A sensitive subject with dialogue: bigotry

I have been reading some classic noir fiction (e.g. Christie, Chandler, Fleming) and have noticed several linguistic (and other) possible issues:

1. The N-word is used here and there to refer to African Americans.
2. Gay people are referred to slightingly (especially in "The Big Sleep").
3. The women are femme fatales, greedy, drunk, tyrannical, or naive ingénues.

Of course, I'm not bringing this up to belittle the noir genre. It is still one of my favourite genres. But, obviously, linguistic fashions change over time. Words that were acceptable in literature in the 30s, 40s and 50s (and maybe later?) are completely unacceptable now. I suspect that if I used words like that now, I'd become a pariah overnight.

And that leads on to my question: obviously, I don't want to make myself a pariah. But if I'm writing a bigoted character who DOES use ... words like that ... are they acceptable then? *blush* Obviously they wouldn't be acceptable in any other context.

I would also hope that readers would be savvy enough to divorce the author from the content, i.e. that I can write characters who are bigots, racists, sexists etc. without being any of these things myself. (But surely that worry is needless; a lot of people have written about -- say -- Hitler, but they were not Nazis).

What do you think?

 

Simple solution—flip the script. Write a modern noir where hatred and bigotry are directed against white people, straight people, and men. You wouldn't encounter much resistance at all that way.

Noir explored some very under-explored areas like male vulnerability and female power, which have been largely ignored in literature and the popular arts. Not entirely of course, but in the run-of-the-mill stories and movies those themes are usually off limits. It became ok at certain times, especially toward the end of WWII,* because Americans had been forced to see some harsh realities they usually ignored, such as the unreliability and often downright nastiness of the government and public insititutions. At such times the standard happy facades are torn away and people begin to see the darker, seedier underbelly that society usually doesn't talk about.

* WWII in the movies, WWI in the stories, on which the movies were based.

 

From personal observations of published literature it does seem easier to say in principle, "Of course you shouldn't self-censor!" than it is to actually release something that uses inappropriate language.

Putting words that are haram in today's society in the mouth of an unpleasant character is done all the time of course. However my guess would be even when it is done the author has been far more careful than they would have otherwise been, just to make really sure no-one misinterprets it.

If you want an easier ride and don't want to be double checking everything you write it is probably easier to convey their bigotry with slightly less unacceptable words and with action.

Take those period works you're talking about. I don't think any of those three authors felt free to let rip with swear words realistic to the time as swearing was more of a cultural taboo then than it is now or was ~150 years before. Instead they coyly indicated that an uncouth character swore without having them explicitly coming out with the worst sort of effing and blinding at every turn. That's probably where we are today with racial and sexist slurs.

 

If its what the character would say, then its what the character would say.

I have a character that uses homophobic slurs. of course, those arent words that i would use. But this character during the time period that he's in (early 2000s) would definitely use it. How do i know? I was in school in th eearly 2000s and encountered people who used it on me (because i was a tomboy and was best friends with a girl who dressed masculine) and then I heard other people use it to refer to my older brother (who eventually came out in college).
Its cruddy. but the characters in my manuscript who use those words arent supposed to be liked and are very much supposed to be cruddy bullies.

It would be a different thing entirely if the protagonist-- a character that we are supposed to be rooting for-- uses those words without any personal growth whatsoever

 

Just my opinion, but I at least believe it shouldn't be that way, but some people just can't separate their modern sensibilities from the work they're reading/watching. This is why Gone with the Wind has to have a stupid disclaimer before it these days. John Birmingham's Axis of Time novels, which are about a modern military task force being sent back in time to 1942 and the social ramifications of it, have this (and the associated language) as one of the barriers faced by the "uptime" members of the task force, and I'm pretty sure he's not a pariah. This bit of dialogue pretty much sums up what I'm talking about.

If that's not bad enough, he's a cop and the woman he's referring to has been assaulted and killed--and he's not even portrayed as a bad guy, just ignorant of our modern sensibilities. An asshole, sure, but not a bad guy. On top of that, the guy dies heroically during the Japanese invasion of Pearl Harbor.

My suggestion would be to try to avoid anything narrative-wise--intentional or not--that could be perceived as condoning such beliefs.

 

I haven't come across the N-word many times in modern books, but Stephen King sure uses it. He writes racist characters on occasion and uses that word with abandon when he does. I've never written a character racist enough to use racial slurs, but I think I could if I had to. I've definitely written homophobic characters, though, and they used the gay F-word and D-word and everything else they could think of that might be insulting. In fairness, though, I think I find it easier to write anti-queer language because I'm LGBTQIA+ myself. As a bisexual man who didn't come out until my 20s and mostly dates women, I haven't personally experienced as much bigotry as a lot of people have, but I've witnessed plenty of it, and I write it as authentically as I can.

Edit: I remembered a racial slur I used in my last book. Well, sort of. A Latino man calls a white boy "Guero," which is kind of borderline. Growing up white in Texas, I learned that word early, lol.

 

So its like @Xoic was suggesting: Start by insulting your own side and work your way out from there, turning the air blue as you go. Handy tip.

 

Use the words as much as you like. It's part of the character development. Writing in fear or feeling compelled to attack yourself as pre-emptive placation to sensitive souls is just silly. As writers, we should knock these people in the teeth so that they see the ills of their ways.

 

Sure. When I was writing racists and/or other antagonists (e.g. one of my major villains was classist, i.e. he thought that anyone of a "lower class" didn't matter), I used all kinds of vile language to portray them.

Obviously, I wouldn't use language like that myself -- and I'm sure any reader is savvy enough to distinguish a character's views from the author's. (I'm curious, though: is there anyone who can't do that, and who would even boycott an author because of something like that? That sounds silly).

 

You are forgetting about the perpetually offended in society currently. Those who actively look for things they can be offended by.

 

[

 

I feel like this topic should go in the debate room... because it has potential to go side-ways real fast.

Also, it seems like the OP isnt interested in what we think about what he is writing. But, rather, OP wants to start a discussion/debate on this topic.

 

Apologies. Yes. My reply was inappropriate for the location. I will edit

 

Exactly.

 

Genre can play a factor in this as well. SciFi and Fantasy genres can take these themes out of the normal context to explore them in a less offensive manner. The most famous aspect of this was the classic Star Trek episode with two sets of aliens that addressed racism, through which side of their body was a particular color.

 

If it's not against federal laws, write what you want.

 

Good advice. Thanks, Homer. And to be frank (hello, Frank ... sorry ), I'd never be a dick when writing. I'd leave that to an antagonist, to help the reader hate him/her.

Of course -- and I'm sorry to everyone who knows this -- there's a fine line between an antagonist being a racist/sexist/whatever a-hole, and an antagonist using bigoted words every second sentence. The first can try to justify his villainy (e.g. "I'm only being such a douche to my own men for their own good!"); the second ... well, sounds like a thug, really; someone who wants to make-believe that he's a mean mutha-etc., but he's not really. All show, no go.

And yes, being preachy is, well ... ugh. What am I going to do -- build up a bigoted antagonist who talks about "nasty women" or "damn foreigners" etc. (only in much worse language, of course) ... and then my hero shows up, wags a finger and says "Tsk tsk! Now now, is that any way to behave?"

Fair enough. Thanks, w. bogart ... I've never seen that episode (not a big fan of sci-fi), but that premise reminds me of the classic "Gulliver's Travels", and especially of the conflict between two sides of Lilliputians about the right end to crack an egg: the big end or the little end? (It became a religious conflict, even. Genius note, thanks wikipedia: The Big-Endian/Little-Endian controversy reflects, in a much simplified form, the British quarrels over religion).

 

I hope you're not making your good guys all good and your bad guys all bad. Real life, and real people, arent like that. Things tend to be more ambiguous, and it isn't easy to see what's good or bad. Not like in the old melodramas where the good cowboys wear white hats and the bad ones wear black. Let me once again paraphrase Solzhenitzin—the line between good and evil does not run between political parties or countries or groups of people, it runs through the heart of every individual, and it isn't clear or easy to define. Often people who believe themselves to be the good guys are doing evil without realizing it. In Hollywood of course good-looking is often equated with good, and evil is depicted through exaggerated nasty traits and ugliness.

Noir is set in a world that's morally ambiguous, and so are all the characters. To draw clear-cut distinctions between good guys and bad guys would be very much against the noir traditions and would cartoonize it. Of course it's often used in cartoony settings or satirized. But if you want to do something in the spirit of noir, it should be very morally ambiguous. There's no such thing as a good guy in true noir, but of course if it's hardboiled then the detective (or whoever is in the place of a detective) has a strict moral code that at least keeps them clear from the corruption and the moral squalor surrounding them. But they're definitely not saints. More like people with a checkered past who have definitely done immoral things but have learned the importance of avoiding certain kinds of behaviors and intentions that can lead to trouble. They keep their own noses clean even as they're wading through the moral degradation that surrounds them.

In a morally grey world someone who's too white would stand out like a sore thumb, and woudn't be able to get along with the corrupt police or newspapers etc. Boy scouts aren't welcome in the sleazy hideouts morally grey people inhabit, and a noir protag needs to have access to those hideouts, including of the worst criminals. he needs to be able to hang with the rough types because he used to be one of them, though even then he doubtless had a core that remained cleaner than those around him, he just learned not to let it shine too much. He needs to use their language and to be able to fit into the places they frequent without looking or acting like a cop or an outsider. He needs to be an insider in fact, and his moral code needs not to be too obvious. He needs to look and be at home among a bunch of nasty quarrelsome guys who kill and rape as a pastime, or he wouldn't be able to engage them in conversation and get them to trust him and open up to him. They can spot a square, or a rube, or a mark from a mile away. He can't be any of those things.

 

Thanks, Xoic -- very good advice. *thumbs up* You're right, of course -- and I've played enough role-playing games (D&D included) to know both the type to avoid (e.g. knights-in-shining-armour and black-robed warlocks who cackle a lot) and the type to aim for.

Yes, good-cowboys-in-white-hats (and bad-ones-in-black) belong in 19th-century melodrama, along with fearsome villains in evening dress who twirl their moustaches, use phrases like "Now I have you, my pretty!" etc., and "Mwa-ha-ha!" a lot. They remind me of the villains in children's pantomimes. "He's behind you!" / "Oh, yes he is!" Ugh. If I was writing for children, I might write someone like that -- but even children these days are more savvy than that, perhaps.

Nope, my good guys have their drawbacks. One or two are more-or-less brave-but-a-tiny-bit-naive. One is loyal to his job, to the point of (almost) obeying stupid orders, through fear of losing the job. Yet another "hero" is motivated to stay in his current position because it's comfortable. (Think of anyone who's faced with a change of jobs. "Maybe I should stay where I am. Could I be a success there?" etc. I think many people could relate). Obviously, these heroes have their good points too.

My villains, likewise, aren't the "mwa-ha-ha" types. They're motivated by political machinations, or lust, or prophecy, or even misled by their own delusions of grandeur. (Bigots sometimes are; how many bigots can you think of who believed their own good press? I'll bet they started out as bullies in the schoolyard, or their own neighborhood. "Why do I bully that kid? To toughens him up! It's a good thing! Makes a man out of him!" etc.)

I don't write noir, but I've read enough noir to know the kind of 'heroes' you mean -- Sam Spade (The Maltese Falcon), Nick & Nora Charles (The Thin Man), The Continental Op (Red Harvest), Phil Marlowe (and I'd include James Bond, too). Ned Beaumont, the 'hero' of The Glass Key, is sometimes overlooked, but he's a noir 'hero' too. There's only one question: how many of them are Knights in Sour Armor, i.e. the ones who keep doing good not because it'll make a difference, but because it's the right thing to do? *shrug* I can only think of one: Phil Marlowe. The others aren't Neutral Good, they're True Neutrals (i.e. they don't care either way, as long as they get paid).

On the other hand, this famous Chandler quote sums up Marlowe perfectly:

I can't remember Marlowe ever finding a 'hidden truth', but IIRC, Dashiell Hammett's 'heroes' -- Sam Spade, Nick and Nora Charles, The Continental Op, Ned Beaumont -- never even tried. Spade was in it to avenge his partner. Nick & Nora Charles, IIRC, were in it for amusement. The Continental Op was in it initially for idealistic reasons (to clean up the town) but ended up dirty himself. Ned Beaumont was only ever in it to protect his crooked boss, Paul Madvig. (I suppose Ned is a hero, in a way; Japanese folklore is full of tales of The Loyal Samurai, but I thinking in particular of this one (link to Freefall, one of my favourite online science-based comics). I think the reference may be to "The Loyal Samurai of Akō", but I can't be sure).

lol! I'm sorry, but this reminded me of the first novel I wrote, one with a brave-but-somewhat-naive would-be hero, who decides to go to exactly such a sleazy dive as you describe (think early Conan). Surprise, surprise: despite the landlord's best efforts to warn him off, it doesn't end well for my hero ... but not in the way you might expect. (I won't say any more, as I don't want to spoil it).

 

Oh, my bad—for some reason I thought you were writing a noir.

Often people don't see that they're bullies. Especially if they see themselves as a victim. Once they get that mindset firmly in place, all violence and bigotry against whoever they see as abusers is justified and heroic.

Also, it's impossible to proactively avoid bigotry because the rules keep changing. What was perfectly acceptable or even admirable in one era becomes vilified in the next. Nobody can predict which way things will go. Especially in this age of new bigotries being added every week or so, and changing like the tide.

 

No worries. I read a lot of noir, and I like the fashions (and studied some of the lingo, and Ray Chandler's turn-of-phrase -- he had a marvelous line in metaphors!), but I wouldn't try to write a noir. I wouldn't know where to begin, I don't know the rules. *shrug* If I did, I think it would sound horribly dated, like something from the 50s.

True. Many bullies, if not corrected early, go on to become bigots. If they join the Army, they could probably gravitate to the position of Sergeant Hardass (or even Commander Hardass). If not, they might join a gang and become the Psychotic Enforcer. (I'm just guessing, but it seems likely).

Sure, not every enforcer has to have been a bully (e.g. there's type of dim-but-strong enforcer that talks like dat). But a bully gang enforcer would probably have knife or two, and might talk about how lovely it shines, or how it "talks" to him. (I'm especially thinking of Teatime, the Assassin antagonist in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather).

People like that, you don't want to hang around with ... even if you can guess that he'll probably kill you last.

 

Oh, I definitely wouldn't try to write one set in the 30's or 40's. But neo-noir is huge, and probably accounts for about half of the movies made these days. The Terminator and all of the sequels are neo-noir (note the dance club where the two travellers from the future first meet is called Tech Noir). Elements of it have filtered into all kinds of entertaiment, but much of it is actually full-on neo-noir, complete with a detective-like progagonist and many of the rules in place. Mostly at night, lots of rain and mist or fog, darkness, moral ambiguity, femme fatale, and often venetian blinds. Bladerunner is of this type, far more noir than The Terminator. And even though it's set in the future, the fashions and cars resemble their prototypes from original noir. In one version there's even a voiceover!

 

Oh, yeah! I was too young to watch Blade Runner when first came out, but I played the computer game. It was fun, too. https://www.gog.com/en/game/blade_runner

I specialise in historical fiction (and I do a truckload of research to make sure I get it right, or at least reasonably close), so I suppose I could TRY to write a classic noir. There's only two things holding me back:

1. I usually try to include a mythological element or two, as it adds to the fun (and allows for all kinds of plot complications, and interesting ideas on humanity/philosophy/etc.) -- but if I tried doing that in a 20th century setting, it'd probably become a kind of Cthulhu-fanfic.

2. As I said before, it'd probably sound horribly dated -- and even worse, the critics would draw unfavorable comparison with Chandler, Hammett, etc... no, thanks.

IIRC, Robert Parker was brave enough to try this with Marlowe (in Poodle Springs). He did a fair job of it, too. But he spent years and years writing detective fiction, so he could get away with it. *shrug* Oh, well.

 

This is a response to something a little ways up now, it just took me a while to compose it, so here it is, out of place:

Bullies generally are people who were abused in childhood and become deeply wounded internally and resentful, and they act out later in life—they want to do to other people what was done to them. It's a stereotype to think of them only as big tough guys or gals, they come in all shapes and sizes, and they don't necessarily bully people physically. These days it's more frequently done online.

And what goes under the name bigotry usually seems to be a psychological defense where they know they're filled with all manner of unacceptable thoughts and behaviors but they can't stand to see that it's them, so they project it out onto another race or sex of religion or country or whatever. For example (one I've mentioned a few time before in here) Lovecraft. People love to throw him under the bus now because racism is so nasty, but his racism was a reflection of the xenophobia that had him writing about terrifying and powerful beings from outer space or the ancient past invading and terrorizing places on earth, Both impulses stem from the same 'otherness,' which is a psychological defense. When you have some shadow element that you refuse to admit is yours, you must project it onto someone else, and if it's really powerful one target won't do, you need an entire race or gender.

In both of these cases, the person usually doesn't see themselves the way other people do (most of us don't). They think they're completely justified. What I'm trying to get across is, when you use these convenient words like bully or bigot, you should understand that quite likely you're one yourself, or could easily be, and not realize it. This goes with the thing Solzhenitzyn said—part of which included "If only it were so simple, that there were evil people somewhere plotting evil things, and all that had to be done was to identify them and wipe them out of existence. But it isn't so. It never is. Nobody does evil, they always believe what they're doing is good." That was also partially paraphrased, I can never remember the whole thing. But the point is, it's never an easy call to determine who is evil or bigoted or a bully, and often the person who points their finger the most is one themselves, or at least has something to hide. Hence the phrase "When you point a finger at me you've got three more aimed back at yourself," and "Methinks the lady doth protest too much." Which I think is a misquote, but it's more well-known than the original. Other similar phrases going way back into antiquity include "Let he who is without sin among you cast the first stone," and "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones," and "Before complaining about the mote in you neighbors eye, first you should remove the plank (or log) from you own." They're all injunctions against hypocrisy, and people who tend to accuse others of things have a tendency to be guilty themselves. It's a well-known trick, to cast suspicion onto someone else to take the heat off yourself. Note, IPm not accusing you of anything, just trying to get across that using these terms a lot tends to make a person seem suspicious.

All of this is why I tend not to use words like bigotry or racism etc, especially since their definitions are not clearly defined and other people might have a very different idea about what you mean. It's always best to understand that whatever fault you find in other people is quite likely in you as well to some extent, or that they can just as easily find your faults and expose them. Fervent accusations of evil or bigotry or bullying belong in witch hunts (which of course have never gone out of fashion, they just keep changing their form and the words).