell me what you think. Who knows? Maybe I’m wrong. I’m
eager to hear what you think.
16 comments:
No. it's not lending credence to bigotry, but merely reflecting that bigotry does still exist in the world.
Stick to your guns. If a character is a bigot in your story, then that's the character that you've written, not you yourself. It ain't called 'fiction' for nothing.
I take it your editor is referring to a piece you wrote?
Depictions of racism can create controversy, sure. But as much as controversy gets attention, it can be the death of some pieces of work, and careers.
It is a difficult time to be using these terms, as they still are in frequent use in the community, when they really shouldn't be.
But, ultimately you are right. Honesty is what it is about - and writing mirroring honestly how our community currently talks, is very important. Even if we don't like using it. But this isn't Journalism - and you're not reporting facts. You're creating characters yourself, and people will see these as being part of you. So ultimately I guess you have to ask yourself - is that how I wish to be seen? Am I writing for honesty, or taking into consideration my Audience and how they will receive it?
And you're going to find it difficult to keep an audience sympathetic to hero if they use such a derogatory term against his fellow man, if he doesn't counter with a level of remorse for doing so. Flawed heroes are on thing, flawed heroes that ignore their flaws are difficult to appreciate.
Buuuuut. That's just my opinion. Good luck dealing with your quandary.
But... if you're writing fiction not set in a contemporary era, I say... to hell with the editor.
I appreciate the input so far!
Also, I figured that while we're at it, I'd go ahead and include one of the passages I mentioned.
In the following, the protagonist, Jim, is reflecting on how his wife of some years walked out on him and their son, at the recommendation of her therapist. The place is Las Vegas, NV, the year 1976.
He’d sat in his car, baking in the blistering afternoon sun, gritting his teeth and imagining all of the things he’d do to Dr. Jacob “follow your feelings” Weinberg when he poked his big Jew nose out the door. Oh yes, he was going to be one sorry-ass kike bastard come quitting time. He’d learn a hard lesson about recommending a man’s wife run out on him, on her own son…
Jim had been taken aback then, as much by the stress of the situation as by his own thoughts. What had he been thinking? Was he really going to assault a man, possibly screaming anti-Semitic remarks at him as he kicked his head in? What was he, a fucking Nazi?
It's still a little first draft-y, to be sure, but maybe it will provide a little more context for discussion.
In my humble opinion - if that's what they are offended about, it's pretty bloody mild. Not to mention dealt with quite well.
Sure, I'm sure that the term 'Kike' doesn't need to be used, and you could avoid it. But it gives the context the angry punch it needs.
I think stick with it - although it makes the use of the word bastard superfluous. In my view you could chop one or the other and still have the impact. Kike is the most likely to stick in the readers mind for longer though.
Hey Mike, I meant to ask- Is this editor an actual professional book/manuscript editor? Or a friend of yours?
I only ask because, not wishing to offend, but I find the attitude a little too PC. And political correctness, IMHO, shouldn't take precedence in this instance.
I agree with Scott K in that it may work well enough if you want to use one phrase or the other, but not both...actually, no, if the character is indeed ticked off, then he may as well be truly ticked off. You'd better work hard to redeem this guy in the reader's minds by story's end, however.
I wonder how your editor would have handled "To Kill A Mockingbird"?
Here's my take, Mike; writing (and indeed all art forms) is about creating worlds in all their beauty and ugliness.
Real life is for trying to create a beautiful world.
And that's coming from a guy who writes James Bond fan fictions!
Ten years ago, I met screenwriting guru Robert McKee. I handed him my copy of his book, "Story", for him to sign. He rapidly scribbled his autograph onto the first page. Underneath that, he added "Write the truth!".
Looking at the context in which you put your offensive term, keep it. It isn't superfluous, but disruptive enough to make people notice. Not only that, but the editor obviously didn't catch that he soon regrets thinking such thoughts. Then there is the year in which you placed it, 1976. NV was one of the last states to eliminate segregation, so you can see why it's realistic to have such bigotry.
I would tell the editor, "Thanks for the suggestion, but I'll keep it."
Writing is an expressive art. The use of words need to be taken in the context in which they appear.
A word by itself can be viewed as offensive. Unfortunately, our society has become so "Politically Correct" that there is a knee-jerk reaction to any word thought of as offensive.
This is a crippling, extremely limiting mindset.
It is ironic that we have become so "PC", in a world that seems to have less and less grace.
Our world truly is turning into 1984. News speak and Double Speak.
I think that your EDitor needs to be EDucated. Keep your words as written, and explain why.
Good grief. Of course you have to keep it.
I thought this conversation was finished after Mark Twain wrote Huck Finn. You can't revise history and say nobody ever used the work "nigger." Doing so trivializes the struggles of the civil rights movement.
Besides, characters are supposed to change as they make their way through a story. It looks like you've done a nice job in tracing the change in attitude of this Jim fellow.
If characters didn't have flaws to overcome, what would be the point of their struggle?
Keep.
I'm going to agree with keeping it. Political correctness can be seen as another form of oppression, just as bigotry is. By telling someone that the way that they choose to express themselves isn't appropriate, we're censoring them--like Cameron said--we're on the brink of News speak and double speak.
Bigotry doesn't go away just because we stop using the words. Maybe you could ask your editor if your using those words brings out her own feelings--things that she's struggled with--and if those are at the root of why she said what she said. I think that we all have a bigot inside of us, and I don't know if hiding that bigot away is the best way to handle things. Sometimes, I feel that being made uncomfortable is the only way that we can start to identify our own bigot and begin to work through to the root of those feelings.
Not even a legit question. Of course keep it.
Keep it. the context it is in is key to your character.
If that's how the character talks/thinks, then keep it. If it's how you talk/think, then drop it. Your characters are depending on you to get their words to the page, so be as true to them as you can.
Well said, all. I appreciate the feedback, and will – as always – do my best to write with honesty.
Oh, and in reference to what mpclemens said...I would never write how I talk/think. The literary world just ain't ready for that level of weirdness.
If your characters are real enough to come off the page, they'll use whatever language that comes. It isn't exactly as though you have any control over them, right? You just faithfully write down what they say. You can edit almost everything, but not what people say or think.
Post a Comment