Fiction - 'politically incorrect' characters (UK)

Is there an artistic merit to the dialogue "dead [insert racial remark] storage" in Pulp Fiction, why or why not, and who should decide, and what metric should they decide by, and who decides that metric?

 

Well, couldn't we both start by saying that a personal opinion about the art that amounts to "me like blue" or "I don't like cottage cheese" would be an inappropriate way to draw the line?

And you're right. The initial mover in any instance will always be the artists themselves, determining what to include and why. I also agree with you that that doesn't mean everyone will agree with those sensibilities, such as "dead [bleep] storage".

But I was more talking about the obscenity trials, and what is "banned". Not what people "don't like". If you don't like it, that's fine. That has nothing to do with telling other people they cannot decide for themselves, as if they're parents in control of the child-lock on the nation's TV.

A lot of people think it's tantamount to a moral crime to consume meat, or that it's a sin against God to eat certain foods or whatever, or that you're an idiot if you dip your french fries into Mad Dog 357 Plutonium No. 9, but we don't ban those on the basis that people don't like it, or even that certain foods pose a lethal allergy risk to certain subsets of the population.

 

I agree. I wasn't sure where you stood on it because you said, perhaps hyperbolically, you were glad x and y got banned (I've only skimmed the thread here or there to be completely honest), so I thought I'd ask.

Right now we're seeing "canceling" rather than censorship, anyways. That's what has me more concerned at the moment. Mainly because it gives me tremendous cognitive dissonance to see my free-market beliefs *seemingly* produce undesirable results, although I'm not yet convinced that mob mentality, threats and coordinated assault on livelihoods through questionable motives is the free-market at work.

I guess if you can't just ban something from the top-down, you gotta' start from the bottom-up.

I've always been for letting the publishers decide, especially in the era of self-publishing and self-promotion. But if the publishers always answer to or gain approval from a governmental body, then it's just a facade.

 

It is a long story, but I got into a writing deal with a person that loved to draw covers for pulp erotica. What happened was, he had lots of covers for stories that did not exist. So we teamed up, and I wrote the stories, and he drew the covers, and did pretty well for years.

But if you know Pulp Erotica, it was the porn of the 1930's. This was a different time and place, and where men were being battered by the temperance movement, human rights, etc. So historically it had a lot of political incorrectness to it of today.

Now, I have the right to write what I want, but to me, just because you can do something, does not mean that you should. Sure, I could write like they did 90 years ago, and defend myself fully from that decision. Instead, I just tempered my writing down, and I think it was the right call to make.

Here is an example. Back in 1930 they would not have called a african-american an african-american. They would have used a very foul N word that I NEVER use. Sure I could have written that and been historically accurate, but instead I chose "colored." In this way, it has a sense of historical accuracy. It is still not politically correct I know for todays time, but at least is not vulgar.

Other ways I made it historically accurate was to use antiquated descriptors like "strumpet" instead of slut, or "soiled dove" instead of prostitute. What I am saying is, there is a middle ground that a writer can find, if they research a little, and are creative.

 

I think cancelling is censorship. In fact, I think it's censorship taken to the next level.

Imagine that I wrote a book that some people objected to. Ideally, those people would boycott the book, but others could buy it. Under censorship, the book would be banned, but others books I wrote might make it past the censors.

Under cancel culture, all books that I write should be unavailable to everyone. Any publisher that took me on would find themselves cancelled. It really is an attempt to bully people into the "right" culture.

And there's no avoiding it. Sure, you might not have written a book in the 1930s with their attitude. You might try to follow PC rules. But ask yourself: was it PC to suggest that there were biological differences between men and women 10 years ago? I think it was, and not only that, it was self-evident. But recently JK Rowling got "cancelled" for saying exactly that. What are you writing today that will fall foul of the newspeak in ten years time? Or just five years? I'm guessing most of us don't have Rowling's fortune or fame to fall back on if the mob takes a dislike to what we've written.

 

It matters less whether you use the Voldemort-word or not.

What matters most is why and how you're using it.

If you're using it to display the time and place, and NOT making a positive-statement about the term (i.e. you're just saying "this is how people talked", *not* "this is how people should talk") then any argument you make against its usage is just emotional bleating.

Because you can sit there and say, "Well, it's not technically necessary." And I can sit here and say, "It's just a string of sounds coming out of a mouth" which is another way of saying "Getting offended by it is unnecessary." From experience, I can say that that debate goes absolutely nowhere, fast.

As a writer I don't have time to justify reasons for why I shouldn't be allowed to use the word "slut". You're just spending a lot of time needlessly handicapping yourself with euphemism and giving ammo to anybody who will want to stop you from saying something in the future. Some people say that word. What does a character mean by saying it? What does its use say about the setting? Why is the author including it in their work? All valid questions, none of which can ever be asked nor answered if you're going to take the coward's way out.

I mean honestly, this all just reminds me of when I was four years old and my parents tried to instill fear of the words "Hell" and "damn" in me. Totally pointless. Totally illogical. The only people who care about their usage are people who shouldn't care. We've arbitrarily decided to not use them in professional or polite company, and if you think about that, you'll realize those distinctions are totally arbitrary too. We just decided it's that way, because we decided it's that way, and that's what we decided. If you've ever had a conversation with a professional or with "polite" company in which those words WERE used, without hesitancy or superstition, then you'll understand exactly what I mean. This idea that being a professional means "speaking like a professional" is rather absurd, because all the professionals I know are people just like you and I who say "slut" and all the rest of them. Which means these other environments are just places where we all pretend as if we're good little choir boys who've never sinned in their life. What a pretentious waste of time and energy.

Even so. Let's say we disagree on these previous points. Fair enough. What do YOU mean by "just because you can, doesn't mean you should"? Like, yeah, I understand the general statement / premise... but what do you *specifically* mean by that? Are you trying to justify cancel culture? Censorship? I'm confused as to what in the f-word this phrase means. Is it some kind of veiled threat?

For example, I say to somebody, "Just because you can speed when no cops are around, doesn't mean you should." Do I then get to pit-maneuver them off of the road for speeding by me? Like, I just don't get what that argument is even supposed to mean. It implies some sort of consequence for doing something you're allowed to do, and presumably it implies that the consequence is justified. So what consequence are you justifying and why?

 

Sorry.

EDIT: In terms of a character, their usage of a word or phrase should reflect something purposeful about the character. The author should be mindful of what words they're using, how they're using them, and why.

 

I feel like this to some extent is relative. And it begs the question of "so what" if the character(s) are bigoted and offensive. Bigoted and offensive according to who, and so what? Not sure if moving the goalposts helps at all, by saying "oh no, we're not telling you what you can or can't do with your story's characters; we're only saying what you can or can't say with your work as the author". At some point that becomes, like, ultimately the same thing, and I don't know if that would help the OP and their concern about their story's characters.

If your goal is to get published by a publisher that has outlined what is or isn't "bigoted and offensive" to them, then you need to decide if you want to censor your own writing (in this case, the story's characters) and possibly your own beliefs in order to get published by that publisher. That was what I gathered from the OP's post of this thread.

Should Cloudymoon's characters only be using bigoted or offensive words because of their story's setting or strictly character-held beliefs, that's one thing. If Cloudymoon doesn't even agree that those words should be considered bigoted or offensive, and that the characters should be able to use them because there's nothing wrong with it, that's different.

Since I don't know what Cloudymoon wants to get out of writing (ex. a completed story that is true-to-self and that they are proud of vs. a finished and published product that has been censored by gatekeepers), I don't really know what advice to give him on the matter of bigoted or offensive characters.

 

And I agree. If a writer wants to use bigotry and other means to produce such a character, it is well within their rights, and I have, and will go to the ends of the earth in defending people on whatever they want to write.

However, I think that as writers, just because we have the right to do something, does not mean we should.

For instance, I can create a villain the whose death in my novel is celebrated if I was to make him "ravish" my protagonist's love-interest while kidnapped. Without question, such a hard hitting scene would generate negative emotion for the character by the reader instantly. But while that is true, it is not something I should do, as there are other creative means I can use as a writer to generate the same response.

To me, shock value using bigotry, and heinous actions to bring out negative character traits ends up just being a cop-out for an uncreative writer.

And at great expenses to mind you...the reader!

In my example, one in five women have been negatively affected by such an act, so instead, shouldn't I go back and look for other ways to bring out those same negative character traits in my villain throughout my book, and generate hatred for him, without resorting to such a single, vile scene that offends my readership?

 

But that is the real question here, isn't it...just who are we writing for?

I think a lot of times writers drink the poisoned kool-aide that is, "write what you love". It is kind of a false statement because that is NOT what novels and stories are made of. If a writer is solely writing for their own interests, then its called Journaling and Blogs.

When a person writes for novels and stories intended for other readers, then there is a morality that we must shift over to, and try an make a story that is an enjoyable read. That does not mean watered down and boring, but if it is repulsive, then our characterization is all for not, even if it is close to real.

Of course what is repulsive is a subjective term. What a reader expects in a horror book is far different then what is considered in a romance novel. But should a writer fail to know their readers, a publishing agency will step in for them.

 

The strange thing is, racism is expected in some types of characters.

If you write a Nazi character, everyone expects him to be a horrible racist (unless he's the proverbial good guy fighting the system). Indeed, that's the basis of a lot of WW2 fiction. The same could be said if your antagonist is say, a member of the apartheid era South African secret service (Lethal Weapon 2 anyone?).

It becomes a problem when such characters are presented in a sympathetic light, or worse, are the protagonists.

I think an exception can be made if the character reforms by the end of the story.

Here's an interesting one - although I haven't read it, I believe Atticus Finch is presented as much more of a racist in Go Set A Watchman, whereas he is most definitely not in To Kill A Mockingbird. I wonder what prompted Harper Lee to change that?

 

Is it not possible to use the term "pikey' but acknowledge, call attention to or hint at the reasons why people find it offensive? In the case of that term, it's etymology, history and meanings relate to the idea of thieves and vagabonds so you can see why a term implying a low opinion of them is disfavoured. The idea that all Irish Travellers, or all of other groups like Romani occasionally called that, are homeless or thieves is rather insulting. And much like the n-word, a certain amount of it is just that history of use; that terms often spoken sneeringly by those outside of a group during a history of prejudice take on a slur meaning. Because they are not what that group would like to be called and they evoke bad memories.

So you could show a character calling or thinking of people as pikeys but you would probably want to acknowledge in some way that this term is connected to a culture that is not respectful to them. That the users of the term are either prejudiced or have at least been influenced by prejudicial ideas. If you put it completely without comment and treat it like its totally fine it invites the audience to wonder whether you agree with it.
Might I suggest that while "travellers" was not a term, they have their own names. They call themselves mincéirí or an lucht siúil in Irish. You could have at least one scene with a Traveller character where they point that out? Slightly weird comparison, but my epic high fantasy I'm working on has a people of what we could call goblins, which is a name used by groups outside them, but they call themselves dalkin. "Goblin" is a slightly offensive term to them, and even worse is the more overt slur kobwyn. Both terms will be pointed out by dalkin characters, and generally made clear in context, as insulting names designated by others. You could easily do that, and as a plus talking about their own names would also be a more interesting exploration of their culture and could be part of a larger strategy of a more intimate and respectful portrayal.

 

TKaM is one of my favorite books. Finch was working against racism and was a very humane person. I haven't read Go Set A Watchman because of the publicity around it that was basically saying "Read this book! The great Atticus Finch is actually a racist bastard!" and I was like, that sounds like a publicity stunt. I actually don't know if the publicity was an accurate depiction of Finch's character in the new book.

 

Also, what you can "get away with" depends a bit on how much you can remove your characters from reality.

If you want to explore difficult social concepts without having society heavily ostracize you for challenging the current orthodoxy you can use science fiction and fantasy.

Jonathan Swift comes to mind. He criticized a lot of contemporary society and mostly got away with it via humor and placing his protagonist in such a fantastical setting that if you criticized him you could come off looking ridiculous, yet smart people could make the connection.

 

I'm currently watching a youtube documentary series about the making of Apocalypse Now and just learned something that shifted reality out from under my feet. And having just read this post earlier today i felt the need to post here.

Apparently George Lucas was originally going to make Apocalypse Now, as a low-budget thing, and he wanted to actually go to Vietnam while the war was still on and shoot guerilla style. The studio refused to let him (I wonder why?) and he thought about the core of the story of Vietnam, what was it he really loved about it? Turns out it was the story of a small indigenous group fighting against the huge military machine of the US and coming out victorious. So instead he took that idea and decided to set it long ago in a galaxy far, far away...

Here's where I saw it:

 

Law and Order used to do a good job of tackling difficult concepts, before the show stopped being good.

 

Anyone remember Dr Quinn: Medicine Woman? Terrible TV show from years ago, but we had 2 channels and the other was probably showing horse racing. Anyway, even as a much younger man watching that awful show, it was incongruous beyond ridiculous to see modern sensibilities superimposed on an historical era. We can't rewrite history, unless that's the exact purpose of the piece, in order to satisfy current trends and moral norms. They simply don't fit. By all means, the action can include conflict between a character and the society in which the action takes place but modifying the language of racist slave owners or fascists in a story, in my opinion, is disrespectful to those that suffered at their hands, a deceitful and contrived re-imagining that holds little moral value. We recently had debates in Ireland about taking Of Mice And Men off the school curriculum. Read the book, the use of racist terms, like it or not, was not uncommon. The depictions of characters and interactions reflect the reality but don't reinforce racist attitudes. There's a growing deceit that we have evolved as a species but, imo, again, the hate and violence haven't gone away and I would sooner stay unpublished than propagate this fantasy of civility that is illusion. As well as fantasy. Having said all that, writing whateve-isms should be done with care because, ultimately, people can be idiots, including readers.

 

Yet.

 

Dun dun duuuuuunnnn.....