I have a question for the group. I am writing into one of my stories a couple of characterers that are racist and use unacceptable names for all races. They would very likely use those terms in actuality. I'm not real comfortable putting that in. I had not planned on going with something like that.
I had some feedback that if it builds out the characters well then put it in. Spoiler alert, I also have these people get what they deserve in the end. Thoughts on this? Thanks
I had some feedback that if it builds out the characters well then put it in
I used the unusable/unsayable racial epithet twice in one of my stories because it was a way to show how a specific character thought, and a way to convey the feeling of a member of that minority group.
I have used other less charged words when appropriate, but I tend to use them in a limited way, as the way I see it, once a character says them, everyone has the picture, and there is no need to repeat them.
In the end, if the words fit the character and the story, I'd use them however you felt appropriate, but know that at some point, you'll likely turn off your reader rather than shock them.
If you use them, you *have* to use them in dialogue and not narrative. That makes it clear that it's the character's voice and not the author's voice.
If you use them, you *have* to use them in dialogue and not narrative. That makes it clear that it's the character's voice and not the author's voice.
The narrator could be a racist. The narrator is not the author. Or the story could be set in times past or future.
Yes, but many readers are unable to distinguish between a racist narrator and a racist author.
Yes, but many readers are unable to distinguish between a racist narrator and a racist author.
Those same readers are unable to distinguish between racist character and racist author.
The same thing happens with movies but extends to being unable to distinguish actor/actress from character.
These are the people who complain about the Works of Mark Twain/Samuel Clemens being racist because of racist language by some of his characters, not understanding that he portrays the racist characters as buffoons, that his works were significantly anti-racist for their day.
Those same readers are unable to distinguish between racist character and racist author.
It's not just racism, it's politics, religion, &c.
I've had comments from people asking if I was abandoning my atheism (see Jonathan Kane in my Climbing the Ladder series) when I post Paschal and Nativity greetings.
Each of my MCs has a very different take on religion — an atheist, an agnostic, and a faithful Orthodox Christian. Each is the narrator of his own story.
Most people dont know what racism is.
You're probably right. Too many think racial quotas and positive discrimination aren't racism.
AJ
Most readers have read enough to grasp the basic concepts of fiction. Not everyone though, as there are many who think that ALL fiction is autobiographical, but imbeciles are all a part of the game, someone always has to stir the pot.
As far as 'unmentionables', one way to avoid those are to have another character relate it, as that way, the character who was involve edits their language. However, that only covers a few select, third-party cases (i.e. the primary characters weren't involved.
That said, if it does bother you, try a simple substitution. When discussing religious issues, rather than referring to God the almighty, I instead use a modification of the older Hebrew spelling, g*d, with a lowercase "g" since he's not my god.
So using a similar situation, you could use "You bloody k*ke!" As again, the word is plain, though by disguising, you take the edge off of it, indicating you, the author, are distancing yourself from the term.
That said, cursing is a normal part of fiction, so it makes no sense disguising exited utterances, as "FUCK!" is much more visceral than "Gosh dern it all!" from 50's television frequently usage.
And again, since certain terms are restricted (i.e. censored) when I want to refer to someone specifically, I'll again spell it "N*zi". There is no disguising that, though it denotes that you're not an active supporter.
As they say, sometimes you have to call a Nazi a Nazi when you're not one yourself.
Not everyone though, as there are many who think that ALL fiction is autobiographical, but imbeciles are all a part of the game, someone always has to stir the pot.
This is something I have had to state more than once over the years. I am not my creations, they are not me. Once I create a character, they are going to go their own way. I will often give them thoughts or traits that I in no way believe, but that is how they are. And in no way should they ever be confused with my own beliefs.
In fact, I think a properly written character should not be autobiographical (unless that is the intent of the story). I always try to inject at least something that is very different from myself, if nothing else as a challenge to make them more interesting and not be bland cardboard cutouts.
I can look at almost every main character I have created, and at least one thing is significantly different than myself.
I use racist dialogue in my novel "Death of a Hero" because the characters are racists. The story on SOL has a "notice" up front with a warning, but I didn't put a warning in the novel. But it's only in the dialogue.
Rather than a story warning, I've always preferred specific warnings at the top of any chapter with questionable content (rape or snuff scenes), so readers can either read it, already knowing what to expect, or they can simply skim or skip the chapter entirely.
In a 1,000 word chapter you won't lose much, though in a 15,000 word chapter, you'll lost a LOT of story content (nowadays my normal chapter lengths are around 3,000 to 7,000).
But you're right, no one really self-censors novels, as if someone does censor it, it's likely to sell much better. As I'm one of many who read the annual "Most censored books of the year" lists, where everyone reads to see what was censored and just how bad it was. It makes a great conversation piece at parties, especially among college educated crowds.
But you're right, no one really self-censors novels, as if someone does censor it, it's likely to sell much better.
I think I remember Farley Mowat talking about the controversy that one of his novels had excited in the U.S. ...
F.M.: Oh good! Do think we can get it banned?
Agent: Now Farley, don't be greedy.
Thanks for the feedback everyone. Yes it is limited to dialogue for these characters only for sure. The intent is to show their narrow view and set some things up for later at how ignorant they are. I think I will use some speciic words but only in one conversation in the story and then minimally.
I have used this dodge.
"I can't stand her! She's a n..."
"I don't want to hear that!" Sarah screamed, cutting off.
Yeah, that's useful, but … technically, an ellipsis indicated delayed speech, while interrupted speech is denoted with an em-dash (a dash the length of the small, letter "m" in which font your using).
For racial epithets it's an optimal usage, though not among a group of rowdies intent on stirring up trouble.
We live in a society that includes people who are racists and people who use racial slurs but don't think about people of a different race in a derogatory way. So the question becomes are you writing a story that reflexes our society, or are you writing a a fictional story about a society that resembles ours.
Much or that was an attempt to 'take back' offensive terms, which started with the term "gay" and latter included the term "nigger", as each group started calling each other those terms.
It works well in some cases and terribly in others. Again, how you relate it depends on the content (the polite over the offensive). Still, when questioned, most will answer honestly rather than dance around the question (Catholic nuns excepted, as they'll just rap your knuckles with a ruler).
But still, in legal matters, words matter.
If it's real, it's real. Yeah, it's fiction, but the less "real" it is, the less believable as well.
This often comes up in stories that occur in different times. I'm rereading Rewind right now and, of course, the protagonist is thrown back into the late 70's. At least in those cases the author can, and does, point out the differences in attitudes. One such, for instance, is that implying that someone else was a homosexual or a lesbian was a fairly common and highly charged insult among teens in the 70's. There were no "out" teens then, it simply didn't happen (as someone who went to High School in rural Georgia at the time I can absolutely attest to this.
That said, it's hard. Some of your readers aren't going to like it if you do it. I think I would let the "N" word drop in dialogue, for instance, if I felt it added realism to the story, but I'd know I was going to get some flack about it.
To be frank I simply skirted the issue on having an African-American couple fairly central to to a story set in the mid-80's though it certainly would have been possible for them to experience some ugly racism in that era.
I was in high-school in the '70s, while the terms were used offensively, I knew quite a few 'out' teens. The key is, you used them among those you could trust, not when you were likely to get your ass kicked for it.
Again, even much later, "stomping", where you knock someone out, lay their head backwards on a concrete curb, and then stomp on their heads), breaking their necks. Even as things were progressing, there were plenty of offensive rednecks doing whatever they wanted, as if they alone could hold back time.
breaking their necks. Even as things were progressing, there were plenty of offensive rednecks doing whatever they wanted
Rednecks?
As an immigrant Jewish boy in NYC, my father was laid across the curb (sidewalk to street) so that some guys could jump on his back and break it. To call all racists rednecks is rather racist.
I think the only word that everyone can agree is offensive is "politician".
Everything else depends on context.
Some years ago, late 70's, our office had several young women working there. One Friday afternoon, one of them was waiting for her boyfriend to arrive. They were going on a trip somewhere for the weekend.
He shows up - a remarkably handsome young black man - who got attention from all the females in the office.
She runs up, grabs his arm, and says "Back off ... he's MY Ni**a!"
I'm pretty sure she wasn't being derogatory. And she certainly was not ignorant.
To call all racists rednecks is rather racist.
And vice-versa.
Just because a person does honest outdoor work doesn't mean they're racist, ignorant or uneducated.
Although Hollywood would have you believe differently.
Just because a person does honest outdoor work doesn't mean they're racist, ignorant or uneducated.
People who do honest work outside, like builders and farmers, are more intelligent than rote learners like doctors and lawyers. And that's rewarded by cheaper car insurance.
AJ
This was an interesting dilemma for me. Full disclosure, I've just started writing, as you probably can tell from reading my stories. My intent was to make one character that was clearly very biased to the point of being racist as part of their natural personality. I did end up using charged terms but did not repeat the same word, and it was only in a couple of paragraphs.
I felt this was more powerful in the context of showing and not saying.
Well, if a person in your story is racist, then of course you can use unacceptable terms, like the N-word. In fact, if you wouldn't it would make your character inauthentic.
The question is what you do with it. Do you use it as part of character development, or just for the shock value? In fact, if the character undergoes a transition for the better, or gets his/her comeuppance later on, it can actually improve the narrative
The last part is exactly why I did it.
... gets his/her comeuppance later on, it can actually improve the narrative
It was not for shock value but character development. I did it to set up something that will happen later on in the story.
Overuse of certain works probably devalues the impact I think.
Everything is unacceptable to someone, somewhere. So what.
Used in context, racist or sexist or other derogatory terms add to the story. They also remind those of us with a more sensible nature that these terms were freely used, often by people we admired, many years ago. If you were writing a story set in apartheid South Africa, how could you avoid using the racial epithets that the whites used to describe their fellow humans?