An interesting comment exchange (Thanks, Bill!) has got me thinking about the way we choose words and the words we use. You see, here’s one of the dilemmas that authors face. There are certain words and uses of words that are generally considered offensive or that have derogatory connotations in today’s society, so it’s not considered appropriate to use them. I, for one am glad of that. People have the right not to have their ethnic group, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, etc., insulted. I don’t want mine insulted. That said (and here is where the dilemma comes in), authors want to create realistic characters. Readers want to read about realistic characters. Sometimes that realism includes using words or phrases that may offend some readers. There’s also the fact that times change and so does our view of what’s offensive. So an author whose stories were written in, say, the 1920’s or 1930’s, or whose stories are set in those eras, may have used language that we wouldn’t consider appropriate by modern standards. And yet, not to use that language arguably takes away from the authenticity of those stories. Finally, it’s sometimes a little difficult to know which words one ought to use; bear with me on that one, and I’ll explain myself in a bit. Like so much else in crime fiction, one’s choice of words requires a balance.
Sometimes a word or phrase that’s not what we would normally consider appropriate is the best way to express a character’s personality or add to a context, so that not using it might make the dialogue stilted. For example, in Peter Temple’s Bad Debts, sometimes-lawyer and private investigator Jack Irish is investigating the murder of a former client Danny McKillop. In the process of finding out who killed McKillop, Irish discovers that his murder is related to another death several years earlier – a death for which McKillop was framed and went to prison. Irish slowly unfolds the layers of conspiracy and corruption in this case and finds out the truth. In the meantime, he and some of his father’s football-loving friends, all Fitzroy supporters, are planning to go to a game featuring their beloved Roys versus St. Kilda. Group member Norm O’Neill says this of the Roys and the St. Kilda team:
“They can’t give this bunch a sheilas a beltin, might as well merge with Brighton Bowls Club.”
Is this comment derogatory to women? Well, yes it is. But does Temple intend it as an attack on women? I don’t think so. It’s part of the way these characters speak, it’s authentic and it makes sense given the context.
In Donna Leon’s The Girl of His Dreams, Commissario Guido Brunetti and Ispettore Vianello investigate the death of Ariana Rocich, a twelve-year-old Roma girl who apparently fell to her death from a rooftop into a canal. At first it seems that she was trying to flee after robbing an apartment and simply fell into the canal. But soon it appears that she may have been killed. Here is a conversation that Brunetti and Vianello have about the girl:
“‘There’s no way of knowing, though, whether she is or she isn’t,’ he [Vianello] added.
‘Isn’t what?’
‘A Gypsy.’
Voice coloured by his lingering irritation at the pathologist’s words, Brunetti said, ‘Rizzardi said we were supposed to call them Rom.’
‘Oh. How very correct of the doctor.’”
Brunetti himself uses the word Gypsy more than once in this novel. Is that to say he is prejudiced against the Roma people? Actually he works this case with at least the vigour with which he works any case. His use of that term isn’t intended as a slur against Ariana Rocich or her people. It’s the word he’s always used and it’s difficult for him to think in terms of a different word. So in this case, although the word isn’t considered appropriate, it serves a purpose. It helps add to one of the themes in this novel and it makes sense considering who says the word and why.
There are several classic novels in which the author uses words we would now consider derogatory and offensive. As Agatha Christie fans know, for instance, one of the alternate titles of And Then There Were None is Ten Little Indians. It also has another title that’s considered quite offensive by today’s standards. I don’t know whether that choice of title means that Christie was a racist. Certainly the same term is used in various expressions used in Christie’s work. For instance, in After the Funeral (AKA Funerals are Fatal), patriarch Richard Abernethie dies suddenly ‘though not unexpectedly. At his funeral, his younger sister Cora Lansquenet says that he was murdered. At first everyone hushes her up and Cora herself admits she spoke out of turn. But everyone secretly wonders whether Cora was right. When she herself is murdered the next day it seems even clearer that she was correct. So the family lawyer Mr. Entwhistle asks Hercule Poirot to investigate. Here’s a bit of the conversation when Poirot reveals to the family that he was hired to investigate:
“‘I have been a friend for many years of Mr. Entwhistle.’
‘So he’s the nigger in the woodpile!’
‘If you like to put it that way, Mr. Crossfield.’”
Does the use of that expression mean that this character is a racist, or that Christie was? It’s hard to say because that’s the way people spoke at that time. Those expressions were in such common use that many people used them without thinking of what they really mean.
And it wasn’t just Christie either. Ellery Queen’s The French Powder Mystery is set in great part in New York City’s French’s Department Store. One day, one of the store employees is preparing a store window demonstration when she discovers the body of Winifred French, wife of store owner Cyrus French. Inspector Richard Queen is called in and his son Ellery comes along. Together, they untangle the network of relationships and hidden motives that are behind the murder. The employee who discovers the body is referred to as “the Negress” throughout the novel. Certainly that word is offensive by today’s standards. But that’s the way people spoke at that time (the book was published in 1930). Not to use words and phrases of the time might have made the story less authentic.
So how does an author refer to certain groups of people, especially members of minority cultures? Here is how authors such as Tony Hillerman and Margaret Coel have addressed the question: they’ve asked the people themselves. Hillerman, for instance, spent decades among the Navajo people and learned what they call themselves, what they want to be called and how they see themselves. Coel has done the same thing with the members of the Arapaho Nation. Other authors too have done similar things, especially if they are not members of the cultures about which they write. So, should authors use terms such as Aborigine? Eskimo? Inuit? Native? Something else? It seems to me that authors ought to make the effort to get to know the people involved and find out from them which terms they use and do not use. That could be a very effective barometer of what counts as the right word(s) to use.
*NOTE: The title of this post is a line from the Fixx’s One Thing Leads to Another.
It’s a tough call to make, Margot – especially when we’re talking about modern writers, writing today, setting their stories in an earlier era when words were commonly used which we now find offensive.
In Agatha Christie’s case, the original title of the book – which, by today’s standards would be unpublishable – was taken from the nursery rhyme that makes up the heart of the plot. The rhyme and the title were later changed to “Ten Little Indians” – probably just as offensive to some readers! – before the title was changed to “And Then There Were None.”
I know that when reviewing books from that era that do use now-offensive racial terms pretty freely, I try to warn my readers to expect that kind of language. That way, if they feel they will be so offended that they will not enjoy the book, they can simply not read it. Personally, I think that’s a mistake. But I’m less willing to accept that language from a modern writer setting the mood for a particular era, unless it is so clearly a part of a character’s makeup that it cannot be overlooked.
Tough call, to be sure. And another thoughtful post from you. Thanks!
Les Blatt
http://www.classicmysteries.net
Les – You’re 100% correct; it’s a tough call. I think you do a wise thing in letting readers know when the novels you’re reviewing use offensive terms and phrases. As you hint, we know that people of earlier eras had different attitudes and used different language and that simply comes up in novels written in those days. That doesn’t mean the plots aren’t well-written and there are no well-drawn characters. I think the classics are well-worth reading and (barring the attitudes and language of course) I try to learn from them. But you’re right; there are readers who will be offended (and I can see why) by the language and they should know it’s there.
It’s interesting that you make a distinction between novels written in earlier eras and modern novels that take place during those times. You’ve got a point that there’s a difference and as I thought about your comment, I also thought that there are other ways in which a writer can convey the sense of an era without using offensive terms. There may be some characters whose makeup absolutely requires those words, but usually it’s not necessary.
Thanks too for the reminder of how Christie’s title changed to reflect the changing social attitudes. It’s an interesting reflection isn’t it of how social views affect novels. Oh, and finally, thanks very much for the kind words.
Margot: Thanks. I look forward to your essays every day.
On language I have had experience, through land claims, with the nuances of Canadian indigenous people identifying themselves. For my clients they saw themselves as treaty Indians because of the status conferred by their ancestors entering treaty with the Crown in 1876. Non-treaty Indians may have the same bloodlines but had lost their treaty status for various reasons. Treaty Indians did not use indigenous freely as it included groups such as Metis (mixed Indian and white) and non-treaty Indians. They are equally wary of the description, First Nations, as not all groups who consider themselves First Nations have treaty status. Inuit are in a different position as most have not entered treaties with the Crown in northern Canada but have a special relationship with the Government of Canada. A researcher of Mohawk background I greatly respect told me that academics every 20-25 years feel the need to change identification. A generation ago aboriginal was their customary description of the various groups. Now it is indigenous. I wonder what will be the next identifier.
Bill – Thanks for sharing that really interesting information about the nuances of Canadian indigenous people (and for the kind words). I hadn’t thought about the fact that treaty status plays a role in the way your clients would see themselves. That makes sense though as there is a difference between people whose ancestors entered into that treaty and people who do not have that status. And of course, treaty status or not, there is the matter of group identity; there are many different indigenous groups. These subtle but very real differences are part of the reason I think it’s so important to find out how people see themselves and use that as a guide, especially if one is writing about them. And it makes sense that researchers and academics re-visit the terms they use. The cultures they research change, as cultures do, so it makes sense that the way they view themselves, and therefore want others to view them, would change too.
This is a very complicated subject. I have very little tolerance for bigoted or sexist language in books. They often quickly become DNF if the language is too offensive.
I stopped reading Christie’s Hercule Poirot series at the age of 19 when I was offended by bigoted references to immigrants, people of color and Jewish people. (Also, a note that her publisher changed the title you refer to, I think, in 1940 because of the title’s language.)
Even reading Nero Wolfe books, a series which I like, I found the earlier books had offensive words and the attitude to women was — well, annoying — in some books more than others. So I try to steer clear of the ones with awful language. Stout himself evolved and later on he changed some of the wording in his earlier books to reflect social changes and his own development.
And with Sjowall and Wahloo’s book The Locked Room, a terrific mystery, the two criminals used vile language. When I loaned out the book, I put in a note warning readers about it.
Sometimes writers use certain words as they’re trying to expose the awful attitudes and then a character rises above it or counters it or shows their own more progressive attitudes. Like in the brilliant Crooked Letter, Crooked Letter, Tom Franklin uses some offensive words as part of the heart of his story, to help explain why a friendship can end due to racist attitudes. Franklin’s understanding and sensitivity come through in this book.
I often feel disappointed in authors who use offensive language, as if they are only writing to their own nationality and gender. I think about whether or not they even think that people of other nationalities or perhaps gender will read the book. Don’t they realize readers may cringe or feel insulted while reading?
That’s what I try to think of when I’m reading. if I were of the ethnic group or nationality, or an immigrant or gay, how would I feel reading this? Is the author aware of others’ feelings about this? Does the author want to reach out to readers of various nationalities?
I agree with policy of talking to people to see how they want to be referred to or how they’d like to be described.
At one point I wrote to a U.S. author about how she referred to immigrants today. It was awful. She said that others had written to her criticizing immigrants. I tried to explain how immigrant communities want to be referred to, as they do when they talk about themselves. She didn’t get it. Did it not occur to her that someone who is an immigrant might pick up the book? Or that there should be understanding?
I haven’t read her books since.
I take a hard line and I’m fine with it. There are enough great books out there, way too many for me to even read. So many authors are tuned in, but as the world widens, with people from everywhere living with each other, it’s necessary to try to help with understanding. Many writers do this already, Donna Leon being one of them and many others. Jo Nesbo was quite tuned in to the Roma people in Nemesis and went over some of their mistreatment in Norway. All good.
Kathy – You’re quite right that several of Rex Stout’s novels use cringe-worthy language. Certainly Nero Wolfe is not exactly an enlightened person with respect to the roles of women. But as you say, over time Stout re-thought some of his positions, as people do, and those changes do come through in the later novels.
I’m glad you mentioned Crooked Letter, Crooked Letter too. It’s a terrific example of how an author may use certain language because it’s the way a character speaks or because it’s used in the setting the author chooses. But that doesn’t mean the author is a racist or a sexist or an anything-ist. In fact, the author’s point may be exactly the opposite, as it is in Franklin’s case. That’s difficult to do well and I greatly admire Franklin for pulling it off as well as he did.
You make a well-taken point too that it’s helpful for an author to really consider how different people might see certain language and choices of words. It seems to me if one’s going to include characters who come from certain backgrounds, especially if one’s not from the same background, it makes sense to think about how people from those backgrounds might view those characters. It would seem to me the characters would be more realistic that way.
I think groupings of people should be identified as they choose to be, even if it changes. . It is respectful to them to do that.
Kathy – I agree completely with you on that.
Whoa! This is a tough call. It reminds me of when I was mad for Lena Wurtmurller (sp?) films. She had a couple that featured a very obese woman and some feminists took affront at this. I never got it. I think if you are worrying about political correctness when you’re writing fiction you’re in the wrong field. Your characters have to be true or it is just pap. Think of Reginald Hill’s Dalziel – good grief, the man is so constantly offensive, yet I love him to bits. He’s real.
Oh, and thank you so much for reminding me of Peter Temple’s books. My fella and I read a few of them and then we somehow forgot his name. I think he is one fantastic writer!
Jan – It is indeed really difficult! As you say, a good story features real characters – authentic ones. Real characters come in all shapes, sizes, and beliefs. Some are boors and some are not. It’s critical to keep that in mind when one’s writing. Interesting you’d bring up Reginald Hill’s Andy Dalziel, too; he certainly can be offensive. And Hill didn’t paint him as a person we all ought to emulate. But he’s a unique and much-beloved character too. He is, as you say, real. I think (and this is possibly just my opinion) that Hill did an excellent job of Andy Dalziel for who he is without sending the message that certain kinds of beliefs and attitudes are acceptable or the right way to think. A truly delicate balance and Hill struck it.
And as to Peter Temple? A truly fantastic writer with such insight into characters. I just love his sense of humour too.
My own feelings about this are rather complicated. I would never use racist language to someone because I think that it is rude and insulting. That said, I don’t cringe if I pick up a book from 1920 and discover that the author is being politically incorrect. Christie was simply echoing the standards of her time. After many trips abroad with her archaeologist husband (not to mention her encounters with rabidly anti-semitic Nazis) she came to regret some of her earlier attitudes, and they are largely absent from the post-War books. That said, I don’t think that the earlier books should be banned or gutted. They are honest and accurate picture of the attitudes of their times. You don’t change people’s attitudes by pretending that their ancestors did not have attitudes that are beyond the pale in today’s world. As to modern authors who use racist language…well, it depends on the context. George MacDonald Fraser’s FLASH FOR FREEDOM is a fairly unflinching portrait of the US slave trade in the early 19th century. A lot of the characters use language that is extremely offensive in today’s world, but how else do you suppose that slavers talked? If you’re writing as yourself, then it is important to avoid upsetting people by using inflammatory language, but if you’re writing as someone from fifty years or a century ago, then it is not wrong to have them speak as they would have spoken. The best way to change attitudes is to bring them out into the open, not pretend that they don’t exist by neutering the language. I recently watched some episodes of KOJAK from the early 70s, and a number of the black characters refer to the whites as ‘Honkies’. Should this be changed? It’s intended by the characters to be insulting, and is aimed at a specific ethnic group. Like I said, it’s complicated.
Skywatcher – It is complicated; it really is. I’m glad you brought up Agatha Christie’s evolution as a person and as a writer. Most of us mature and re-think the way we see the world as we do so. Writers are no different and I would agree with you that Christie’s postwar work reflects her maturation. You also make a very well-taken point that the views of an era are/were what they are/were. Not to express those views honestly means that a book is not a realistic portrayal of a time. Christie always had an eye for the social realities of her times and they come through in her writing. She’s not the only one either of course and we could mention dozens of authors whose choice of words would seem offensive by today’s standards. But as you say, that’s how people thought at certain times. In the case of Fraser’s work, I confess I haven’t read Flash For Freedom but I couldn’t imagine an honest portrayal of slavers that didn’t include attitudes and therefore language that we would find horribly offensive today.
You make a compelling point too that discussing attitudes honestly can do much to make people re-think them. Authors who portray their characters authentically can do that. I think it’s a matter of the purpose to which the author is putting the attitudes and language s/he chooses. If it’s for shock value or isn’t absolutely necessary to the development of the story then offensiveness doesn’t belong in a story. You’re right that authors need to consider the potential of their work for being offensive. It is a complicated and difficult issue, as most important issues are.
I think everyone who is active in getting books removed from schools should read this essay and the exchange of comments. They will take a book out of a school library simply because it is set in an earlier time and the characters speak from that era’s biases. Actually they are denying their children a broad education which takes into consideration the fact that prejudices were common in this world.
Barbara – Thank you
– Your mention of banning books brings up a whole other discussion that I think is extremely important. You’re absolutely right that there are plenty of books that reflect prejudices and social attitudes of bygone eras. But that doesn’t mean those books should be banned. Some of them are truly great novels that can be used to spark fascinating discussions on prejudices, attitudes and social change.
I’m not for banning books. It’s usually the more liberal-minded books that are banned. However, not every book has to be taught in schools. It’s still selective what school libraries purchase. And how books are discussed and taught. That’s important. I saw a group of the greatest high school students discussing To Kill a Mockingbird (on PBS) and they made comments on subjects which had never even crossed my mind about racism and doing the right thing and having integrity.
If books are available, then it’s the responsibility of the school’s staff to teach controversial books well, have full discussions and do it right. But all communities and nationalities need to be heard on this, what they want and don’t want if their toes are stepped on by these discussions. They need to be part of this and be heard.
Lots of sensitivity needs to be utilized in this. I’ve read of situations where one child of a particular nationality is in a class when a book is read where there are insults to his group. The child is put in the hallway. Solution: not so much. It isolates and hurts that child.
My main appeal to authors is to think of what happens when people that are of other ethnic groups and nationalities and perhaps gender read your books. How do they feel? That in this day of Internet communication, of worldwide book sales books go everywhere. Are books written for everyone or only for a narrow audience. I think that’s important to answer.
Kathy – You make well-reasoned comments about the way books can be used in classrooms. It’s not an easy task to select books and use them with skill and sensitivity. It’s important to be very thoughtful about which books one uses in the classroom or selects for a library. Obviously the more books that are available the more options one has, so just on that point alone we are all at a serious disadvantage when books are banned. That said though it is crucial to think about the messages a book sends, whether one’s an author, a parent, a publisher, a teacher, a school administrator or some combination.
Your story of students being asked to leave the classroom because a book includes insults to those students’ groups reflects a completely inappropriate (in my opinion) way to meet this challenge. As you say, it isolates students and marks them as “different,” even “less,” to say nothing of what it does to their academic development. It takes a lot of reasoned and sensitive effort to address the issue of how to integrate certain books and topics into the classroom. But as you say, banning books is not the solution.
I’m half Japanese and when older writers used to use the term Jap, I never got offended. Even if they meant it to be derogatory. Most times the author creates characters to be prejudice, not how they feel in real life. I hope the words I used now don’t in some way offend the people of the future.
Clarissa – You make an important point. Just because a fictional character is prejudiced or says something offensive doesn’t mean the author holds that view. I can think of a lot of characters I’ve read who hold views that offend me, but that doesn’t mean I believe the author does. On the other hand I also think you’re right that people could be offended by what we write and that needs to be considered. Like you, I hope that what I write won’t be offensive. I sure don’t mean it that way.
Ms. Kinberg, your thought-provoking post has elicited some equally thought-provoking comments and I enjoyed reading both. I have often wondered about the use, abuse and misuse of words, phrases and colloquialisms in fiction, then and now. I have read some nasty stuff over the years. However, the social and political correctness of our times has ensured that modern-day writers are sensitive to the feelings and sentiments of entire nations — their people, their culture and their religion. Yet, we have the odd-novel that jabs you in the ribs and stupid politicians who ban it. I rarely feel offended when I read a book the contents of which might be construed as derogatory by others, especially if it is contextual as you rightly mention. If it is not in context and if I don’t like it, then I have a simple solution: stop reading.
I recently read an sf short story where its author, Wallace West, alludes to ganja (hashish) addicts whose users “develop homicidal mania” and “run amuck” as they do in India. This was very much in context of the story, “The End of Time” written in 1933 and I actually liked it. I wouldn’t have minded even if West had written the story and those lines today.
If you’re a true book lover, then you have to be as liberal and broadminded as you possibly can to accept what’s inside those books. After all, we’re talking fiction here, aren’t we?
Prashant – You make a very salient point here. Yes of course it’s important that authors consider who might be reading their work and what effect certain words and phrases might have on the reader. As you say, modern authors are aware that their audience is more diverse than ever and that is a good thing.
That said though, readers do have the option, as you point out, to stop reading or not to read a given author’s work in the first place. It is also important to remember as you’ve said that a work of fiction is a work of fiction and needs to be taken that way. That’s part of what makes for a very difficult balance between not wishing to offend readers and at the same time telling an authentic story.
Not everyone feels this way. I know many people who are offended by language in a book and they won’t read it or they’ll stop reading it. I am offended by remarks or words that insult my two family cultures and to women.I also cringe at insults to other peoples and cultures. I have little patience for this. I’m fine with that. There is a lot to read out there and much to enjoy.
Kathy – Right you are that there is a lot of good reading out there to enjoy. There are things that offend me too and if I know they’re in a book, I won’t read the book.
One final example of how I think this is done correctly. Malla Nunn’s series is set in 1952 apartheid-run South Africa. The author writes language as said by Afrikaaners, which is derogatory towards the Indigenous African population. Unfortunately, that is how many spoke, which reflected their arrogant attitudes — and probably many still do today.
However, Nunn’s protagonist, police officer Emmanuel Cooper thinks through those awful comments and mentally disagrees or explains where they’re coming from. He’s a character with integrity and principles.
So here the question of offensive language is handled well. I would not hesitate to loan out Nunn’s books nor Tom Franklin’s as the authors disagree with the bigotry, yet it’s shown truthfully.
Kathy – You make a well-taken point. Authors can use characters, situations or other tools to show an attitude honestly, while at the same time making it clear that s/he is opposed to those attitudes. Both Nunn and Franklin do that quite well, so I’m glad you brought that up.