Do you worry about Political Correctness ...

I believe this campaign is intended for an edition of the novel that's intended for use in some elementary schools, not to alter the "official" version of this novel or to stop publication of the original version.

Now my take on it is that the book is what it is, and it's not really for elementary school kids anyway (maybe YA, but I actually studied it in high school, then again in a college lit class). And to be clear, I really don't care for the bleeping out or altering of swear words in movies they televise either. And there are expurgiated versions of Shakespeare that have been produced "for family reading" too. When I heard about this, I also rolled my eyes.

I do wonder, though, where is all the conservative outrage when these special "cut" editions of movies are televised or when these altered to cut out the sex and swearing editions of other beloved classics are published?

Cutting the n word from a classic (because some people find it offensive) is an example of the evil PC police at work. But cutting swear words or sexytime jokes and references from a classic (because some people find such offensive) is not.

Why is that?

Forgive me here, because I have not read the book in..a long time, nor studied it in class

But a book that uses the N word to highlight man's inhumanity to man v one that uses it because..?? (ETA: or seems to, to me anyway, because hey I could have missed the intent and that there is the problem - readers are *shock* human and not normally possessed of ESP)

There's a difference there, to me anyway.

Now, it maybe (almost certainly is) that not everyone gets the whole highlight thing, or the author's intent. And the author's intent may or may not mean much to A Reader (death of the author and all that) but mayhap it makes a difference to some people who read it. And if I were that author, if some people were to get it -- I'd call that a win.

Because you ain't never going to write a book that everyone gets, or likes. Whatever your intent, not everyone will see it. YOu can;t control that

You only control your writing.

Perhaps the issue would be better stated without the highly-charged phrase "Politically Correct." Debating whether or not "PC" is actually a thing is less useful than discussing the core issue - do some people seek to impose limits on expression (not necessarily government-imposed limits) in the cause of avoiding offense or causing harm? Clearly the answer is yes, and most of us, no matter how "anti-PC," would agree with some such limits, depending on context. Do some people go to lengths many/most find objectionable? I would say yes.

Then the discussion is about where and why to draw that line. Everyone has a line. We just disagree about what should be on either side of it.

And perhaps secondarily, is the "threat" posed by people going "too far" exaggerated?


On the revised Mark Twain thing - I reacted like most, with incredulity and disgust, when I first heard about it. But I do think there is a persuasive case to be made that having a bunch of white kids, say, in a classroom with only a couple of black classmates, reading the word "nigger" aloud over and over, has the potential to be an extremely uncomfortable, possibly disastrous, experience. It's not as if the unedited version was going to be made unavailable. Do I think reading a censored version is the best solution? No, probably not - if it's going to be used in class, it should be done by a teacher who can guide the class at an appropriate age level. Still, the assumption that any elementary or middle school class can handle Mark Twain's original words unproblematically is questionable, so I no longer think the original intent was a case of PC run amok.

Amadan said:

Then the discussion is about where and why to draw that line. Everyone has a line. We just disagree about what should be on either side of it.

Click to expand...

Exactly

And there is the glory and the horror of humanity. Which is manyfold on t'internet.

Pick your line

Write to it.

Be prepared to change it as and when you learn more

T Robinson said:

Perception is different. At the term "black joke," "I" assumed the definition as <dark, broody, AKA Batman is the Dark Knight.>

I did not even thick it referred to a "black person" joke. On re-reading, I am still not sure which way the poster intended.


But............what difference does it make? Someone earlier said if someone wants to be offended, they will find a way. I firmly believe this to be true. Actually, I have seen it many times.

Just my opinion. No greater meaning or connotations.

Click to expand...

I see what you're saying. However, those usually using the phrase "finding something to be offended by" tend to not have to worry about being offended.

I didn't see it as a broody, Batman joke. I'm a woman of color and yes, the latter connotation applies. I just wondered why she picked the race to focus on, instead of other attributes she could pinpoint. Maybe she's slovenly? Or, she's dateless?

When I write, I do try to critically evaluate if I'm falling into the trap of stereotyping, slut-shaming, lack of diversity and many other things that are usually labelled "non-PC". Not because I'm afraid of being criticised for not being "PC" (I'm putting it in quotes because in my experience the term is only used in a derogatory sense by people who want to claim it's "gone too far"), but because I really don't want to do those things. If someone read my book and pointed out such things to me, I'd be angry with myself for not seeing them myself. So in the sense of trying to analyse the underlying assumptions of the choices I make, then yes; I do worry about not being "PC".

That said, my book takes place in the 17th century. None of my characters are going to have a clue about anything close to modern sensibilities. In fact, I loathe it when people write anachronistic characters with modern sensibilities in hist fic, partly because it's anachronistic, and partly because I hate the sort of sloppy writing where everything is black and white and the author puts big signs stating what you are supposed to think on everything. In fact, those books quite often also display very non-"PC" stereotyping and are much more offensive to me than books full of people saying, on the surface, "non-PC" things.

So I do realise some people will be horribly offended by some things I write. I'm quite sure some will absolutely hate it because of them. I am also quite sure I will trip up and unintentionally fall into the trap of stereotyping etc. because I'm human and fallible and a product of my environment. It just goes with the territory of writing (and writing hist fic especially). There is no way of writing something that someone won't hate or be offended by, and as a writer, I think you simply have to accept that and not worry too much about what people will think, because that sort of self-censure is stifling.

But looking at my writing with "PC" glasses, and trying to analyse my writing from that perspective, and asking myself what criticism might be launched against it, is part of the normal quality control for me, just like looking for plot holes. Are my characters 3-dimensional and realistic? Am I reasonably original? Why am I choosing this particular trope and how am I handling it?

So to me, worrying about being "PC" in my writing boils down to two things:
1. worrying about the quality of my writing
2. preparing myself for the backlash when someone – for whatever reason it may be – hates my book (even, worst of all, when someone hates it for a very reasonable reason! )

Then, in the end, all you can do is tell yourself you did the best you could and people are entitled to their opinions. Heck, they're even entitled to be completely wrong!

ETA: and that includes you. You are entitled to be wrong too. Just make sure you learn from the experience and don't lash out at your critics or be too devastated. Live and learn.

Roxxsmom said:

I believe this campaign is intended for an edition of the novel that's intended for use in some elementary schools, not to alter the "official" version of this novel or to stop publication of the original version.

Click to expand...

A couple of years ago I wrote a post about the most recent remake of the Damnbusters where they renamed the dog (and hence the codeword) to 'Digger' so as not to cause offence :http://clairewriteswords.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/rewriting-history/

I personally think that rewriting things like that actually causes more offence, because it's glossing over things, pretending that they didn't happen, pretending that once, things weren't a certain way. And I think that's wrong.

Amadan said:

But I do think there is a persuasive case to be made that having a bunch of white kids, say, in a classroom with only a couple of black classmates, reading the word "nigger" aloud over and over, has the potential to be an extremely uncomfortable, possibly disastrous, experience.

Click to expand...

True. It's odd, but we read Huck in 6th grade and there were a few black kids in the class and I don't recall being put off at all. It was just a word that was in a book we were assigned. I didn't draw a connection between it and my fellow students. Two were my friends; one my enemy. But not even the enemy, at all. The word remained a word in context of the novel only. Not sure how they themselves felt. Quite possibly uncomfortable. Thnx for the link and refresher, Roxxsmom.

As an adult, I've always been a purist. I like originals when it comes to books. I want to read them as the authors wrote them. As to racist terms, I can handle them in context of the times and stories. My two cents.

With sex in novels, I guess eliminating that has already had a term assigned to it: censorship. So no need for including that under the PC bracket, perhaps. You do have a point there though.

Poet of Gore said:

how about giving him a lisp? is that PC?

Click to expand...

Does he have a speech impediment? Otherwise, no it's a gay stereotype that doesn't hold up.

A lisp is a gay stereotype?

Truly, we learn something new each day.

It was terrible, outdated stereotype when Stephen King used it in The Library Policeman thirty years ago.

You mean there's something I'm too young to remember?

AWESOME!

Because I was sitting here thinking "I can think of four people with a lisp. Two of those are boxers. More like a boxer thing?...?????"

It would never even have occurred to me to equate lisp with gay.

Mr Flibble said:

A lisp is a gay stereotype?

Truly, we learn something new each day.

Click to expand...

There's actually research on the issue of gay (male) speech styles and so on. It may be a very US culture specific thing. In fact, there is a style of speech some gay men have used in parts of the US, but it's not actually a lisp. Like any accent, attempts by outsiders to represent it in writing will likely be inaccurate and probably offensive. Hence the misconception of its being a lisp.

http://speech-language-therapy.com/...=article&id=62:code&catid=11:admin&Itemid=117

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~munso005/MunsonAndZimmerman.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_lisp

http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2011/07/gay-accents

A salutary lesson in -- how do you avoid a stereotype if you don't know it exists?

(Betas, obviously, but....betas are not all knowing founts of knowledge. Except mine, ofc)

My answer is "as applied to writing fiction." I haven't read all the comments yet but to answer the original question, I keep it in mind but don't 100% cater to it. A lot of what's PC depends on the time and place, for one thing, so it needs to fit that and also it needs to fit the characters.

Also, I think of the term "politically correct" as something that could characterize a silly person. To me, it sounds like someone who mouths the top few big issues of the day quite loudly. And... completely misses the other zillions of injustices or problems out there. The type of person who will just as easily take the exact opposite position on an issue if that becomes the fashionable thing, and who probably isn't even very interested in the issue but just wants to be seen as edgy or "in." Otherwise known as a "follower," and there are many of them out there. Or it could be used to show the idealism of a young person, or just done in an assumed, low key way to show people with good morals and intent, or applied in other ways to show characters' personalities.

But, there's nothing more boring than a story that reads like a goody-goody manual of up to the minute goody-goodiness, having everyone floss each night and load up their plates with vegetables because they want to set an example of "making healthy choices!" in their writing and so on, lol. It's art, not a public service announcement, right?

And in real life, people don't change like the wind, a good number of them don't know or care what the latest PC thinking is or would be somewhat stuck in the PC thoughts of the past. Even if they are aware and agree, an intelligent person (unless very young) would have seen what's PC come and go with the times so not be married to whatever it is today merely because that's what's highlighted today. They'd also recognize that certain things are always artificially emphasized over other causes that are just as worthy. And often, if it doesn't affect their life directly, even if they get it, they may not put all that much effort or thought into it. Other people may change what they say depending on who they're around.

On the other hand, of course we don't want to load up a story with characters who, to modern tastes, appear despicable and ignorant, unless that's what we mean to do for a reason. Or go about insulting people unintentionally just because we don't know something. It's always good to get feedback, from members of whatever particular group is in question if it's that kind of question. Another heavy-handed extreme is portraying a character who is not PC in every up to the minute way as the villain and loading them up with all kinds of extra evilness that they likely wouldn't possess in real life.

So... I can't really give a yes or no answer to the question as I understand it. It's definitely something to be aware of and consider how to handle, though. When you think about it, it gets pretty complicated when applied to fiction!

Fruitbat said:

Also, I think of the term "politically correct" as something that could characterize a silly person. To me, it sounds like someone who mouths the top few big issues of the day quite loudly. And... completely misses the other zillions of injustices or problems out there.

Click to expand...

And I think you've missed the point and are ridiculing a stereotype instead of considering the actual merits of the thing.

Politically correct language started out as nothing more than a desire to be kind to one's fellow human being -- and what exactly is silly about that impulse?

For example, the word "cripple" has all sorts of negative connotations attached to it, and a person in a wheelchair may deeply resent all that verbal baggage -- all those unfair, uncomplimentary implications -- being hung around their neck like a sign saying "Defective: consider useless". But what if "cripple" is the only word in the English language to describe a person in a wheelchair? What is a kind-hearted person to do if they don't want to insult to the person in the wheelchair just by speaking the only word the language provides?

Invent another word. There's nothing silly about that solution; it's a gentle and considerate one.

What you're really ridiculing are the people who do not comprehend the kindness aspect of it -- who leap down someone's throat for not saying the right word, and who fluff their own egos with a sense of superiority because they have a better grip on the "rules" than the person they're being obnoxious to. And yes, those people do harm and deserve to be called out for it -- their actions are direct opposition to the original intention of politically correct language.

But please, there's no movement so true or so noble that you can't find a few idiots who ascribe to it. Please draw a distinction between the actions of the idiots and what the movement is actually about.

Roxxsmom said:

I do wonder, though, where is all the conservative outrage when these special "cut" editions of movies are televised or when these altered to cut out the sex and swearing editions of other beloved classics are published?

Click to expand...

Why do you wonder? Is it any different when the liberals do it?

I sure don't think so. I'm outraged at ALL Political Correctness movements that seek to skewer arts in the name of protecting the sensibilities of any population's assinine efforts to be hurt.

Roxxsmom said:

Cutting the n word from a classic (because some people find it offensive) is an example of the evil PC police at work. But cutting swear words or sexytime jokes and references from a classic (because some people find such offensive) is not.

Why is that?

Click to expand...

Both *are* examples of Political Correctness.

robjvargas said:

Why do you wonder? Is it any different when the liberals do it?

I sure don't think so. I'm outraged at ALL Political Correctness movements that seek to skewer arts in the name of protecting the sensibilities of any population's assinine efforts to be hurt.

Both *are* examples of Political Correctness.

Click to expand...

I'm outraged at all these strawmen labelled 'political correctness' being thrashed in the name of The Yartz.

jjdebenedictis said:

And I think you've missed the point and are ridiculing a stereotype instead of considering the actual merits of the thing.....
But please, there's no movement so true or so noble that you can't find a few idiots who ascribe to it. Please draw a distinction between the actions of the idiots and what the movement is actually about.

Click to expand...

No, I didn't miss the point and am not ridiculing anything. The small part of my post that you quoted is one of several different commonly understood definitions of the term "politically correct" and it (and others I mentioned) can be found in the dictionary. Your response to my post does not answer anything that I stated. I was not arguing the point that you seem to have thought I was.

you know what, how is this even a question? if you are afraid to write what your novel has to be then why bother?

if your novel is not about putting mayonnaise on a piece of wonder bread, you are going to offend someone.

think about writing a book that will offend NO ONE. not just people you don't give a crap about offending, but anyone

Bret Easton Ellis is as fruity as a brony convention, but he says the F-word all the time.
people have to be offended. they have to see that something offends them and then start thinking why

don't you want to be pushed a bit out of your comfort zone when reading a book
i mean, you are reading a book, not getting a face tattoo

censoring yourself or any author is complete crap. it is a book. if you don't like it put it down. but if you are going to put it down because some derogatory name scares you then maybe a bubble could serve as a summer home for you.

now, back to reading Marquis de Sade.....oh, that's just nasty.

Sometimes true art offends because it has to in order to tell the truth.

Sometimes people are just assholes who are too lazy to examine their preconceptions of the world and attempt to justify their laziness by shouting about political correctness.

Don't be the latter.

Poet of Gore said:

Bret Easton Ellis is as fruity as a brony convention,

Click to expand...

Intentional or not, here's an example of why trying to be politically correct to the reasonable definition of the term is not a bad thing.

Being self-aware of yourself, other people, and how it all comes together is never a negative thing.

Poet of Gore said:

think about writing a book that will offend NO ONE. not just people you don't give a crap about offending, but anyone

Bret Easton Ellis is as fruity as a brony convention, but he says the F-word all the time.
people have to be offended. they have to see that something offends them and then start thinking why

don't you want to be pushed a bit out of your comfort zone when reading a book
i mean, you are reading a book, not getting a face tattoo

Click to expand...

Actually, people read for a lot of different reasons, and some people do want "comfort reads," at least sometimes. I don't mind a book that's offensive or disturbing if that serves its purpose (and it's what I'm in the mood to read), but no, I don't necessarily go looking for books to offend me and push me out of my comfort zone. Maybe my comfort zone is space opera and that's what I want to read. Or maybe I'm not in the mood for having my head messed with and I just want a nice Jane Austen.

Obviously, you don't need to address those readers, but I find the idea that it's not art if it's not offending people pretty silly, to be honest.