I debated for a week before deciding to post this piece but I thought it was important enough to do so. Some historical writers will probably not like me very much when they read it, but I’m hoping that they will take off their writer hat for a moment and put on their human hat to see the world from another point of view. If you write historical romances and think you’ll be offended by this post I have inserted the ‘cut’ here to spare your feelings. 🙂
Erastes did a post on The Macaronis recently about how to make historical characters sympathetic here. The example used was the television show Mad Men which is considerably more contemporary than the time periods used in historical romances, since this show is set in the sixties. This piece was used by many of the authors who commented as a jumping off point to discuss using the ‘n’ word in their books. What is it about that word that makes those who are not black think they have every right to use it? It’s certainly not sexy – in my view it’s the ugliest and most insulting word in the English language. Yet authors pass it off by saying – “Oh well, it’s the usage of the times”.
Some historical authors who commented on Erastes’s post came up with every rationale in the book about why it was right and proper to portray minorities, especially blacks, the way they did in their books, and it was clear from the comments that these demeaning characterizations will continue in future. A few writers trotted out the old saw that if we don’t learn from the past we are apt to repeat it, but do writers have to use the behaviour in past centuries as another opportunity for the ‘n’ word and make those of us in the world who are black cringe when we read your books? Is there no middle ground? Apparently we haven’t “come a long way baby.” Why do you even need to refer to ethnic minorities in your historical books if all you’re going to do is demean and denigrate them? Is it fun to make others feel like crap every time they come across hurtful, demoralizing, ‘in your face’ references to their race in historical books? Obviously, historical writers have every right to the way they see this issue just as I have the right to offer my own opinion, and I’m not a “bleeding heart liberal” or someone who is so “politically correct” that I can’t see another person’s viewpoint. My own family is made up of almost every race under the sun so my worldview is coloured by all the wonderful people of different colours that I call “family.”
Words have the power to hurt and humiliate just as surely as if someone were slapped in the face. Let me be clear about how I feel about about the way blacks are portrayed in historical romances and the language used to refer to them. I am offended. I think the use of the ‘n’ word in historical and contemporary M/M books or gay fiction should be abolished. Using this word is the same as spitting in a black person’s face, and if you keep on doing so, the racist connotations surrounding the word will never go away. We are not second class citizens. However, I don’t expect you to understand my perspective or stop what you’re doing. Maybe some of you are too insensitive to see the harm you’re doing by the use of this word. I don’t care in what context you use it, you are demeaning a whole race of people whenever you do. I can’t believe that 40 years after Dr. Martin Luther King and 1 year after the US elected its first biracial President that this word is still being used by historical writers.
Authors are quick to point out that historical accuracy demands that they be true to the periods about which they write, and the characterizations must be representative of the times. One writer said in part
In my experience it’s guilt ridden whites that drive the political correctness view. Talk to some old time Southerners and they’ll tell you they had no trouble with ‘coloreds’ until the northern people came down and interfered with the natural order of things. And I have talked to people who have said exactly that.
It wasn’t clear whether the author agreed or disagreed with those views. Another writer who will be using the ‘n’ word in her upcoming book set in Mississippi in the 1930’s said
It’s a thorny subject, to be sure. I think if an author chooses to delve into that particular lexicon – the lexicon of hate, of discrimination, of marginalisation – that it’s important to establish a standard of usage. Your “Mad Men” example illustrates this perfectly.
So now it’s a “standard of usage” WOW! Another excuse used is we should not try to expunge history by denying the existence of the behaviour of the times. We all KNOW what happened in past centuries to slaves and other minorities, and for those who don’t, they can read a non fiction history book to get the correct information rather than a fictional account through an author’s characters.
If you’re so gung ho about historical accuracy here are a few inaccurate characterizations that you may wish to correct. Why are the historical heroes mostly great looking with perfect teeth? Did they brush those “pearly whites” with toothpaste several times a day and visit the dentist every 6 months for a check up? I guess not. Yet there are no rotten teeth in historical romances except if the character is a villain. Why do we never read about obese historical heroes? I suppose they ate the right foods, went to the gym every day and had a personal trainer. Have you noticed that historical heroes never stink (at least it’s never mentioned)? We know they didn’t have frequent baths but I suppose if both protagonists smelled bad it didn’t really matter since they cancelled out each other’s nasty odours. I could go on but I think you’re getting my point. If historical accuracy is so important, let it all hang out.
There are some historical romance writers who delight in using the ‘n’ word, and they use it repeatedly in their books almost like a child uses the “f” word the first time he or she hears it. This word seems to be the favourite ‘in thing’ in historical romances every time a bigoted character is part of a story, and whenever I see it, I cringe. Even with stories set in the sixties and seventies, authors love to use the word. I can’t believe that there isn’t another way for authors to make their point about racists and bigots than by insulting an entire race of people. Unless you’re black you have no idea what this word does to our entire psyche and feeling of self worth. Intellectually I can recognize that a story set in another time will portray people and events differently but that word still diminishes me. I feel the same way about the names that Asians are called in historical romances.
Writers don’t cringe every time they write a racial epithet in historical romances because it doesn’t affect them. There aren’t many minorities who write historical romances, therefore writers of this genre cannot understand or appreciate why some minority readers are offended. Of course, since this is all done in the name of historical accuracy it shouldn’t matter – we should just suck it up. I thought that we had managed over time to evolve and move away from offensive characterizations and words, so I’m wondering why historical romance writers seem to delight in perpetuating them. I guess the important question is, why do historical writers write negative minority characters in their books? Is it to rub our faces in the dirt? Do us a favour and don’t include black characters in your historical books – we don’t want to be in your books the current way we are portrayed. We all know about slavery. You’re not writing a non fiction book decrying man’s inhumanity to man.
Several months ago I wrote a blog post which I have linked here asking why there weren’t more positive minority protagonists in M/M contemporary romances (het romance is way ahead of M/M in this area), and the reasons given by the authors ranged from not knowing any minorities, (I guess we’re invisible) to not wanting to write “black gay fiction” (writing positive minorites in contemporary M/M romances was equated with “black gay fiction” – incredible), or being accused of perpetuating current negative portrayals of minorities. Pardon me, but that post was about a whole range of people who were not adequately represented in M/M romances – older gay characters, physically and mentally challenged protagonists, culturally diverse characters such as people from other religions – athiests, pagans, jews, etc., but many authors zeroed in on why they could not write black protagonists – it’s as if we’re another species. Yet authors don’t seem to have any difficulty writing negative stereotypical minority characters in historical romances.This is not a castigation against all historical writers. On the contrary, I enjoy a lot of historical romances and many of the authors are auto buys. However, some authors delight in using offensive words about blacks and other races and excuse this by saying they are establishing “a standard of usage”.
Writing is a form of free speech which is valued in most countries, including Canada where I live, and authors have every right to write what they want, whether or not they offend entire races. Similarly I think it’s my right to free speech to express my feelings about something that affects and offends me. Unless you’re a minority you probably won’t understand my perspective. Some minority characters and the language used to refer to them in historical romances are so reprehensible and grossly offensive that I have a difficult time understanding why they are in the book at all, except maybe to humiliate them and for the shock value. Perhaps these characters help to sell more books. Or perhaps the authors are praised by their colleagues for being brave enough “to go there”. Would historical authors really lose anything essential or critical in their books if they left out black characters since it’s clear that they can’t portray them in a positive way? Many contemporary M/M authors don’t seem to have any problem excluding positive minority characters as protagonists, so perhaps they could emulate their contemporary colleagues. I think those minorities who lived in historical periods have been denigrated enough – why continue to rub their and our faces in the dirt? As the old saying goes, “walk a mile in my shoes” maybe then you will understand my point of view.
Free speech has certain constraints and responsibilities – time and place being a couple – for example, you can’t or shouldn’t shout “fire” in a crowded room unless there really is a fire. So those of you who say it’s free speech to do what you do, you might want to remember this.
Okay. Whoa! That was one long post. I understand where you are coming from. It is very easy to “think” you write a historically correct novel than actually doing your research.
Personally I believe this stems from a long literary tradition and that is relying on what you read in other books rather than doing your research. Or just plain copying. Not so much literal copying, but the copying the concept of a story.
That doesn’t make it right though. Kudos to you for writing how you feel, regardless of what people will think 🙂
Larissa
I know it’s LONG. I tried to make it shorter but it kept getting longer. 🙂
This post is important to me obviously or I would not have spent so much time on it and I did consider not posting it because I know that it would offend some of my online friends who are historical authors. However, unless people like me indicate how we feel about this word maybe they’ll never understand. If just one author stops using the ‘n’ word then my work is done.
Which is why I admire you for doing so!
And I agree with what Tam said, too!
I can’t say I’ve read any books where the “n” word came up, but I’m not a big reader of historicals. I think while it may have been common to use that word at one time there are ways to still indicate the racism endemic to a time period without using it. You can should be able to show someone is a bigot in a completely logical way while avoiding racial slurs of any type really.
I’m as white as the driven snow (literally, I swear I glow) so I obviously have a different perspective. I think if the villain in a story used it to attack a hero who was black (similar to using faggot which makes me cringe) I wouldn’t mind it so much. Sort of proof of his assholedness, but if any kind of hero used it, I would be totally turned off, even if that was the “norm” of the time period. I would not be able to put aside my sensitivies of today and say “oh, it’s okay because in 1890 everyone said that.” There are a lot of things that were acceptable in other time periods that I couldn’t accept in a hero, even in an historical book.
I’m curious as a black woman what you think of the “n” word being adopted by some facets of black youth today, calling each other that in the sense of being in a “club”, that restricts outsiders of other colors? Does it make you crazy or is it different when black males (primarily I think) use it amongst themself? Just curious.
Tam, let me throw in my two cents here as well.
You said ” I think if the villain in a story used it to attack a hero who was black (similar to using faggot which makes me cringe) I wouldn’t mind it so much. Sort of proof of his assholedness, “
I see what you’re saying, but Wave’s point is that constant repetition of this word, even to show villainy, is wearing. There are better ways to show that the villain is a racist asshole without having the n-word itself jump out yet one more time and kick the reader in the face.
A while back, I asked a question on a LiveJournal SFF community about what fantasy fiction cliches they hate most, and they’re all tired of seeing a rape scene show up in fantasy fiction to illustrate what an evil creep the villain is. I agree. That would make me toss the book and read no further. It’s a personal hurt to the female reader to have to encounter yet another a scene like that. But I can only speak for myself.
” (literally, I swear I glow) “
Cool! Can you post a photo for us? 🙂
Smart ass. 😛
Ha, ha! 🙂
Tam
I’ll answer your last question first. I abhor the word regardless of who uses it – be it a black youth, a rapper, or whoever. For several years there has been a drive to stop rappers from using that word and denigrating young black women in their videos and stop using the word. Comedians use it as well and that’s also under fire.
>>I’m as white as the driven snow (literally, I swear I glow) so I obviously have a different perspective. << So if you're lying in the snow I could mistake you for a snow angel? :) See, I can make racist jokes, but in a nice way. The funny thing is that my family is comprised of all different races as I said in the post - Hungarian, German, Afghan, black Canadian, etc., and we mostly live in Toronto, so using racist language is foreign to me. I would never dream of insulting someone's racial origins by using terms that I see in some books. >>I would not be able to put aside my sensitivies of today and say “oh, it’s okay because in 1890 everyone said that.” There are a lot of things that were acceptable in other time periods that I couldn’t accept in a hero, even in an historical book. << This is my difficulty with historical books. I love the stories because they are about another time and place but I think that some of the authors go overboard by trying to shock us with the use of racist terms. I guess their colleagues pat them on the back for being brave. I hope that this post will at least open some eyes.
You make some excellent points, Wave. This is some major food for thought here.
I have to admit that I nodded in recognition and had to laugh when I read this part: I think you’re getting my point. If historical accuracy is so important, let it all hang out. No kidding! Where are all these stinky obese guys with rotten teeth in historical fiction? If writers of m/m historicals can airbrush them out, surely they can imply racial inequality without the heavy-handed use of the racist terms and portrayals.
I can’t believe that there isn’t another way for authors to make their point about racists and bigots than by insulting an entire race of people.
Yes, I agree even though I’m very leery about censorship. I think that historical writers who can get across the point about “the bad old days” without resorting to racist language are practicing a higher art form than those who just go for the obvious n-word. Sarah Black did a beautiful job in Death of a Blues Angel at getting across the racial tensions of 1967 USA right before the Detroit riots, and she didn’t use the racists terms at all. Not once in that entire novel.
She’s the only writer I can think of who’s managed this in m/m historical fiction! I wouldn’t advocate banning books, but I can vote with my money and buy fiction like hers rather than stuff packed with the n-word and racist stereotypes “of the time”.
Some minority characters and the language used to refer to them in historical romances is so reprehensible and grossly offensive that I have a difficult time understanding why they are in the book at all, except maybe to humiliate them and for the shock value. Perhaps these characters help to sell more books. Or perhaps the authors are praised by their colleagues for being brave enough “to go there”.
I got to wonder sometimes. It’s the same way with mainstream historical writers like John Jakes or Bernard Cornwell writing historical fiction in which every female character gets raped. I mean, what kind of message are we sending here? In the case of the misogynistic fiction, I think maybe it is to sell books. Sex sells even if it’s rape.
In the case of the racist fiction, I don’t think it’s to sell more books. I truly think that most authors recognize that wallowing in the racist portrayals is offputting to the vast majority of readers. But I DO think that these writers may expect praise for being “brave enough to go there.” Very perceptive, Wave! Your guess here has a total ring of truth to me. I’m sure that’s it.
We can always vote with our wallets and support the good stuff like Death of a Blues Angel, and avoid the other stuff. Very thought-provoking post, Wave. Thank you for doing it.
Val
This was a very difficult post to write because I love historical romances and many of the authors are online friends. I gave Erastes a ‘heads up’ yesterday about how I felt about the comments on the post. The post itself which was about how to make historical characters sympathetic and it made the point quite well.
On this topic I know that my point of view will not sit well with many US citizens who believe strongly in free speech.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that for centuries blacks have been insulted, denigrated, murdered for minor offenses, jailed for rapes they didn’t commit, and on and on ….. continuing to use the ‘n’ word in historical romances just seems like another way of treating us like second class citizens.
>> I think that historical writers who can get across the point about “the bad old days” without resorting to racist language are practicing a higher art form than those who just go for the obvious n-word. Sarah Black did a beautiful job in Death of a Blues Angel at getting across the racial tensions of 1967 USA right before the Detroit riots, and she didn’t use the racists terms at all. Not once in that entire novel.<< That's what I admired about Death of a Blues Angel. Not once did I see that word and the book was about a racist time in US history. >>I got to wonder sometimes. It’s the same way with mainstream historical writers like John Jakes or Bernard Cornwell writing historical fiction in which every female character gets raped. I mean, what kind of message are we sending here? In the case of the misogynistic fiction, I think maybe it is to sell books. Sex sells even if it’s rape. << I totally agree with you. It seems that women must be raped to sell books. I have commented about rape in M/M romances and whenever I read a book that's non con I make a note in the review so that readers are not surprised. This post was perhaps the hardest for me to write because I know that a lot of people will be upset by its contents. I'm only exercising my right to free speech which is a long held American tradition. Last year when I wrote a similar post about why there weren't more positive minority characters in M/M romance many authors didn't like what I had to say, so I guess I'm accustomed to it. Thanks for commenting Val.
You’re very welcome! This is a thorny and complex issue. I’m one of those U.S. citizens who believe strongly in free speech, though it may not seem like it on a surface reading of my comments. For example, Teddypig makes some good points, and this one here is especially good:
“I do not need internet filters or decency “experts” keeping me or “protecting” me from seeing things others feel might be hurtful. Let me choose for myself.”
Yes, totally. I’m very grateful that free speech permits a lot of diverse views out there, and I’m going to be really pissed off if a governing body or authority starts attempting to make censorship decisions for me.
And this is well-stated here:
“But I have no problems seeing reality and negative points of view and wrong minded perceptions and even bad words portrayed for what it is and/or was in context to the story.”
I have to admit that I’m not as tough-minded as he is, and I do have problems with seeing too much negativity, n-word, rape scenes, etc. in my fiction. I’m buying fiction for escapism, and I’m going to exercise my right to choose as a consumer and avoid the fiction that drags me down with the hateful stuff. Let the fiction stand out there for the good of free speech, but I’m not going to buy it.
Another thing, too. I think you’re right about some writers wallowing in their usage of bad words (or rape scenes for that matter). With some historical writers, I can tell that they’re trying to be accurate and that’s the extent of it. Depending on how much respect I have for their overall talent, I may grit my teeth and read onward.
With other writers, it’s total overkill on the n-word, as you said here, “There are some historical romance writers who delight in using the ‘n’ word, and they use it repeatedly in their books almost like a child uses the “f” word the first time he or she hears it. That feeling of gleeful delight comes across in the writing and it’s very creepy.
Some historical writers may predictably protest on the grounds of, “Don’t tell me what words to use!” I’m not. I’m just saying that if they want to portray racial tensions, they can resort to the n-word and look like limited, amateur writers, or they can stretch their talent and be subtle as in Death of Blues Angel.
I’d also add that those writers who really do get off on using the n-word excessively shouldn’t think that we readers are stupid enough to think they’re doing it only for historical accuracy. We can distinguish by the way the writing feels between those writers who use racist terms, and those writers who love using racist terms.
Interesting post Wave. I’m currently reading a lesbian noir book in which the noir actually means language and attitude from the 70’s but set in current times. The main character is Black and she’s tough talking, supposedly to mimic the hard-boiled speak of 30’s-40’s detectives.
Unfortunately, her dialogue is riddled with stereotypical “Black” slang language used during the 70’s. Not the “N” word, but things like, “you jive turkey” “you dig” “cool muthah effer” etc.
I keep getting thrown out of the story because it comes across as someone who’s not cool trying to sound cool. And there’s constant reference to the protagonist’s skin color, making a point to the reader that she’s black. And she also has her own prejudices, treating Tulsa like some backwater honky town using negative slurs towards small town “honkies” and or mind sets and making of point of mentioning that she’s the only black person to be seen in those parts. Huh?
I find it all kind of offensive. I see that the author was trying for a certain feel to the story but it’s all one huge stereotype. It’s not even a good mimic of actual 30’s-40’s noir.
It’s even more offensive to me because the author is white.
I give her kudos though for trying to write a black character. Everyone is screaming why don’t authors write minorities. So I do give her props for that. However, I could do without the stereotypical language even if it’s meant to be the 70’s noir for the 2000’s. Have all the characters talk like that then, not just the black character.
Teddypig
>>Well I would never ask you to be silent like those men and women current in the US Military that have no voice.<< At least in Canada gay men and women in the military can serve without hiding their sexual orientation. I think Don't Ask, Don't Tell is digraceful just as denying gays the right to marry. But that's just me. BTW I did a post sometime ago about the gay marriage issue. :) >>My point is from my own experience that what looks to be apparently low hanging fruit is most likely NOT what you think it is and the real nastiness is more subtle and more damaging and hard to see at first<< I agree with you there that the worst racists are those who pretend and then don't invite you to dinner to meet the family. 🙂
LVLM
>>Unfortunately, her dialogue is riddled with stereotypical “Black” slang language used during the 70’s. Not the “N” word, but things like, “you jive turkey” “you dig” “cool muthah effer” etc. << Many writers in an effort to be "cool" use this type of language to appeal to a certain group of people. While this does not have the same impact as the 'n' word it certainly uses language that is not generally used in most books except a certain type of novel. >>And there’s constant reference to the protagonist’s skin color, making a point to the reader that she’s black. And she also has her own prejudices, treating Tulsa like some backwater honky town using negative slurs towards small town “honkies” and or mind sets and making of point of mentioning that she’s the only black person to be seen in those parts. Huh?<< I have never read any books by this author but she obviously thinks she's hip and knows the scene and can pretty well characterize a black female protagonist. Clearly she's 'ghettoizing' the character which is just as bad as making the character white bread. This is obviously the way she pictures most blacks, which is a great pity. >>I find it all kind of offensive. I see that the author was trying for a certain feel to the story but it’s all one huge stereotype. It’s not even a good mimic of actual 30’s-40’s noir.
It’s even more offensive to me because the author is white. << Stereotyping, whether it's a black or white or brown character is poor characterization and maybe this author needs to learn first how to do character development. >>I give her kudos though for trying to write a black character. Everyone is screaming why don’t authors write minorities. So I do give her props for that. However, I could do without the stereotypical language even if it’s meant to be the 70’s noir for the 2000’s. Have all the characters talk like that then, not just the black character.<< It's funny that the only black character this author could come up with is this one, which is worse than not writing minorities at all. There are many people of colour who would be happy to beta read manuscripts to point out racial stereotyping, but as far as I know, no one cares to ask.
I can only speak for myself but I will defend the authors right to use those words that have been used against me.
I am not into censoring reality just because it makes anyone feel uncomfortable and if it’s intention is to show how people used those words against a minority that I am apart of then I am fine with it.
I am smart enough to tell the difference between an angry homophobic diatribe and simply showing the reality that I myself have had to live.
I can point out where there might be misinterpretations and problems but I will be damned to condemn authors trying to be honest in their writing.
Quit whitewashing or negating my own experiences simply because it makes you cringe. How do you think I felt when it actually happened to me?
I honestly don’t get it. If you want to “not” read a book or “change” the channel then do so.
But I have no problems seeing reality and negative points of view and wrong minded perceptions and even bad words portrayed for what it is and/or was in context to the story.
I do not need internet filters or decency “experts” keeping me or “protecting” me from seeing things others feel might be hurtful.
Let me choose for myself. I have a voice and I know how to use it.
Teddypig
I respect your point of view. That’s what free speech is all about.
Several months ago a few gay men asked me not to post a review of a book – “Beautiful C*cksucker” because they felt the title denigrated them. I did not post the review because I respected their feelings – but that’s just me.
You’re quite right – I could change the channel and what’s what I do when television shows offend me. Similarly with books, if an author continues to use hateful language in describing blacks I don’t buy their books.
I’m exercising my right to free speech by saying how I feel about their right to use language that dehumanizes and denigrates an entire race.
>>Let me choose for myself. I have a voice and I know how to use it.<< I think that's what I'm doing - choosing for myself and using my voice.
And I, being a gay man would defend your right to review that book.
My point is I do not like the Disneyfication of Gay Romance condemning obvious easy targets that are in your face but I can show countless examples of Gay Lit using those same tactics but then to turn around and have a total lack of comment on such stories that I see misusing the whole convenient straight to gay storyline with rape as a subtext or those supposedly Historicals books that show absolutely no prejudice from any character even though it supposedly was set in a time period where prejudice was the general rule.
Because it seems to me to be unbalanced that on one side you can play off such subtle things as being Romance “tropes” and yet on the other side you can condemn writing bad words or showing reality as being abusive when no intent is evident.
Teddypig
One target at a time. It has taken me a long time and many books to decide to say something about this topic and it was very difficult for me to do so. I’m not asking authors to “Disneyfy” gay romance and I know that my post will probably have no impact on the use of the ‘n’ word in historical romance. However I couldn’t take the easy way out anymore because it was difficult to look myself in the face as I continued to be silent.
>>I can show countless examples of Gay Lit using those same tactics but then to turn around and have a total lack of comment on such stories that I see misusing the whole convenient straight to gay storyline with rape as a subtext << I have commented many times on the gay for you story lines as well as the frequency with which men are raped in gay romances, historical and contemporary, but I have done so on reviews of the individual books and not as a blog post. One of the reasons I don't review a lot of yaoi books is because many of them use rape or non con as a theme. >>Because it seems to me to be unbalanced that on one side you can play off such subtle things as being Romance “tropes” and yet on the other side you can condemn writing bad words or showing reality as being abusive when no intent is evident<< I have commented numerous times about gay romance "tropes" which I considered to be totally unrealistic when compared to real life, but this is the first time I have said anything about the use of the 'n' word which is so insulting that I want to gag every time I see it in print or on television or in a movie. One of the reasons I never watched the television show Roots is because I was not interested in hearing the word repeated countless times or seeing a show about slavery.
No matter what the book is about when I see the “n” word it takes me out of the story. I understand wanting to be accurate or using it to portray the evilness of a character but as a reader I find it a bit startling when I come across it and it takes me a few minutes to get back in the story.
Amanda
It took me 2 years to write this post. I know that many authors won’t agree with what I’m saying because they believe I’m trying to water down their characters. I’m not. All I was asking is that before they use the ‘n’ word maybe there is another word that doesn’t have the same racist connotation
I admire your post about this sensitive topic. As always I’m not sure what my opinion is when I hear more sides to a topic like this.
I think I lean towards Teddypig’s take. Because in general I’m against censorship, which includes self-censor. I have been, ever since I wrote a paper about censorship in South-Africa during the Apartheid, back in college.
In my work every now and then I encounter readers who don’t want to read blasphemic words in books. They ask me why writers can’t avoid curses or words like that in their stories. They even ask me if I can make a selection for them, or do the filtering while making a reading list.
I wouldn’t want to ban these or any other books from reading lists, because of the use of specific words.
I think it’s sort of the same issue as you discuss in your post only with different words.
That doesn’t mean that I can totally understand where you come from. And I think it’s a good thing that authors are made aware of the impact of their choice of words.
In general it’s never a bad thing too make others think twice and review their opinions, including me 😉
Erotromreader Janna
Thank you for commenting.
I do understand your point of view. I, too, believe in free speech.
>>And I think it’s a good thing that authors are made aware of the impact of their choice of words.
In general it’s never a bad thing too make others think twice and review their opinions, including me << Believe it or not, that's all I'm trying to do. I read a lot of historical romances and this word grates every time I see it and it got to the point where I had stopped reading them for a while because I just couldn't stomach the word. Things are not going to change because I wrote this post, but at least those authors who read the piece will understand that there's another perspective. That's all I can hope for.
<>
I believe you 😉 And I hope with you that your post will bring some understanding to a few authors!
However I couldn’t take the easy way out anymore because it was difficult to look myself in the face as I continued to be silent.
Well I would never ask you to be silent like those men and women current in the US Military that have no voice.
My point is not to say your response is wrong. My point is from my own experience that what looks to be apparently low hanging fruit is most likely NOT what you think it is and the real nastiness is more subtle and more damaging and hard to see at first.
Teddypig
>>Well I would never ask you to be silent like those men and women current in the US Military that have no voice.< < At least in Canada gay men and women in the military can serve proudly without hiding their sexual orientation. I think "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is as disgraceful as denying gays the right to marry. But that's just me. BTW I did a post sometime ago about the gay marriage issue. >>My point is from my own experience that what looks to be apparently low hanging fruit is most likely NOT what you think it is and the real nastiness is more subtle and more damaging and hard to see at first< < I agree with you that the worst racists are those who pretend and then don’t invite you to dinner to meet the family. 🙂
I have to leave for an appointment but I’ll be back in a few hours to respond to all the comments. Try to be nice even if you’re pissed at me. 🙂
Hm. I don’t think I have ever used the n-word. I despise it. My dad’s family is from the south, and he routinely used it to indicate people of African ancestry, and it was a bitter bone of contention between us for as long as he lived. It was particularly bizarre since it is through my dad that I’ve got native american ancestors who were called “sand n—-s.” I think it is usually unnecessary–particularly in a contemporary story–to use the word.
HOWEVER: Historically, it does have a place. I think the people who tried to get Mark Twain’s “Huckleberry Finn” banned from libraries because such language was used were totally wrong. The whole point of that story is that Huck, despite having been raised in a culture that views his friend Jim as subhuman property, comes to an epiphany, after being told he’ll go to hell if he helps Jim escape — “All right, then, I’ll GO to hell!” If Twain had not shown us the cesspool of racism Huck grew up in, his breaking free of it would have been tepid rather than triumphant
I’m not sure that bowlderizing Twain’s masterpiece to include more acceptable language would serve any purpose. I’m reasonably sure that most seriously written work that uses abominable epithets to accurately depict what ugly looks like are better for doing so than for skirting around the issue. And I don’t think that anything’s going to be fixed by implying that any word should be banned in every case. Few people have Twain’s genius, most people could find better words to use. But not necessarily always.
I tried to deal with the slavery issue a bit in one of my RN books, concerning Davy’s cousin who had inherited a plantation worked by slaves and was trying to find a way to keep the place running without betraying his conscience. It wasn’t a big sub-plot, just a few lines… because while slavery was accepted, there have always been people who opposed it.
As for the prettification of gay romance–I don’t know if it’s here or elsewhere that False Colors and Transgressions were criticized for having too much unattractive realism, but I know that they did get quite a lot of flak for it… particularly Alex’s molly who was afflicted with bad teeth.
Wave, it’s one thing to say one must NEVER use a word; I don’t care to read anything where women are referred to as ‘bitches,’ even in jest. But censoring language to the point where it is unrealistic won’t cut it, either. You will not find a southern US male of minimum education and low tolerance of diversity saying, “Let’s get in the pickup and go show some of those (ethnic minorities) and (sexual deviants) what real men can do.” Ugly characters use ugly language. There is no way to make a shithead bigot believable by cleaning up his language.
And believe me, the wariness of writing black characters (and I’m wondering, as I type this, if I should write “African-American” or “African-Canadian!”) is not because of any notion that skin color matters. I have a black cat. I have a white-and-grey cat. They’re both sweethearts–it would be insane to say that one is a cat and the other is not. I grew up in a small town with white and Mexican neighbors, and the only black people I saw regularly were Lt. Uhura and Alexander Scott from I Spy. People like me… only better. Heroes.
But the racial issue has become so incredibly inflammatory that yes, I do worry that if I put a dark-skinned character into a major role, I’m going to get all kinds of flak from black readers–even if I get a beta from a friend of mine who’s “black” by default but is also Cherokee, Blackfoot, and has a few genes from a white riverboat gambler who married her quadroon great-great grandma… even if I ran the manuscript past you and got a thumbs-up.
Seriously: You want the offensive word dropped. What would you suggest using in its place? I am not trying to be quarrelsome, I am asking a genuine question. But I have to say that after all the flak thrown in the ‘wimmen writing gay men’ issue, I know that the expectation of catching hell for daring to write a character whose skin color is different from my own is not going to encourage me to make the attempt.
As to “free speech or hate speech” — I believe the legal definition is that hate speech is intended to raise sentiment or incite violence against the individuals being targeted. Putting offensive language into the mouth of a villain–who is clearly shown to be evil–is, I think, the opposite of hate speech.
Hi Lee
>>HOWEVER: Historically, it does have a place. I think the people who tried to get Mark Twain’s “Huckleberry Finn” banned from libraries because such language was used were totally wrong. << >>I’m not sure that bowlderizing Twain’s masterpiece to include more acceptable language would serve any purpose. I’m reasonably sure that most seriously written work that uses abominable epithets to accurately depict what ugly looks like are better for doing so than for skirting around the issue. << I'm not talking about book burning or banning or changing offensive words in books like Huckleberry Finn or Catcher in the Rye. All I'm asking is that historical authors consider not using the 'n' word when they write new books. I'm pretty sure I'll be spitting in the wind but it's worth a try if just one author decides not to use the word. I'm definitely not trying to change history. It's already written and I can read about it in a history text book. "The moving finger writes; and, having writ,. Moves on" I think I'm asking that we move on. >>And believe me, the wariness of writing black characters (and I’m wondering, as I type this, if I should write “African-American” or “African-Canadian!”) is not because of any notion that skin color matters. << I totally agree with you about "African American" and "African Canadian." I never use either of those terms. I don't consider myself to be "African Canadian." I am Canadian. No qualifier. I would never call a white Canadian "White Canadian" or "European Canadian" or "Jewish Canadian" even though I know it's suppposed to be the pc thing to do. >>But the racial issue has become so incredibly inflammatory that yes, I do worry that if I put a dark-skinned character into a major role, I’m going to get all kinds of flak from black readers–even if I get a beta from a friend of mine who’s “black” by default but is also Cherokee, Blackfoot, and has a few genes from a white riverboat gambler who married her quadroon great-great grandma… even if I ran the manuscript past you and got a thumbs-up. << Writing a black character should be no different from writing a white or brown character. All a writer has to do is stay away from stereotypes the same way they would do for any character. Other than being black, I'm pretty "white bread." My friends and family could probably make up the United Nations and we play scrabble and other board games and probably watch the same movies you do. :) Black people are no different until someone treats us as if we're another species. Lynn Lorenz, Sean Michael, Carol Lynne, Ally Blue, Madeleine Urban & Rhianne Aile, James Buchanan etc. have all managed to write ethnically diverse characters without offending anyone. I admit it's harder to do in historical romances but not impossible. >>Seriously: You want the offensive word dropped. What would you suggest using in its place? I am not trying to be quarrelsome, I am asking a genuine question. << How about "negro" which is a tip of the cap to historical times, or "black"? Pretty simple. We use "white" in books and it's not offensive, so why not use the flip side of the coin. I refer to myself as black because that's how I regard myself - not as "African Canadian" which I think is a stupid and limiting term. I have never been to Africa and my grandfather came from Portugal. My skin colour just happens to black and believe it or not, I love being black and a woman - talk about a double whammy. 🙂
>How about “black”? Pretty simple. We use “white” in books and it’s not offensive, so why not use the flip side of the coin. I refer to myself as black because that’s how I regard myself – not as “African Canadian” which I think is a stupid and limiting term. I have never been to Africa and my grandfather came from Portugal. My skin colour just happens to black and believe it or not, I love being black and a woman – talk about a double whammy.<
I agree that as a (very) white woman of Irish-English-Scottish-German descent, I never identify myself as any of those things. Just as American. I also don't refer to others by their racial-type/nationality (i.e.: African American, Chinese American, Mexican American, etc.) because in my opinion, that's all irrelevant. Joe is Joe, Dee is Dee, Paul is Paul, and so on. Yes, if asked to describe which of my friends Paul is to someone who doesn't know them well, I'm likely to use descriptors like "he's the really tall black guy with the Harley" or whatever, but he's no more defined by his skin colour than I am.
That said, as far as historicals go, this is where we run into a problem.
Now, I don't write historicals. Never have and likely never will (my weird little fantasy-paranormal-historical Italian Renaissance short story aside, of course).
The problem, as I see it, is that historically (in North America, anyway) white folk have always been called white. Thus any mention of a character as white (descriptor) in an historical story is technically correct for many time periods. Unfortunately, the same doesn't hold true for races other than white.
Black people have been referred to in many ways (in the U.S.) since the dawn of slavery, with the term Black being a fairly recent entry into the 'name that minority' game. So I can see how someone writing an historical would veer away from it. Which is no reason to use the BIG N-word, as far as I'm converned, but I understand how it might seem forgivable (or even unremarkable) to an author.
At this point, I'm going to step out onto a very thin limb and probably leave myself open to all sorts of glares and finger-pointing-and-waving, because I doubt this is going to be a popular comment, but…
It's romance. Yes, historical accuracy is important, but to ME, a romance is supposed to thrill and engage and excite the reader, leaving him or her breathless with anticipation, wanting to find out what happens and how the hero and heroine (in this case, the HEROES, of course) manage to push past the obstacles in their way and find their happiness, whether it's an ever-after or a for-now.
And I don't necessarily think that the same degree of realism is necessary in a book that's meant to leave the reader feeling good and happy as in some other types of fiction. I'm not saying just make shit up about history, but I think it's important to keep sight of the audience a book is meant for, as well as the purpose of the story.
*shrugs* Just my 2 cents.
“It’s romance. … And I don’t necessarily think that the same degree of realism is necessary in a book that’s meant to leave the reader feeling good and happy as in some other types of fiction. I’m not saying just make shit up about history, but I think it’s important to keep sight of the audience a book is meant for, as well as the purpose of the story.”
Exactly. Very well put. 🙂
Val
To lighten things up, maybe you and I should just make shit up and see if anyone notices. 🙂
TC
I’m going to try responding to your comment again. My first response was garbled.
First, how brave of you to join the fray. 🙂
>> I also don’t refer to others by their racial-type/nationality << Like you, I don't refer to people who I know by their nationality - I refer to them by name. In a romance obviously the authors have to describe their characters, but if all they can come up with in historical romances is the 'n' word or another descriptor that's just as demeaning, then I wonder where all that imagination they're supposed to use went. >>Black people have been referred to in many ways (in the U.S.) since the dawn of slavery, with the term Black being a fairly recent entry into the ‘name that minority’ game. So I can see how someone writing an historical would veer away from it. Which is no reason to use the BIG N-word, as far as I’m concerned, but I understand how it might seem forgivable (or even unremarkable) to an author. << I wonder how authors would feel if others used derogatory words to describe their ancestors? I'm not American so I don't know as much about US history as I should, but regardless how blacks were referred to in historical times, isn't it time to move away from this hateful word? >>It’s romance. Yes, historical accuracy is important, but to ME, a romance is supposed to thrill and engage and excite the reader, leaving him or her breathless with anticipation, wanting to find out what happens and how the hero and heroine (in this case, the HEROES, of course) << So where's the "romance" in historical romances? They don't "thrill, excite, and engage" me when the language is so offensive. What's so strange is that the world has evolved even from 25 years ago. Today countries like China, India and Africa are the most populous in the world, yet historical romances still characterize people from these countries in the most insulting way. Maybe the authors need to evolve with the rest of the world.
Hiya, Wave. 🙂 I’m all about throwing myself to the lions… apparently. *hee*
You said: Like you, I don’t refer to people who I know by their nationality – I refer to them by name. In a romance obviously the authors have to describe their characters, but if all they can come up with in historical romances is the ‘n’ word or another descriptor that’s just as demeaning, then I wonder where all that imagination they’re supposed to use went.
I agree. There SHOULD be more effort made to find descriptors that aren’t offensive, regardless of how historically accurate the N-word might be. I wasn’t trying to say that it was okay to use denegrating terms. I can see how someone might not realize how offensive it is might use it/them, though. It’s not something I would ever even consider and in many cases, I think the usage is comprised of equal parts dedication to an historical period and laziness on a certain level. And yep, I know I’m gonna get all sorts of crap for calling it laziness, but it’s so much easier to say “It’s accurate” rather than to find another way. (Which is not to say that a deliberately perjorative word can’t be used once to make a point about the character who said it, but past that and it becomes… yeah. Laziness.)
And you’re right. It’s definitely time to move away from epithets like the n-word and other terms. They shouldn’t have any place in the world today, which has become so much smaller (and bigger) with the more ready access to information and communication. Nobody should be insulted in any way for whatever nationality or race they were born to. It has nothing to do with whether they’re a good person or not.
So where’s the “romance” in historical romances? They don’t “thrill, excite, and engage” me when the language is so offensive.
Yep. That was my point, actually. 😀
‘Romance,’ as far as I’m concerned, shouldn’t be too heavy or serious, even when it’s dealing with serious themes. It shouldn’t be offensive.
I think what may be happening is that some of the historical romance writers are caught between being true to the era (and therefore not slammed by those who are well versed in those eras) and displaying good sense.
Again, just my 2 cents. *blushes*
“All I’m asking is that historical authors consider not using the ‘n’ word when they write new books… I’m definitely not trying to change history.”
Mmm. That’s a fine line. I was shocked when I ran across n– in a Patrick O’Brian book, particularly since Jack Aubrey had a black son from an affair in his youth. But the shock was a good thing, because it showed that times were DIFFERENT and people were able to hold this weird dichotomy in their heads–using language we now consider abhorrent, but working and living with black people.
Words have power. I hate the way genocide has become “ethnic cleansing.” There’s no cleansing about it; it’s bloody murder aimed at entire groups of people, and it should be called by a name that reflects its ugly reality.
I do understand what you’re saying; I feel the same about ‘carpet-muncher’ and many other slurs thrown at lesbians (and I wonder at the people who use it… I’ll bet they’re lousy in bed if that’s their attitude toward cunnilingus.) But until the human race has learned what any dog knows–that skin is no more important than eye color–I think it’s risky to soft-focus the ugly.
Weak writing uses ugly words in place of characterization.
Strong writing uses ugly words–sparingly–to say “This is how it was; this was wrong and hurtful, and this must change; we are learning.”
To deny a writer the chance to make a powerful statement for good because some writers are not skillful enough to use language as a scalpel rather than a club… I think the loss outweighs the gain.
Wave–
I’m a disabled woman of Jewish descent.
I wrote about historical accuracy and the need for it over at meta_writer. I’m going to say again here what I said there:
I do think that if we are going to write historical novels, it’s better for the book, for the public and for ourselves if we strive to be accurate as well as entertaining. There is more than enough ignorance and confusion out there already. And painting a picture of the past as an innocent politically correct paradise where racial prejudice, sexism, ableism, classism and homophobia have no place not only falsifies history and minimizes what people endured, it makes it impossible for readers to understand why women, blacks, Native Americans, LGBTQ people and the disabled (and others who have been despised and rejected) ever needed to demand their rights in the first place. Indeed, it gives some readers the impression that the rights such minorities want so badly are nothing more than demands for special privileges.
That said, I doubt if I would use the N-word in a novel–it’s certainly possible to show that people of color were not treated fairly or justly without using it. On the other hand, it’s possible to err too far on the side of courtesy. I recall one pre-Civil War novel in which a slaveowner called one of his slaves “an African-American.” If this was not altered from the N-word in the editing process–and it could have been–then the writer automatically used the modern synonym for “black person” without realizing that a slaveowner wouldn’t think in terms of his slaves being citizens of America with all the rights and privileges that implies, or indeed as people…but as property.
I wonder whether or not the author meant to do that. Because, to use a quotation from Margaret Atwood: It’s a feature of our age that if you write a work of fiction, everyone assumes that the people and events in it are disguised biography — but if you write your biography, it’s equally assumed you’re lying your head off. The corollary to this, I think, is that there are many, many people nowadays who cannot separate the character from the writer, and consequently, when the character says or does something unpleasant, they believe that the writer approves of whatever is being said or done. It is not a sensible attitude, certainly, but it is widespread.
I can easily envision the writer of that romance deciding that it was just simpler to falsify the past and confuse readers who, by and large, believe what they are told by the story, rather than risk being crucified as a racist for allowing her characters to have attitudes toward slavery that WEREN’T anachronisms.
Last year at this time, the Oyate.org site had posts up about books about Native Americans that falsified history and the Native experience, warning people not to buy these books because they promoted erroneous and harmful ideas about indigenous people. This year, the reviews and warnings have been taken down–but honestly, I appreciated the warnings, because I had no idea what in these books was inaccurate, patronizing or untrue. Indeed, since the books were praised for their accurate depiction of history, I would likely have accepted their portrayals uncritically without even thinking to research further. And I DO research history as a matter of course. Many readers–again, in every genre, not only in historicals–will simply accept what is written as fact.
Let me say that again:
People will believe you.
And it doesn’t take much effort to convince them. The only thing you have to do is call the book “a historical.” I’ve taken a number of straw polls on this subject over the years, and of the total number of thirty questioned over that time, I’d say about 70% insisted that if it was called a historical, then it had to be historically accurate. “They couldn’t call it historical if it wasn’t,” five of that seventy percent insisted. “That would be a lie, and then people could sue the author for false advertising.”
What worries me about promulgation of such attitudes is that if people don’t see that something is wrong–don’t see that it’s EVER been wrong–then they don’t try to make things better. They simply tell themselves that the status quo is fine, and if it ain’t broke, why fix it? (This is not simply a racial matter. I feel the same way, for example about the normalization of rape culture in romances and young adult books–a culture in which a woman may not be only raped, but assaulted, physically and emotionally abused, and/or stalked…and the stalker, abuser and/or rapist is seen in a harmless, even a romantic light.)
And once you start “softening” words, attitudes and behavior to make characters more anachronistic but also more pleasing to modern sensibilities–where do you stop? How far do you go in falsifying the facts? How much should writers, in the interest of not offending some readers, reassure complacent ones, many of them of the racial majority, that whites have always been completely unprejudiced toward blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans?
“if people don’t see that something is wrong–don’t see that it’s EVER been wrong–then they don’t try to make things better. They simply tell themselves that the status quo is fine, and if it ain’t broke, why fix it?”
Yes. This. There is so much misinformation being generated by the far right–they are literally trying to write Confederate propaganda into history textbooks–that the last thing anyone needs is the benevolent, paternal slave-owner or the ‘kindly’ Spanish monks “instructing” the native people in California.
And don’t even get me started on the Holocaust deniers. The generation that SAW the death camps is passing. Good writing can convey a lot without using hot-button words, but there’s a lot of not-great writing out there. AFAIC, the answer to that is to review the specific badly-written books and explain how it could have been done better–case by case.
Tracey
>>What worries me about promulgation of such attitudes is that if people don’t see that something is wrong–don’t see that it’s EVER been wrong–then they don’t try to make things better. << Don't we have enough historical books written hundreds of years ago? Do we need romance authors to 'correct' history just in case we didn't read all of the other books that we had to study in high school or university? I think most of us are intelligent enough to determine what's 'history'. There are enough people in different cultures to correct inaccuracies. What I objected to is romance authors using one word that dehumanized black people. I don't see where that is so wrong. >>And it doesn’t take much effort to convince them. The only thing you have to do is call the book “a historical.” I’ve taken a number of straw polls on this subject over the years, and of the total number of thirty questioned over that time, I’d say about 70% insisted that if it was called a historical, then it had to be historically accurate.<< I guess I would say the same about historical romances. All the authors have to do is call the books "historical" for everyone to think they are historically accurate. I gave a few examples in the post of where they don't accurately represent all of their historical characters. >>And once you start “softening” words, attitudes and behavior to make characters more anachronistic but also more pleasing to modern sensibilities–where do you stop? << All I'm asking is that authors of historical romances try to refrain from using the 'n' word because of the humilating and dehumanizing effect of this word. They can use another word to refer to black people. As I said to Lee, there's nothing wrong with the word "black," but maybe that's not good enough because it doesn't quite have the impact they are looking for. Using the word African American in this context would be downright silly. >>How much should writers, in the interest of not offending some readers, reassure complacent ones, many of them of the racial majority, that whites have always been completely unprejudiced toward blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans?<< Here's a newsflash. Whites are not the only race that's prejudiced. Prejudice can be found everywhere. I have friends and family across a broad spectrum of races and they have the same flaws and prejudices as everyone else but I never make the assumption that my friends are prejudiced unless and until they show who they are. The 'n' word has connotations going back to the days of slavery when blacks were treated worse than something you would kick or spit on.
We don’t need romance writers to ‘correct’ history, but we do need to reflect it accurately. There’s a difference.
Wave
I am Mexican, and I understand how that word makes you feel. It’s the same way I feel when someone ‘kindly’ tells me how lucky I am that I don’t look Mexican!
However, limiting an author’s vocabulary bothers me just as much. I stand firmly on the side of letting the authors write their characters as they see them. When a Hispanic character is portrayed as drifting, impulsive, overemotional, unreliable, and lazy, it might be because of long standing stereotypes or because that’s just who that character is. It becomes very clear after a few pages. Then I can choose to give the author the benefit of the doubt or not.
I will use offensive language if it’s necessary, and offensive situations. You could not write a story about colonial Mexico without at least touching of the Caste system that defined how much Spanish blood you had in your veins. It’s importance can still be felt throughout Latin America. The way it defines most people is appalling.
That said, I think it is in the hands of the authors to go beyond the obvious. When they do, I don’t have time to become offended or wonder what they meant because all I care about are the characters.
Marcela
>>That said, I think it is in the hands of the authors to go beyond the obvious. When they do, I don’t have time to become offended or wonder what they meant because all I care about are the characters.<< It's kind of hard not to be offended when many historical romances refer to blacks by that dehumanizing word. >>However, limiting an author’s vocabulary bothers me just as much. I stand firmly on the side of letting the authors write their characters as they see them. When a Hispanic character is portrayed as drifting, impulsive, overemotional, unreliable, and lazy, it might be because of long standing stereotypes or because that’s just who that character is. << I think you will agree that characterization is different from calling every black character by the 'n' word.
Yes, if every black character is called by the ‘n’ word then it’s incredibly offensive. I agree with you there.
I don’t think there is a word that carries so much negative history and meaning for Hispanics, at least not in English. And it becomes an easy way to define a character, whether they use it or are called it. That’s when I find it most offensive.
But I understand that it always carries all of it’s nastiness for you, and it’s good that you wrote about it.
I have nothing very profound to add. I’m a fish belly white woman from a small farming town in the Midwest which had no minorities. I didn’t speak to a black or hispanic person until I was 18 and I moved to TX. And I haven’t walked in anyones steps but my own.
That being said and living life to the fullest…..reading the n-word still makes me flinch and hearing it out loud makes me cringe (even when used by young males and as part of “gangsta speak”). I don’t care for it and if it’s fleeting, will excuse it in a story. But if the references are over the top and gratuitous, then it’s unlikely that I will read another by that author. You don’t get to say it just to hear yourself say it.
And “Beautiful C*ocksucker”…..hmmm. I never even thought about whether the title would offend (still got that small town naivete goin’). I loved the story.
And speaking of hatespeak/free speech…..the Westboro Baptist Church picketing at funerals and celebrating the deaths of soldiers. It’s God’s punishment for the U.S. tolerance of “homosexual behavior”??!!!! It makes one speechless.
Very thought provoking topic, Wave. And I don’t know what the right answer is……..or if there even *is* a right answer!
I used it, not in a historical, but a futuristic. It was hate speech, done deliberately. I waffled on using it. I flinched as I typed it. And my editor made me change it.
“Black” did not convey the casual contempt or presumed self-superiority of the character. The same character and his friends had slung “faggot” around pretty casually too.
The final sentence came out: “Look sharp, Old Enough. They got the coloreds down in this section and they are loaded for sodomite.” The words are punctuated by someone in the crowd throwing a brick through the window of the truck our hero is driving.
Slurs in general are a hazard of dealing with any time period, including the current one. I doubt too many authors are doing it out of their own casual usage. It’s supposed to hurt. It’s supposed to be hate speech. And every reader should flinch.
Slurs in general are a hazard of dealing with any time period, including the current one. I doubt too many authors are doing it out of their own casual usage. It’s supposed to hurt. It’s supposed to be hate speech. And every reader should flinch.
I should add, Angelia, as I said above, that the fact that a CHARACTER is using words in a hateful way does not mean that the AUTHOR feels that those words are appropriate. As you said, when such language is used, it’s used to make a point. A necessary one.
You said in your post, Wave, that we don’t need slurs to show that slavery was bad. That we already know that. Perhaps that is so in Canada. Here in America…well, around December, I ran into a report of a speech by a state representative (not my state) in which slavery was described as a basically good state for blacks. That they were protected and well treated by their owners. That they were happier as slaves.
And people were just sitting there listening to this drivel and nodding.
This is why, for me, historical accuracy is not simply a literary choice, but a moral one. I think it actually does serve a purpose to show the ugliness of bigotry and the ugly attitudes of slavery even among people that the reader is prepared to like. That bigotry can exist in ordinary people, not just in the most loathsome of villains. That bigotry is not the harmless or benevolent stand that the neocons claim it is. That it does damage to people of all colors, to bigots as well as to their victims. That its legal and emotional effects are still being felt. That it’s WRONG.
I do believe, with all my heart, that those who do not know the past are condemned to repeat it. And Wave, there are a hell of a lot of people in America these days who would just as soon rewrite history into something more palatable to their political agenda or forget about it altogether.
And I worry–God, how I worry!–about what will happen if people do forget. If the despicable notion that the suffering of minorities–not just blacks, but Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, women, the physically or mentally disabled, the poor–doesn’t matter becomes a majority opinion.
The odd thing, Wave, is that I think that you and the writers you’re criticizing for using language that upsets you are on the same side. You want minorities to be seen as people. You want readers and writers alike to see that prejudice is wrong and unacceptable.
That’s what they want, too.
Angelia
>>Slurs in general are a hazard of dealing with any time period, including the current one. I doubt too many authors are doing it out of their own casual usage. It’s supposed to hurt. It’s supposed to be hate speech. And every reader should flinch.<< When I read a romance, whether it's historical or contemporary or futuristic I guess I'm looking for a book that will "thrill, engage and excite" me as TC said. What you're describing is probably not what I look for in a "romance". Perhaps in a political speech. I guess when I read a romance I'm not looking for a political or history lesson. We all seek different things when we relax with a book and a glass of wine.
Sherry
>>I have nothing very profound to add. I’m a fish belly white woman from a small farming town in the Midwest which had no minorities. I didn’t speak to a black or hispanic person until I was 18 and I moved to TX. And I haven’t walked in anyones steps but my own.<< Your comment is so refreshing and honest. Living in a city like Toronto which is probably the most multicultural large city in the world (according to the latest stats) it's hard for me to imagine living in a small town that had no minorities. There are many towns like yours in Canada and I suppose the history of the residents would be similar to yours. This is a thorny issue for blacks as well as historical authors who want to write history the way it was. Unfortunately nothing remains static, not even history. Yesterday is someone's history, but maybe not in the same sense as centuries ago. The book "Beautiful C*cksucker" was written by an author I respect but some gay men found the title offensive. When they asked me not to post a review on the site, being another minority who understood that words can hurt just as much as blows, I could not refuse their request. >>And speaking of hatespeak/free speech…..the Westboro Baptist Church picketing at funerals and celebrating the deaths of soldiers. It’s God’s punishment for the U.S. tolerance of “homosexual behavior”??!!!! It makes one speechless.<< When I saw this on the news I found it incredibly offensive that Church members would picket at funerals. Who are these nutjobs? These are people who teach children at Sunday School to hate. I realize that there is no easy resolution to the problem I raised. However writers are the ones with imagination and if even one historical author can write a romance without hateful characterizations of minorities and the use of the 'n' word that's all I can ask I suppose. It would be nice to get rid of the word altogether but I understand that as long as 1 black person remains on the earth that word will probably always be with us. 🙁
No. As long as there is 1 stupid bigot on the planet, the word will be with us. Along with all the other words thrown at other people. Many younger glbt folk use “queer” because they decided to “own” the word and take it as a badge of pride.
That doesn’t fix anything for those of us old enough to know that it was nothing of the kind, and is still used as an epithet by bigots.
TC
The program wouldn’t allow me to respond directly to your comment. Technology!!! Another offensive word. 🙂
>>Again, just my 2 cents. *blushes*<< I just wish that when I blush it would show. Darn it. :) Seriously, the status quo has remained that way forever for historical writers who feel that it's their job to recreate or 'correct' history. I think sometimes they lose sight of the fact that these books are meant to entertain and not 'teach' us all a lesson. University is a long way away for me and I'm really looking to be entertained, thrilled, and taken outside of myself when I read a romance. It doesn't matter if it's historical, futuristic or contemporary. If I'm not entertained then why am I reading a romance? >>I agree. There SHOULD be more effort made to find descriptors that aren’t offensive, regardless of how historically accurate the N-word might be. << With all the millions of words in the English language I can't believe that there's not another word for the 'n' word. You could be right that authors have used this word for so long they probably think it's quite acceptable to continue to do so and no one will call them on it. Every time I see it I feel like throwing up, it's that offensive. I don't think there is a word that's even close in terms of being so grossly offensive to refer to another racial minority. >>it’s so much easier to say “It’s accurate” rather than to find another way. << The thing is TC, it's not accurate and I'm just sick of this epithet. >>I think what may be happening is that some of the historical romance writers are caught between being true to the era (and therefore not slammed by those who are well versed in those eras) and displaying good sense.<< Eliminating one word should not mean that the writers are not true to the era. What really makes me angry is that the word is used so casually in historical romances with seemingly no compunction.
Hi again, Wave. 🙂
Eliminating one word should not mean that the writers are not true to the era. What really makes me angry is that the word is used so casually in historical romances with seemingly no compunction.
Once again, I agree. And it’s one of those words that anyone — of ANY race/nationality/social class/educational level (and yes, I know I’ve just added those last two but I mean it) — should know better than to use. That said, some people still seem to be blind to the degree of contempt using that word even in passing denotes. I’m NOT saying it’s okay. Quite the opposite.
The thing is TC, it’s not accurate and I’m just sick of this epithet.
I am, too. Honestly. And I don’t have anything LIKE the reasons for being so that you do as a black woman.
Like I said before, I’m a motley mix of the whitest people imaginable, but I do have some German in my ancestry. And I know it’s not the same thing at all, but I believe I’d be just as offended as you are by the N-word if I were to read a ‘romance’ set in the German countryside in which every German character was referred to as a Nazi.
Whether that’s a fair and reasonable simile, I can’t say. But either way, it’s not what I want in my romance reading. It’s just NOT.
Oh, and you’re not missing much by having invisible blushes. *shakes head* Believe me, there’s nothing particularly great about having everyone know when you’re all… blushy-faced. 😛
~Tis
TC
>>That said, some people still seem to be blind to the degree of contempt using that word even in passing denotes. I’m NOT saying it’s okay. Quite the opposite.<< You are so sweet and I did understand what you meant. :) >>Like I said before, I’m a motley mix of the whitest people imaginable, but I do have some German in my ancestry. And I know it’s not the same thing at all, but I believe I’d be just as offended as you are by the N-word if I were to read a ‘romance’ set in the German countryside in which every German character was referred to as a Nazi.
Whether that’s a fair and reasonable simile, I can’t say. But either way, it’s not what I want in my romance reading. It’s just NOT.<< One of my greatest online friends is Christian Otto who was one of the first bloggers I met and also one of the kindest. He developed and maintains this website and donates his services for free. How great is that? Christian is also German and I would be just as offended on his behalf if someone insulted his heritage. I'm one of the least racist people around, first because I just don't think that way; second, my family is all mixed up so who would I be racist against? Third, my family would beat the shit out of me if I dared spout any racist crap. I don't understand why there is no filter for people who write this stuff. Is there no one who would say, hey I think this is inappropriate? Beta readers, editors, anyone??? Lets's hope that next time they are tempted to write that word there will be a sober second through. On another topic - when you blush, is it all over? Just asking. 🙂
Wave,
On another topic – when you blush, is it all over? Just asking. 🙂
Um. No comment. *heh-heh*
And yes. Christian is very much of the rocking clan. *nod nod* I’m utterly in awe of anyone who can do web-stuff. Doing web-stuff so well? Yep. Kinda impresses the hell out of me. *hee*
~Tis
Tracey
>>You said in your post, Wave, that we don’t need slurs to show that slavery was bad. That we already know that. Perhaps that is so in Canada. Here in America…well, around December, I ran into a report of a speech by a state representative (not my state) in which slavery was described as a basically good state for blacks. That they were protected and well treated by their owners. That they were happier as slaves. << I understand that what you're saying is that in America everyone is not as evolved as they should be and I agree. I visited the US many times - Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama - and I realize that they see things differently in some parts of the US. But what does this have to do with the use of the 'n' word in historical "romances?" Romances are supposed to entertain. I don't read romances because I think they are a teaching aid. That's what schools and historical text books are for. Romances are supposed to be about two people falling in love, overcoming all obstacles and living happily ever after. If I want to read about the war of whatever year I would look it up, and if it's the background of a historical romance that's fine. Just don't denigrate an entire race by using the 'n' word in the interest of being historically correct. >>This is why, for me, historical accuracy is not simply a literary choice, but a moral one. I think it actually does serve a purpose to show the ugliness of bigotry and the ugly attitudes of slavery even among people that the reader is prepared to like.<< I understand and appreciate the importance of historical accuracy and I do realize that there are ignorant people who deny the Holocaust. Every period in history is challenged by bigots, but I'm not looking for a history lesson when I read a historical romance. How can I be entertained by a romance that craps all over blacks and uses that hated epithet? >>The odd thing, Wave, is that I think that you and the writers you’re criticizing for using language that upsets you are on the same side. You want minorities to be seen as people. You want readers and writers alike to see that prejudice is wrong and unacceptable.<< You could be right about their intentions but in my view they are going about it the wrong way by perpetuating the stereotype of the "idiot black Uncle Sam" or the slave, or many other racially reprehensible characters.
You and I want different things from romances, Wave. You just want to be entertained; you don’t care if it’s accurate. I want to be entertained AND educated, and if the book is inaccurate, I don’t enjoy it one bit.
I also don’t feel that the author is denigrating an entire race by using accurate language. Opinions held by the author =/= opinions of character written by the author. I wish people still believed that authors use their imaginations when they write, and that they can write about characters and NOT AGREE WITH THEM.
You could be right about their intentions but in my view they are going about it the wrong way by perpetuating the stereotype of the “idiot black Uncle Sam” or the slave, or many other racially reprehensible characters.
I think you mean Uncle Tom, not Uncle Sam.
I admit that I’ve seen slaves in the occasional romance, but of the two slaves of color I’ve seen, both were rebellious, stubborn and ended up being freed by the end of the book. I’ve never seen an Uncle Tom black in any historical romance…but then, I’ve only seen three black protagonists in historicals.
Since you’re dissatisfied by the appearance of people of color in romances, historical and contemporary, I think you should write a romance with a couple of minority protagonists. You know the language you want to avoid. You know the stereotypes you want to avoid. And you certainly know what you like and don’t like in romances. Since you aren’t finding the kind of book you want to read, it stands to reason that you need to write it. (And yes, I’m entirely serious in this suggestion.)
Tracey
>>You and I want different things from romances, Wave. You just want to be entertained; you don’t care if it’s accurate. I want to be entertained AND educated, and if the book is inaccurate, I don’t enjoy it one bit.<< My understanding is that these books are works of fiction, at least that's what it says in the disclaimer at the front of every romance I have read to date: "This book is a work of fiction. The names, characters, places, and incidents are products of the writer’s imagination or have been used fictitiously and are not to be construed as real. Any resemblance to persons, living or dead, actual events, locale or organizations is entirely coincidental." Since the publisher says so I guess it must be true. So how can they be works of fiction and "accurate" at the same time? I thought that the characters were figments of the authors imagination rather than an accurate representation of any person living or dead (unless the book is a biography). In terms of being "educated" by a romance novel, I prefer to be educated by different types of books. With regard to contemporary gay romances, what my post was about was why so few of the M/M romances feature diverse characters (particularly since the majority of the population of the word is diverse). These characters include older protagonists, physically and mentally challenged main characters, culturally diverse characters etc. I won't reiterate why I felt there was a need to do this since it's all in the post which I believe I linked. >>Since you aren’t finding the kind of book you want to read, it stands to reason that you need to write it<< Unfortunately my life is too full to take on writing romances. My job is taxing enough as it is, and even if I felt the inclination to write a romance I just don't have the time. I think you mistake the fact that because I'm criticising the way minorities are treated in romances that I don't find the kinds of books I want to read. Criticizing one aspect does not mean that I don't enjoy reading most romances. Many readers are looking for escapism from their daily lives (at least that's what most of them say) when they read romances and I'm not that different. Re the Uncle Sam/Uncle Tom error, as you can see, I have been responding to comments on this post for most of the day and evening and I'm tired. I'm sorry I misspoke one word.
The ‘work of fiction’ disclaimer is to avoid lawsuits from people who (rightly or not) believe that a negative characterization in the book is a personal attack. Fiction–particularly historical fiction–is still set in the real world, and a reader should reasonably expect that the world be reflected accurately.
Lee
I assume that all romances are works of fiction, regardless whether they are science fiction, contemporary or historical, unless they are based on a true story. I do understand that many historical romances are set in a particular period of the past, but surely no scholar is going to read the book and slam the author if the background were not absolutely correct. Are there ‘historical police’ checking every fact in your books so that if you make a few mistakes you would get criticized? I always understood that the love story received top billing in a romance, historical or otherwise. Some readers want more historical background in their romances and others want less and the author has to do a balancing act.
Whenever I review a historical book I do so on the same basis as I would every other book – characterization, plot, dialogue, prose etc. etc. I’m afraid the correct clothing or furniture are waaay over my head. 🙂
Gordon Bennett! I go away for one day and all this happens.
Just my two cents (or pennies, since I’m British): I’m from a mixed race family, and in my work under my other pen-name I write fantasies. Historical fantasies. It would be all too easy to write all white casts, or (like Tolkien) show non-white people merely as exotically evil. This is a problem in a lot of fantasy even today, and may be the reason that publishers are convinced that ‘black people don’t buy fantasy’. Would you, if there wasn’t a single fantasy aimed at you as a non-white person?
So I have a little quest: I include a diverse range of ethnic types and races in all my work – as *characters* not stereotypes. That means there’s no token black best friend – my heroine is black. Or of an Asian ethnic group, or a mixed race one. Or whatever.
But despite what I said earlier, I think I *can* do this because I do write fantasy, which means that I get to invent a world for my characters to live in where people don’t have to react to each other in the way they do in this world.
In my m/m work (which so far is modern contemporary) I haven’t yet dared to make race an issue. Like Wave, I don’t want the ‘n’ word, or any other hate words, showing up in my work. It hurts me, personally, to consider it. In the world we all live in, even in the modern world, race is so often a divisive and painful issue.
So maybe this character is Italian or that one is Jewish, but you’d only guess by their name, probably; I don’t refer to it in any other way. Is that good or bad? Should I dwell on this more, or is it right that it’s a non-issue? Am I a coward or a pioneer? Arggh. My head hurts…
Hi Alexi
You missed out on all the excitement. 🙂
I guess my post says it all and today I’m feeling a bit beat up. I knew that it would be a touchy topic because I dared to speak up about something that objectified and insulted blacks. I just felt that I had been silent too long. Most historical authors take the easy way out and use the ‘n’ word whenever they have a bigoted character. They should show some imagination, dammit, they are supposed to be writers! 🙁
Thanks for commenting Alexi.
>>It would be all too easy to write all white casts, or (like Tolkien) show non-white people merely as exotically evil. This is a problem in a lot of fantasy even today, and may be the reason that publishers are convinced that ‘black people don’t buy fantasy’. Would you, if there wasn’t a single fantasy aimed at you as a non-white person?<< This is along the lines of what I said in my previous post asking why there weren't more minority characters in M/M romances. Why should people of other ethnicities or diverse backgrounds buy these books when they are not reflected in a positive way in the books? >> I include a diverse range of ethnic types and races in all my work – as *characters* not stereotypes. That means there’s no token black best friend – my heroine is black. Or of an Asian ethnic group, or a mixed race one. Or whatever.
But despite what I said earlier, I think I *can* do this because I do write fantasy, which means that I get to invent a world for my characters to live in where people don’t have to react to each other in the way they do in this world.<< One of the reasons I love fantasy is because it's a different world, somewhat idealistic, and the author can decide how people relate to each other. >>In my m/m work (which so far is modern contemporary) I haven’t yet dared to make race an issue. Like Wave, I don’t want the ‘n’ word, or any other hate words, showing up in my work. It hurts me, personally, to consider it. In the world we all live in, even in the modern world, race is so often a divisive and painful issue.<< The funny thing is that a lot of historical writers don't understand how this word hurts. Or maybe they do understand but don't care. IDK, all I know is that I was totally fed up with the way it was casually bandied about in historical romances like the latest cravat. At least the authors are now aware of how one black person feels about the word. But maybe they don't care.
Oh, dear. You sound really weary. ((HUG))
I guess the point you were trying to make was, can’t people write accurately about the past, and the way that people of different ethnic backgrounds were treated, without continuing to reinforce negative stereotypes of people from different ethnic backgrounds? And why don’t writers take more care with a very offensive term which is still hurtful to people today, instead of assuming that it’s all right to fling it around because “it’s history”? Especially when, for many people, that term isn’t “history” at all?
Oh, well.
Alexi
>>I guess the point you were trying to make was, can’t people write accurately about the past, and the way that people of different ethnic backgrounds were treated, without continuing to reinforce negative stereotypes of people from different ethnic backgrounds?<< Thank you. I couldn't have said that better myself. It's really depressing to read a historical romance and see minorities spit on and treated as inhuman most of the time. All historical authors don't do this but enough of them do. Sometimes I wonder if they think that minorities are not part of the human race when I read some of these books. >>And why don’t writers take more care with a very offensive term which is still hurtful to people today, instead of assuming that it’s all right to fling it around because “it’s history”? Especially when, for many people, that term isn’t “history” at all?<< Are you sure you're a writer??? Just kidding. 🙂 I am tired. 🙁 I knew that the post would bring out some brickbats simply because writers have been accustomed to denigrating blacks in their books for a long time, and no one (or very few of us) has/have had the courage to take issue with the casual use of the 'n' word. I'm really not a rabble rouser but the one thing I promised myself when I started the blog 2 years ago was not to just sit idly by and accept the status quo. I have written about characterizations in M/M books, the amount of sex (too much), the lack of intelligent plots, etc. but this post has been the hardest for me to write, mainly because I like and respect many of the authors I'm criticizing in this one area. I hope at the very least that I have raised their consciousness and they will think twice in future BEFORE automatically using that word. Surely authors can pillory bigots by using another word among the millions in the English language. On another topic, how was Bareback?
Yep, definitely a writer. And I think we all know you’re not a rabble rouser. You’ve gotten this stuff off your chest and now it’s out there: maybe someone will think twice about the way that they write next time, or maybe not, but you did your part. Mission accomplished.
As for Bareback…well…um…er…will you beat me up if I confess I haven’t gotten to it yet? I suffer from depression and I’ve been ‘teetering’ this week (which is my term for when an episode could be imminent) so I haven’t dared read anything too angsty. But I will get too it eventually! Promise!
P.S. I did a blurb-writing masterclass on my blog on your honour, here: http://alexisilversmith.blogspot.com/
Wave,
Great post 🙂 As a woman of colour I’ve been called most names under the sun… hey just being a woman is all it takes some days LOL! The ‘n’ word is not as common outside the US as most would imagine. I know I’ve never heard it being used but then we have other ‘hurtful’ words that are still used frequently.
I’ve always lived by the addage that words, although they have the power to hurt, they will not wound unless you let them.
If someone calls me the ‘n’ word or the equivelent… I’d simply reply… ‘and your point is….?’
As for authors using the word…. if they want accuracy within their work I am all for it but make sure you are completely accurate in all aspects or I will be asking for a refund. I am quite happy to read a book with that and other hurtful words in as I do believe all must be allowed to show their ignorance every now and then 🙂
We can only educate those that choose it…. if people want to use words for shock value or to keep with historical accuracy then fine. But the hero/heroine would not perform oral sex as bathing/circumcision etc etc was not common and in ‘white’ society it was even considered unhealthy.
tish
PS sorry for the rambling but its school holidays and I get have a ‘holiday’ when my girls do…. so no brain usage whatsoever LOL
Hi Tish
You didn’t ramble. 🙂
>>Great post As a woman of colour I’ve been called most names under the sun… hey just being a woman is all it takes some days LOL! The ‘n’ word is not as common outside the US as most would imagine<< Living in North America it's hard to get away from the word. However, a lot of historical romances are written by British writers as well (I think) who use the word indiscriminately - it's like a licence to print money. My point is don't include blacks in your books if the only reason you do so is to insult and dehumanise them. >>As for authors using the word…. if they want accuracy within their work I am all for it but make sure you are completely accurate in all aspects or I will be asking for a refund. I am quite happy to read a book with that and other hurtful words in as I do believe all must be allowed to show their ignorance every now and then<< What amazed me was that Erastes's post was on how to make historical characters sympathetic but immediately the discussion took a right turn and segued into the 'n' word and a justification of why they must use it. Romances are supposed to be works of fiction not a history lesson - there are many notable and recommended books on historical events if one wants accurate information. I just can't be entertained when all some authors do is bash people of colour in the name of historical 'accuracy'. School holidays ... you must be in heaven. 🙂
Hi Wave
‘However, a lot of historical romances are written by British writers as well (I think) who use the word indiscriminately – it’s like a licence to print money.’
I think the ‘n’ word doesn’t have the same significence (sp) outside North America as it does in. I am ashamed of so called educated people who ‘think’ they are writing a fictional romance and feel they must use certain words in order to make it historically correct. It’s like saying you can call a gay man by a derogortory name because everybody thought it was ‘socially acceptable’ to do so in the past. Yet I have not seen any writers using the ‘f’ word or calling one of their minor gay characters a ‘c… s..ker’ Haven’t we moved past that ignorant behaviour?
Surely, even if you are writing a historical romance, we need to be more evolved? It is fiction after all. And a great book doesn’t need to be historically accurate in every regard it just needs to be well written.
M/M writers please don’t go for the crass denegration of a minority because remember you are writing about another persecuted minority.
If you want to be historically accurate and use degrading and ignorant words then either
A: write a non-fiction text
B: don’t write about any other minority.
Lets be honest most writers who think it’s ‘historically accurate’ to be able to use the ‘n’ word are white….. come on boys and girls…. unless you’ve been called a ‘n’ in hate you won’t know how it feels. Ask any gay person what it feels like to be called something in hate and ignorance and maybe we can move past ‘historically accurate ignorance’ and start on just historical romance.
I want to add that if I did find ignorance from a writer… even if it is historically accurate it will be the last book I buy written by them. I know I am only one… but you know what they say about the ‘power of one’ 🙂
tish
For a start–I haven’t used ‘n’ and have no intention of doing so. But, as a gay woman, I have put slurs I would never use myself into the mouth of a villain, because the whole point was that anyone who’d use such terms was a pretty vile excuse for a human being.
When writing romance, I am inclined to soft-focus the harsher realities–I don’t describe my heroes using a chamber-pot, for instance. But it bothers me that so many people seem to feel that a romance is a sort of second-class citizen in terms of accuracy–that a writer is better off ignoring reality than risking distress to the reader.
That might be fine for some readers, and some writers. But it only maintains the general perception that romance is not ‘real’ writing, that it cannot be taken seriously as a genre because it’s all a bunch of fluff.
And if a writer doesn’t care enough about what she’s doing, it would be fluff. But as Tracey said earlier, too many people believe that historicals must be accurate… and there are too many people who would very much like to see history rewritten to depict benevolent plantation owners caring for their pooor, ignorant slaves. Look at any gang of teabaggers… there are people who want to rewrite history to justify and erase the violence committed against hundreds of thousands of human beings.
I was horrified by the miniseries Roots–could not even watch some parts of it. That series woke up a lot of people who had never really thought about the human suffering of slavery.
ANY well-written book, no matter what genre, can be a powerful force for change.
Again, I don’t use the ugly race word and probably never will–but I still maintain that overuse of epithets as a shortcut for characterization is a matter of bad writing.
Lee
>>When writing romance, I am inclined to soft-focus the harsher realities–I don’t describe my heroes using a chamber-pot, for instance. But it bothers me that so many people seem to feel that a romance is a sort of second-class citizen in terms of accuracy–that a writer is better off ignoring reality than risking distress to the reader.<< When I jokingly said in my post that if historical writers were so gung ho on historical accuracy they should let it all hang out, I was only partly serious. I'm certainly not interested in the chamber pot example, but if authors keep stressing that their books are historically accurate, maybe they might want to modify those statements since they are not true. :) Historical writers and a few "accuracy obsessed" readers of the genre seem to set great store by historical accuracy to the minutest detail of what kinds of buttons are on garments. Are regular readers really interested in all of this? I know I'm not. At some point I think the author has to say to herself - this is a romance not a history lesson, so let's get real. I believe that if a book is a romance the most important aspect is the relationship between the protagonists, not the world building even if the book is a historical romance since this is only incidental to the story. Sometimes I think authors and a few readers get carried away by the importance of every. single. detail. in a historical book. For the record, I never watched Roots because I was definitely not interested in seeing slavery in action - rape, murder, torture etc. I watch television for entertainment and this was not entertainment for me. I had read enough in text books about slavery and consequently was not interested in seeing it acted out on the screen. Re "seeing history rewritten to depict benevolent plantation owners caring for their poor, ignorant slaves," anyone who has read history books is well aware of what happened either during slavery or any other dark period in history such as the Holocaust, and I don't think people are that easily fooled unless they really don't want to know the truth. We should give the public credit for not being stupid enough to believe all the lies (unless this is really what they want to believe.) >>Again, I don’t use the ugly race word and probably never will–but I still maintain that overuse of epithets as a shortcut for characterization is a matter of bad writing.<< I'm glad to hear that Lee.
I would love to give the public credit for having brains enough to know the truth–but having emigrated from a country where 95% of the media is owned by the right-wing propaganda machine–having been screamed at, during political rallies, by angry, irrational bigots who would happily have killed me if it had not been a public place–I have to say that no, this is not true.
We are living in a sane country. Many parts of the US are teetering on the edge of madness. This sounds irrational, I know. Walking around the farmer’s market, with the incredible swirl of colors and languages and clothing, it’s hard to imagine that there are communities of fearful, hostile people who listen to the cheerleaders of violence on Faux News and go to palin rallies where they are incited to murder anyone who isn’t white. Did you know that there’s a “left behind” video game that gives points for killing Muslims, Buddhists, gays, and other ‘godless’ people?
Threats against Barack Obama are something like eight times as numerous as any other president.
ANY book, of any genre, can be a voice that sneaks in under the radar. Romance is actually one of the best vehicles for social activism because many women literally don’t read any fiction but romance. I had a letter once from a woman in the fundie south who was delighted with e-books because she could read m/m without her bigoted neighbors finding out.
This woman was raising children. Kids pick up their parents attitudes. This is where we plant the seeds. If my own mother had not blasted my dad for use of the n-word (funny, since she looked down on anyone who wasn’t Catholic!) I would not have known from early childhood that it was probably the worst word in the language.
And thank you, but I certainly wasn’t nominated by anyone. I just can’t keep my mouth shut, and there’s no way people are going to be able to stop hating each other for stupid reasons if we can’t talk about what’s going on.
You don’t know unless you have walked in somebodys shoes. If you have done a genealogical tree and found your great great grandmother was bred since she was 14 and her children sold because afterall she was just a nigger and they have no emotional connections, and that word does not affect you… then you’re a much stronger person than most. When it’s just not a story in history books but something substantiated in your family history, every time you hear or read that word it brings back memories and hurts to the very soul.
Yes it happened and it’s historically accurate but it hurts.
Suzi, I had family who died on the Trail of Tears because ‘real’ Americans had to shove ‘them dirty sand-n*ggers’ off ‘their’ land after gold was discovered–and Andrew Jackson permitted that, in violation of treaty and a Supreme Court decision. People were pulled from their homes in the dead of winter and made to walk from Georgia to Oklahoma. Those who died–mostly elders and children–were left unburied on the trail. That is part of my family history–unwritten, because the girls were encouraged to marry white men so their children could survive. But my grandmother remembered her grandmother’s story and passed it on to my sister.
My wife was denied tenure from a job for “poor teaching” when she had the best teacher ratings in the department for over ten years, because in a Catholic college that technically allowed insurance coverage for domestic partners, she dared to put me on her policy. I knew that was a mistake because I’d seen the hypocrisy of that church before, she hadn’t. I lost massage clients when I came out–people who I had thought were friends. That hurt, too, and affected my ability to make a living.
But this isn’t a contest about who’s carrying the most pain; I know that black people in America have, and continued to have, worse treatment than almost anyone else. I even see some of it here in Canada, in toss-off comments from the descendants of European immigrants who look at Jamaicans who have come here looking for a chance for a better life. I do think native people have suffered greatly from European genocide but my grandmother’s heritage is not physically visible so I have only had to deal with the woman/lesbian crap and ‘polack’ jokes–my mother’s heritage was hidden by my father’s last name.
I posted in response to your question as to whether gay people felt the same way about epithets–if they cause the same physical revulsion. Yes, sometimes we do. I hate “bitch” in any context other than reference to a female canine. I find “lesbo” and “carpetmuncher” particularly obnoxious. Same with “all she needs is a good fuck” and “which one of you’s the man?”
But I do not think censorship is the way to fix the problem–and self-censorship is still censorship. I personally tend to make oblique reference to a low-life’s language, probably 99% of the time, simply because I don’t want to perpetuate an ugly vocabulary. I agree with Wave that writers ought to try to find less offensive ways to indicate a bigot’s nature and I think repetitious use of any epithet is a poor job of characterization.
I think this was a good topic to post about because many people tend to either pretend that since Barack Obama was elected there’s no more race problem, or fear that it’s the end of the world because we have an intelligent president with black skin instead of a white-bread idiot.
But just as I would never use ‘n-‘ in my own fiction–a choice made for my own personal reasons–I think that writers must make their own choices based on what works for the story. Salman Rushdie lived under the threat of death for decades because devout Muslims were genuinely hurt and angered by his writing. When one begins to censor fiction because it will hurt someone’s feelings, where do you stop?
Asking people to use other language is a good idea. Saying that any word must never be used… in this case I agree to the specific but I can’t buy the principle. Too much potential for abuse.
Bravo, Lee. Beautifully put.
Lee
>>I posted in response to your question as to whether gay people felt the same way about epithets–if they cause the same physical revulsion. Yes, sometimes we do. I hate “bitch” in any context other than reference to a female canine. I find “lesbo” and “carpetmuncher” particularly obnoxious. Same with “all she needs is a good fuck” and “which one of you’s the man?”<< I have many gay friends who every day "raise my consciousness" about how words can hurt. Several months ago a gay man, Stuart, send me an email in which he mentioned many ways that straight female writers were insulting gay men, even though their books were about gay men. The most telling example he used was the word “clean” which just about every author uses to refer to someone who is not HIV positive. Here’s a link to that post
http://www.gayromance.org/?p=6771
I think that this post has helped to reduce the frequency with which this word is used where contemporary M/M authors unknowingly insult gay men in their books. If people don’t speak up, how are others supposed to know about unintentional insults? One of the reasons I love this site is that gay men feel that the open environment gives them an opportunity to correct a few things and they can comment or raise issues without fear of being insulted.
>>My wife was denied tenure from a job for “poor teaching” when she had the best teacher ratings in the department for over ten years, because in a Catholic college that technically allowed insurance coverage for domestic partners, she dared to put me on her policy. I knew that was a mistake because I’d seen the hypocrisy of that church before, she hadn’t. I lost massage clients when I came out–people who I had thought were friends. That hurt, too, and affected my ability to make a living.<< Lee I'm really sorry that happened to you. Living life as a minority carries with it a lot of baggage and in your case it was a very tough lesson to learn. Being black, employers know upfront who I am and being female is a double whammy. Can you imagine what it would have been like if I were also lesbian? I can say in all honesty that I can't remember being discriminated against either in employment or housing - if I were I wasn't aware of it. Discrimination is abhorrent in any way, shape or form and I hope that as the world evolves (right now the people who make up our world are overwhelmingly racial minorities yet they are treated as second class ciitzens by those who hold power) we will evolve as well.
Suzi
>>You don’t know unless you have walked in somebodys shoes. If you have done a genealogical tree and found your great great grandmother was bred since she was 14 and her children sold because afterall she was just a nigger and they have no emotional connections, and that word does not affect you… then you’re a much stronger person than most.<< I think that stories like yours have more impact that anything I could write. Real life history is more important and painful and shows the real impact of man's inhumanity to man. >>When it’s just not a story in history books but something substantiated in your family history, every time you hear or read that word it brings back memories and hurts to the very soul.
Yes it happened and it’s historically accurate but it hurts.<< I hear what you're saying about Real Life being more impactful than anything in a history book. Maybe your family's experience will make someone think twice about characterizations and word usage.
Lee
>>Asking people to use other language is a good idea. Saying that any word must never be used… in this case I agree to the specific but I can’t buy the principle. Too much potential for abuse.<< Censorship is something I abhor, but this one word carries with it such an explosive history and causes so much pain it's hard for me to agree to its use in any context. However if some historical authors can at least refrain from using it, that would go a long way. I suppose I just can't understand why there are millions of words in the English language and people just keep on using this one.
Probably because it’s the fastest way to say, “This character has his head up his ass so far it’s going to take dynamite and a derrick to extract it.” Or, in the case of historical writing, “This culture is in the same shape…”
I’ll be honest, I don’t know how to feel about this issue, but I’m glad you brought it up, Wave, even though I know it had to be hard for you. No situation was ever improved by ignoring it.
Maybe I should keep my nose out of it. I don’t read historicals, and I certainly don’t write them. And I have to admit to a desire to make people happy and not have them be mad at me. Also, I think I’d have as much difficulty writing that awful word as I would saying it.
BUT.
I’m from Alabama. I was born in the mid-sixties. When I was growing up, it wasn’t unusual to hear that word being thrown around very casually indeed on the street, in the stores, in private homes, in church. Family, neighbors, strangers used it. Not everyone, but enough to where it was not uncommon to hear when I was a child. If someone wanted to write a book of any sort set in the deep south in that era, they’d either have to use the word somewhere, or pretend black people did not exist in that place and time. Or maybe they could isolate their protagonists somewhere away from civilization so that they wouldn’t encounter anyone else who might use the (extremely common at the time) horrible and hurtful language.
For myself, as a reader and a writer, I want realism, in a romance just as much as any other kind of book. Honestly, this is one of the reasons I don’t read historicals — because it seems as if some authors have been intimidated (by editors, publishers, heck, even their own fears) into, as Dick put it, “Disneyfying” things, making the past more palatable, and thus less accurate. If I happen to find something I know to be innacurate, it’ll throw me right out of the story. For instance: as much as I hate that women were once considered the property of the men in their lives, I can’t read historical romances where the heroine is all “liberated” in an era when I know women weren’t and couldn’t be, because all I can think is “that would never happen!”
I don’t have any answers. I wish I did. But again, I think it’s good you brought it up.
Hi Ally
You know that my posts are usually about fun topics such as buckets of cum 🙂 so it was really hard for me to write this one. I had it written for about a week before I decided to post it. Then I remembered the saying that people can’t know how you feel unless you tell them, so eventually I took my courage in both hands and uploaded the post.
I understand where you’re coming from Ally. In the US free speech is almost as important as the right to bear arms, but having the right to bear arms doesn’t mean that there aren’t consequences to exercising that right. Similarly with free speech, one wouldn’t shout “fire” in a crowded room if there wasn’t a fire, because people could get hurt or die in the stampede. That last one is an extereme example but it actually happened. With every right comes responsibility and sometimes accountability.
I have received hate mail from bloggers who showed their cowardice by not posting but had no difficulty telling me where to go (“back to Canada” was the nicest comment) 🙂 Conversely, many others (including authors) wrote to thank me for raising the issue and opening their eyes to something about which they were unaware and which they were personally going to correct in their writing.
Truthfully, I don’t expect things to change much but I couldn’t continue keeping quiet. If one author thinks before using this word and chooses something else (hopefully not “African American”), 🙂 that would be a good thing, at least for blacks. Recently I stopped reading historical M/M romances because I couldn’t stomach coming across the word so often but I will go back to reading them soon because I love a man in breeches; when those buttons are ripped open, Oh My!! . 🙂
>>For myself, as a reader and a writer, I want realism, in a romance just as much as any other kind of book. <>BUT.
I’m from Alabama. I was born in the mid-sixties. When I was growing up, it wasn’t unusual to hear that word being thrown around very casually indeed on the street, in the stores, in private homes, in church. Family, neighbors, strangers used it. Not everyone, but enough to where it was not uncommon to hear when I was a child.<<
This is my point – children learn from what they hear and see and if they think this word is perfectly acceptable to black people they will continue to use it and pass it on to their children, which means that the word will be forever in our lexicon. No one in my family uses that word and hopefully my children's children never will.
Thanks for commenting Ally and you know I love you. 🙂 The boys miss you.
I don’t use that word, and if I ever caught one of my kids — or any kid within my earshot — using it, they’d get an verbal blistering they’d never forget. I don’t tolerate real-life hate speech, EVER. But that’s how it was in that place and that time. It was ugly, a casual, embedded, accepted ugliness you couldn’t get away from. Like I said, I don’t have answers. I would so love to see a perfect world in my lifetime, where there was no racism or sexism or homophobia or any of the other -isms or -phobias that run so rampant in our society. I don’t hold out much hope for that, frankly, but it would be great, wouldn’t it? I am just not sure that this is the way I’d go about it. To me, it just feels too much like helping people forget the bad things ever happened and are still happening.
I dunno. Maybe that’s dumb and maybe it doesn’t make sense, and I know I’m coming at it from my white perspective which is automatically skewed, and I fully recognize that. All I know is that I remember these things, this day-to-day ugliness that people just accepted without a second thought, and it terrifies me that the younger people coming along now might forget these things ever happened. If a story is set in a time and place where this was a part of life, then the characters might hear horrible things like this. I just don’t think that should be glossed over to make it more palatable, because those times were NOT palatable at all, they were ugly.
Wave, you know we don’t always agree on everything, but I have tremendous respect for you as a reviewer and a human being. You talk about things that need to be discussed, and I admire you for it. And I LOVE YOU TOO, sweetie! <3
Ally
This is an issue that no one will ever win because it has to do with race. Why can’t we all get along? (That’s a rhetorical question). 🙂
I started out asking that historical authors not use the ‘n’ word (they use the word more than any other authors because their books are based on past events). Apparently I’m unreasonable for even suggesting that they consider not using ONE WORD in their books. My hate mail is overflowing.
I’m bowing out of the fight and I will not raise this issue in the future -I will just suck it up.
You felt that there should be another approach and you might be right
>>To me, it just feels too much like helping people forget the bad things ever happened and are still happening. << >> If a story is set in a time and place where this was a part of life, then the characters might hear horrible things like this. I just don’t think that should be glossed over to make it more palatable, because those times were NOT palatable at all, they were ugly.<< For those who lived through some of the bad times I don't think there's any chance that they will forget. No one will forget the Holocaust or slavery. Re not glossing over what happened in the past and all the ugly events, I guess I've had my fill of 'reality'. Whatever happened to reading for enjoyment and entertainment? I read to be entertained and I love your books because they entertain. Lately I can't say that I enjoy a lot of historical romances and I'm always afraid when I crack one open what I will find between the covers. BTW we agree on a lot more than we disagree. 🙂 If you remember, I asked your opinion about a post that a few readers wanted me to write and on your advice I decided not to do so. As always I will continue to post on topics that most bloggers won't touch because they are too controversial. This is one of them. I felt that I should have been able to question why authors use this word as a standby whenever there's a bigot in their stories. I suppose it's too pc to have the bigots spew their vile language and hate on someone of their own race. That probably won't have the right impact. Based on my mail I guess there's no merit in the much vaunted free speech of which we're all so proud. Thanks Ally for joining the debate. I love your comments because they are so reasonable.
Whether people agree or disagree with you, it saddens and infuriates me that anyone would stoop to hate mail. That’s just… well, hateful. And cowardly. I’m sorry it’s happening. Adults should be able to discuss even volatile topics in a civil and respectful way. You’ve done your best to do that, and so have those commenting here. Those cowards flooding your inbox with hate are beneath you in every way.
**massive hugs**
As I said, Wave, it was a futuristic romance. And yes, it was a romance, with a heavy adventure plot
A road trip through the Disunited States should certainly fill your criteria of “thrill, engage and excite.” Any time you deal in futures, and use them for more than laser showers and sonic dildos, you’re going to get some level of politics.
Any time you talk about history, beyond “lacy jabots and thigh-high boots and rapiers and jeweled pistols…SWOON” you’re talking about politics.
Politics touches EVERYTHING, from the education level of a character to the kinds of foods that one can buy easily to who he associates with to how the character makes a living and what kind of living he has.
As for why people–real and fictional–use that particular slur? It says everything they want to say. It expresses a casual contempt, a presumed superiority, solidarity with people who look like them and a dismissal of the other’s humanity all in two simple syllables.
Angel
>>A road trip through the Disunited States should certainly fill your criteria of “thrill, engage and excite.” << I am "thrilled, excited and engaged" every time I visit your wonderful country, especially the southern states. Actually the folks there were most gracious (they probably felt sorry for me as soon as they realized I was not American) :) and it was only when I went to Mississippi that I hit a speed bump. That aside, I always love travelling across the border to visit my neighbours to the south. >>As for why people–real and fictional–use that particular slur? It says everything they want to say. It expresses a casual contempt, a presumed superiority, solidarity with people who look like them and a dismissal of the other’s humanity all in two simple syllables<< "casual contempt" a dismissal of the other’s humanity all in two simple syllables" Angie, you hit the nail on the head about why this word is so offensive to me and others. Need I say more?
Well, boo-hoo to the people who don’t like your opinion. I have a problem with people who keep going on about free speech, but then conveniently forget that free speech means they don’t have to like what you have to say. Good for you, Wave.
I didn’t see the post you mentioned and the comments made by writers who use the n-word, but I had a pretty clear reaction to your take on things. Here’s mine: yeah, okay, I’ll let you get away with using the word if you’re writing documentary non-fiction. People talked like that, true. But there’s no reason for fiction writers to use such hateful language. In fact, using the n-word to illustrate character feels incredibly lazy. What happened to “show, don’t tell?” Using the n-word is a definite tell. Come on, you’re a writer, dude, come up with a different word.
Thanks, Wave, for posting this and making me aware of something I hadn’t encountered/thought of before.
Nadja
>>Here’s mine: yeah, okay, I’ll let you get away with using the word if you’re writing documentary non-fiction. People talked like that, true. But there’s no reason for fiction writers to use such hateful language. In fact, using the n-word to illustrate character feels incredibly lazy. What happened to “show, don’t tell?” Using the n-word is a definite tell.<< Thank you Nadja. As I said earlier on in the comments, authors are supposed to be imaginative in their writing, whether it's futuristic, contemporary or historical. Novels are works of fiction regardless whether they are set in the past and I think just saying that word without any regard for its impact is not only lazy but dehumanizing. But that's just me.
This is an extremely sensitive subject, because, really, you can never win. When it came to writing Dash and Dingo, Catt and I really struggled with how to display racism towards the Aboriginal characters and yet also fight against using the words we could have used. And believe me, there were many we could have used. I think we were reasonably successful, through simple things like Jarrah being refused use of a lift in a hotel – but really, in the end it boils down to the reader or the reviewer’s opinion of that very thing. By trying to treat Jarrah’s character with respect we had people saying that he was well-portrayed, and we also had some people accusing us of using the ‘magical native’ trope.
In the end, you can only try – and hope that you have some modicum of success at it. Frak knows I have felt on the receiving end of some negative imagery and words in gay romantic fiction, so I would hate to be guilty of perpetuating some myself.
LEE ROWAN
Before I respond to the other comments I would like to say how much I admire and appreciate you for the way you handled yourself and gave the perspective of your fellow historical writers as well as your own personal experience. I sent you an email earlier but I wanted to acknowledge here the time you took out of your very busy writing schedule, and the grace with which you responded to many of the comments.
I have always had a high regard for you Lee, but it went up 1000% over the past few days. No other historical author commented on this post (at least if they did I don’t know their other pseuds and I apologise). I thought at least a few of these authors who I regard as my online friends would have commented. That aside, Lee, if you were nominated to carry the flag for the M/M historical writers on this issue, you were an excellent ambassador and I salute you.
Thank you for showing the courage of your convictions and for giving your perspective with such grace and humour. You rock (and that’s a good thing) 🙂
Hi Sean
>>This is an extremely sensitive subject, because, really, you can never win. << Boy are you ever right!! I'm finding out through this post all kinds of things about myself as a result of hateful emails. :( However, I recognize, having visited Australia a few years ago and actually meeting a few Aboriginals, what a tough job you and Catt had walking the "racial" tightrope in Dash and Dingo without blurring the lines. I think you did a marvellous job because I have lots of friends in Oz and I know how touchy this issue is today. All I tried to do was make historical authors aware (if they didn't already know) how horrible this word made blacks feel. >>In the end, you can only try – and hope that you have some modicum of success at it. Frak knows I have felt on the receiving end of some negative imagery and words in gay romantic fiction, so I would hate to be guilty of perpetuating some myself.<< Being another minority, you would probably appreciate my perspective more than the majority of straight females who write historical romances. I mentioned earlier in the comments that I didn't post a review of "Beautiful C*cksucker" because a few of my gay friends asked me not to; they felt that the title of the book dehumanized them. I'm trying in my own small way not to do the things that I would not want done to me. Thanks for commenting Sean.
When an author uses a derogatory word in their stories at LI, we think very hard about it. I hope that if we do, it’s used carefully and sparingly. probably the careless use of terms that hurt is the worst slap to others.
Hi Treva
Thanks for commenting.
I appreciate that you and your editors think very hard about the use of derogatory words in your books. If one author uses this word once in their story instead of 20 times then that would be a great achievement but I’m not suggesting that you “Disneyfy” your books as some bloggers say will happen by going this route.
I guess I always wonder why bigots in romances always spew their hatred on to other races. Can’t they find someone in their own backyard to hate or is that too pc? I recognize that there is no easy solution because of characterizations, and perhaps my post should not have asked that this word be abolished from our lexicon – maybe using it less frequently and only when absolutely necessary would have been a more reasonable request. IDK.
It would have been very easy for me to say nothing and just avoid reading historical romances, the way I have been doing recently, but on this site I don’t avoid controversial topics just to make others feel comfortable. As I mentioned to Lee Rowan, I did a post several months ago because a gay man asked me why M/M authors, who are predominantly straight women, use the term “clean” to refer to someone’s sero status – an inference that if you were HIV+ you were tainted or dirty. (BTW many authors still use this word in their M/M romances). Many gay men apparently were upset by the inference but it wasn’t until I did the post that some M/M authors understood its negative effect on gay men, those same men they write about in their romances. In case you didn’t see the post here’s a link
http://www.gayromance.org/?p=6771
I try in my own small way to raise issues about gay men that I don’t see on other blogs or websites, but in this case it was more personal.
Hear, hear! Excellent, thought-provoking post. We all change our realities everyday just by being alive, but I’d like to think that you’ve made a difference with this essay. I bow to you.
Hi Catt
Thanks for commenting. I hope that this post does make a difference since many authors don’t really understand how that one word dimishes a whole race of people. Maybe it won’t change perceptions or actions. I’ll just have to wait and see.
I somehow missed this post earlier, just finding it now. I’m glad you posted this, though I’m sorry you’ve received hate mail in response to it. But I think (hope!) the public discussion here got (and will continue to get) people thinking. You dared throw the stone, and I believe that the ripple effect is quite powerful.
I went to one of the most integrated high schools in the U.S., and my crowd was probably the most diverse there. We all learned a lot from hearing each other talk about our own experiences growing up black, or Mexican, or gay, or Catholic, or Jewish, or with lesbian parents, or a blind brother, or whatever. And I know perceptions and actions were changed as a result of those conversations.
Although there are those who claim Berkeley, CA is a separate planet and the people who live there are a separate species… 😉