Fiction - 'politically incorrect' characters (UK)

Sorry, wasn't sure where to post this, apologies if wrong place.
I am in UK. Today I read a news article about a well-known writer saying their publisher has been telling them what they can and can't write due to what's 'politically correct' (or not.)
Now, in my view, fiction's fiction. Characters should be able to say anything they damn well like. But apparently Publishers don't want to publish anything where a character is saying 'politically incorrect ' things. (i.e. racist remarks etc.). Now, I realise I can self-publish and not worry about a publishers point of view. BUT - presumably there is a reason they don't want to publish fiction with politically incorrect characters? Are they scared of being sued? Anyone out there know?
To give an example -
In my own WIP, which is set in the 1970's England, a teenage boy character refers to a member of the travelling community as a 'Pikey'. These days, the term 'Pikey' is considered derogatory and maybe even racist, for all I know. But in the 1970's this is what people not part of the travelling community called them. Am I wrong to want my characters to use the language of the time? (Even 'gypsy' another term, is now considered derogatory by some). But a teenager in the 1970's would not have referred to one as a 'Traveller'. (That term wasn't even thought up then.)
So - can my characters talk and act like someone of that time/era and use words now considered wrong? Or should I make my characters talk in a PC way (even though it would sound ludicrous?)
All thoughts/comments appreciated !

 

I don't think it's so much about being politically correct as making the text unmarketable. People are just too touchy these days.

 

I can't speak to the publishers' squeam, but I would say (and have done) to write the dialogue so the characters speak as they would have in the time and place where the story is set. I wouldn't worry at all about the idea some terms common in the past are considered offensive by some now.

 

If I am reading a book that is set in a specific time period, I expect the characters to speak like that. It would be very weird to read a book about the Underground Railroad (example) and instead of the commonly used (at the time) "nigger" the word is "black man/woman" it would not flow very well and my feeling is that the sense of the book would be off.

Take a look at Harry Turtledove's alternative history series about the American South winning the civil war for example and imagine how well (or how bad) the book would flow if the language was politically correct.

This is the first book in the series (there are 11 altogether):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Few_Remain

 

Honestly, I can't quite fathom why publishers would do that! So, if you can't have a racist character in your story, you can't have a character who does bad things? It is frustrating.

 

Well, publishers have a right to not publish something because it fails to meet their definition of "politically correct". Sometimes it's not about the publisher taking any political stance, but rather that they're only interested in publishing feel-good children's books or something. In any case, it just opens the door for another publisher to come along and say, "We'll do it!"

I didn't read this article you're referring to, and I'm not from the UK, so I understand that your laws surrounding speech are different than where I live.

If the publishers are doing it because of some law that they all must follow, then that is totally different. But this doesn't seem to be the case. If it were, I'm sure I would've heard about it.

As moose mentioned, I also have a feeling that there's more to the story than what that author provided in his/her article.

Most of what I write is politically incorrect in some manner or another. If that's what you want to write, Cloudymoon, I encourage you to do so. But be willing to live with the consequences, one of which being that it might make it more difficult to market compared to inoffensive pablum.

 

Can't you? Look at all the protests that are happening in the world right now. THAT'S why they would do it. They are scared - understandably - of causing offence and the resulting bad publicity.

But this article sounds like the well-known writer trying to cause a stir for their own publicity's sake.

 

Yup. Nothing like some good ol' fashioned mob rule to lead us down the path of the puritans. They really did play the long-game. Like the Sith, you think they're gone, but they're really just hiding under a new disguise.

That's why whenever I buy something from Aniplex, I always fill out their feedback slips that they send with the product. I must have mailed-in 10 or 12 by now. At the bottom where they give you a few lines to write whatever you want, I write "Don't bend the knee to censorship, or you can kiss my money goodbye."

Well, I usually write it nicer than that.

 

And I don't need a publisher protecting me from either. They're not my mommy.

But if their pocketbook is their actual concern (as it *usually* is), then that's fair game in my book, because I can't see anybody buying that former book unless they hate themselves or somebody else lol.

The problem is when the public makes your latter book unmarketable.

 

Precisely.

Given the way writers are learning that maybe, just maybe, they don't really want that twitter connection with their fanbase, I am deeply suspicious as to the intellectual honesty the writer deployed in their kvetch in that article. Is it a reprehensible character, or a reprehensible writer shining through the pages of his/her story because, not the same thing.

 

There are unfortunately a lot of people out there who think that if they can tear down or hide reality, then reality ceases to exist. Yes, that does mean there are a lot of really dumb people out there.

 

Thanks for all the replies folks. I've decided I'll write it the way I want to (faithful depiction of the characters and words of the era).
I'm quite prepared for no publisher to touch it with a bargepole

 

Self publish. That takes a third party publisher out of the equation. You have the option nowadays.

 

But it's ART, if they can create derogatory murals of a group of people then certainly we can use offensive words in our ART.

 

No, they don't. And then you can go become your own publisher. Yet the problem that we see is that people aren't satisfied to say "if I don't like it, I don't have to read it", they insist that if they don't like it, NOBODY should be allowed to read it. That's blatant censorship and according to some political ideologies, so long as they get their way, it's perfectly fine.

Screw those people.

 

My main character is VERY un-PC. I'm self published so don't have a publisher or agent to keep happy, but rather than cut his un-PC nature out, I challenge it.
For example, his girlfriend calls him out for homophobic remarks, and makes him understand that he's a dinosaur, and that's why young people can no longer relate to him.

I'm not just going keeping a lid on him so I'm not seen as being un-PC as a writer, but rather to keep my work believable. It's set in the present day, and anybody who refers to gay men as "poofs", makes lewd comments about women and blows clouds of fag smoke in babies face's (ugh, possessive plural apostrophe, somebody help me out. I've not had my first coffee yet and I'm too lazy to google it) while wearing a coat made of mink with a seal skin lining, without modifying their attitude is going to end up a social outcast or in jail pretty quickly.

OK, he's not THAT bad, I'm using these things as extreme, hyperbolic examples. But I think something needs to be tempering un-PC characters to remind readers that your work is set in the present day.

But books set in the past? From what I know from my time in the media, and from others I know who still work in the industry, I'd say it's slightly different.
It's all about context. You can set a book in 1949, sure. Say you have a character using the n-word. If that word is used by the main character, who's racist, your book probably isn't going to go very far (and rightly so).
You can't even play the "it's a product of its time card". It's a racist term, used by a racist character, and we're assuming, a racist author. Manuscript goes in bin.

If the word is said to a black character in order to highlight and demonstrate (NOT glamourise, that's a very different thing) the awful treatment black people received in Western society (and let's face it, continue to receive) then that probably isn't going to get your book spiked.

I'd want to know in what context you're using the word "Pikey".

 

I think the solution is simple, really. Especially if you're self-publishing. Include an author's note, saying that certain terms (you can even list them) are no longer in use because they are racially or culturally derogatory. However, they were in common usage at the time your story is laid—with various connotations—and you have included them in that context for accurate representation of how people spoke.

For example, when I was growing up, a racist would say 'nigger' or 'coon.' A non-racist would say 'negro.' Now all of these are considered either very racist or marginally so. "Black" didn't come into usage till the 1960s—as a logical counter-term to 'White." Afro-American came even later than that. Ditto "Indian." A racist would say "redskin" or "injun." A non-racist would say either Indian or American Indian, or give the name of the particular nation, if possible. The term Native American or the more recent Indigenous label weren't in existence then.

Interesting that many Native American writers don't regard "Indian" as a derogatory term, especially when they use it themselves. Vina de Loria, Jr, Sherman Alexie, James Welch all used Indian to mean Native Americans (the general term.) And a friend of mine who is part Blackfoot, and used to spend time with his full-blood grandmother on the reservation in Browning, Montana, said that "Indian" was a term they all used themselves, and he still doesn't find it cause for upset.

 

I think a lot of it comes down to the point your story is trying to make an the context in which you use the non politically correct material. I also think it is important to consider the times we're living in now. How your book may have been received ten years ago might not be the same as today. What is your book saying to the world today? I do believe that is something to think about and it has nothing to do with being politically correct of not being politically correct but more about the state of humanity.

 

There is a difference between including 'politically incorrect' things that are confronting and graphic but can be used to tell compelling, realistic stories, and things that are 'politically incorrect' that are actually generally harmful.
Sometimes the former might be excluded because of children and people who are sensitive to that sort of thing (namely because of trauma). The later is something that might be excluded for the sake of everyone.
Whether or not publishers should act to exclude works on such bases is a different question. But I would say that publishers don't exactly work on pure objective writing quality or something anyway.

The first question I would ask in your position is whether I am sure that the 'politically incorrect' material in my work is all of the former category. If it is, I think you probably could get it published if you find the right publisher and they actually like your writing. If not, well, you should probably fix that.

 

People are becoming too touchy these days and it' getting tiresome. A film got banned recently because it showed elements of slavery, that's not even what the film was about, it filmed 60 odd years ago and was set in a time period where slavery was performed. That's our history and I see no point in trying to wipe it out. Shouldn't it be remembered? Shouldn't we be reminded of those times so that nothing like that happened again? I think tackle PC topics is important since the powers that be seem to be yielding to those who seemingly want it erased.

I don't believe in being disrespectful or openly hateful towards anyone ever, but if it fits my character to be sexist then they will be. That's what bothers me the most in fiction. Women are suddenly strong female characters (a term I dislike) when they start acting like men. And if they show any "weak" characteristics they get complained about. I watched a movie a few weeks ago where the main female character was very demure, nervous, lacked confidence and tended to do what everyone else in her life told her to do, it just so happened she was mostly surrounded by men. I liked the fact her character arc wasn't to become a sassy, wise-talking, no nonsense, kick ass woman, but to simply overcome her own fears. She remained the same in personality just made the changes necessary to her life to be a happy person. It was so refreshing to see a "weaker" female character. I really related to her and how the writers didn't force her out of her own personality because women are meant to be independent these days. I related to her because I'm demure, introverted, nervous, and lack confidence. That is my natural personality. And I hate feeling like I need to change and be a more out-spoken and kick-butt female, to feel ashamed of the fact I do need men. I get more comfort from the men in my life than the women.

Sometimes you do feel like your being told how to behave and what to say and I wont have any of it. I treat others how they treat me. I can only see the world as I perceive it truly and that's what I record in my writing and I don't think anyone should tell someone what they can and can't write without good reason.