|
|
|
|
Like many jokes, the question, "When midgets play miniature golf, do they know it?" is funny to some, insensitive to others but above all, it is a profound probe into perception. How do people whose lives we cannot share see the world? Can we understand differences we refuse to admit exist?
Does being politically correct lead to bland writing? Do we sometimes use sex & violence to spark readers' interest because the real truths are off limits?
As a writer, do you avoid being insensitive? To what extent do you think a publisher would avoid insensitive writing?
|
|
Joined: 11/17/2011
Posts: 1016
|
The first thing that comes to mind is Tobacco Road, which I recently reread. It portrays poor Southerners in a very unflattering way and is widely damned for it.
But it is such a caricature, and so sensational (I'm thinking in terms of the period in which it was written) that I don't know how anyone can take it seriously. And it is beautifully written.
The only thing that truly bothered me about it is how anyone, no matter how dumb, would let old Jeeter load the back seat of a brand new automobile up with logs.
Tobacco Road was written thoughtlessly, perhaps, but not maliciously. At worst, it is a tasteless joke. But it is not the business of a writer to be genial and inoffensive.
I think we have to deal with this on a case by case basis, as with the range of material that gets lumped together by some rigid thinkers as pornography.
Certain hotspots do, of course, need to be handled carefully. Be very sure that you have something important to say.
|
|
Joined: 8/13/2011
Posts: 272
|
In any conversation like this, It's worth remembering the train-wreck that was Saving the Pearls.
For those not in the know, this was a YA dystopia pulled from Amazon's self-published ranks and and supported by Weird Tales, a very big SF magazine. At which point, quite a few readers stuck their hands up and went 'you have read this, right?'
The problem was simple: Saving the Pearls comes off as so ridiculously racist you hope it's a parody. Apparently, If you've read it, the book is a plea for tolerance, but much of the imagery and advertising, which includes the ever-subtle blackface, damned to many peoples' eyes.
In general, I'd say that you have to make sure that while the characters and world aren't PC, the story is. But that's not good practice, it's good writing. Subverting expectations and challenging perceptions is what writing's all about after all.
|
|
Joined: 4/27/2011
Posts: 608
|
I think it all depends on what you mean by "politically correct", G.D.
If you mean that the writer, in portraying a variety of different ethnicities, orientations, genders, ages, political and religio-philosophical outlooks should strive to be as fair-minded, forthright and truthful to his characters and their individual life stories and motivations as possible, then yes—I’m all for “political correctness.”
But if you mean to ask whether or not all examples of a “type” must, ever and always, exemplify the best and brightest (or conversely, the absolute worst) of whatever balkanized ethnic group, sexual orientation, gender, chronological age, political party or religio-philosophical group (or subgroup, or sub-subgroup) the character is supposed to represent to the reader, then no—I would condemn this kind of “political correctness” in the strongest possible terms. It seems to me that if a writer puts on this kind of ideological straight-jacket when he or she writes the result will be the crudest kind of stereotyping and cipher-making and not the creation of fully-realized, multi-dimensional characters who live on in hearts and minds long after great books are closed.
....................................................
For a slightly different take on the subject, Joseph Duemer writes (in his personal weblog about poetry, teaching & other topics at target="_blank">http://www.sharpsand.net/2011/01/29/some-thoughts-on-politically-correct-language/":
I know, I know, this is such a remnant of the culture wars & a silly remnant at that. Why return to the subject now, when all language seems drained of significance? One hardly ever encounters arguments about “political correctness” except among jejune undergraduates, usually but not always boys & usually but not always “conservatives.” I wouldn’t bring it up except that the subject has rippled to the surface several times in conversations with students I would have thought more sophisticated.
“Why do you always say ‘he or she’,” I’ve been asked. Or, a student has asserted, “I don’t go in for all that politically correct language.”
As a poet, my response is ambivalent. I want to agree with students who resent the machinery of social control telling them that they cannot call a dickhead a dickhead or a mean-spirited bitch, well, a mean-spirited, soul-killing bitch. On the other hand, if by “politically correct language” one means gender neutrality or the avoidance of racial or sexual slurs designed to wound or marginalize individuals or groups, then I am in favor of politically correct language.
Context, of course, is crucial. Members of a marginalized group may turn oppressive language against the oppressor; lovers may say to each other in private what they would not say in public; one may put into a poem or story languages one would not usually use in the lecture hall or lunchroom. I conclude that my students have glommed onto the right-wing media meme about leftist educators trying to impose conformity — if they have thought about it even that much — and employed it as a shield against thinking. Thinking always involves dispensing with universals (slogans) and engaging with ambiguity & change (contexts).
|
|
Joined: 6/28/2011
Posts: 188
|
I don't believe that writers have any obligation to avoid hurting anyone's feelings through offensive language, so long as the writer is cognizant of the potential for offense and has some greater purpose in using that language. As an example, I'd cite the furor over the use of "retard" in the movie "Tropic Thunder." There is absolutely nothing in the movie that makes fun of mentally disadvantaged people. The entire segment in which the term comes up is a searing mockery not of people with cognitive impairments, but of actors. It's a deliberate indictment of pretentious thespians who seek to aggrandize themselves by exploiting a minority group -- and it's also an indictment of audiences who see nobility in a certain kind of performance despite their discomfort with the reality that lies behind the fictional portrayal.
If writers (and artists in general) are not allowed to venture into offensive territory in search of meaning, it becomes very difficult to turn a mirror onto realities that are themselves offensive.
|
|
|
|
Carl, what about reality? It exists within the context of a story on two levels. There's fictional reality -whatever the author wishes - and facts, which are true whether anybody likes it or not. Timothy Maguire is right, good writing can make nasty truths clear without being offensive. But Herb Mallette is also right to say writers are under no obligation to do so if their purpose demands harshness. Mimi's no doubt right about Tobacco Road being widely condemned today. But I walked those roads in the '60s and Erskine Caldwell wrote more truth than caricature.
Political correctness has always been with us, albeit under different names -heresy comes to mind. And it always covers up what it forbids. Maybe we no longer argue it because we internalized it. We no longer make the old groups our villains, but we create new ones to substitute. Our bad guys are now aliens, supernatural creatures, mythic heroes, the politically marginalized or just plain crazies. And we treat them the same.
I don't object to current literature. It's alive and well. But most of our stories veer so far from real life today that they become predictable, mere ways to pass time. I think we'd be well served by a handful of writers who saw clearly and wrote honestly.
|
|
Joined: 4/30/2011
Posts: 662
|
Oh, being PC. I hate those words "political correctness." They're a bit like an oxymoron, but this isn't what this discussion is about.
In my last semester before I graduated, I took a class from one of the foremost experts on Mark Twain's writings. So naturally we read Huckleberry Finn, and you know what that means. Someone brought up the removal of the N-word from the text. When I was taking this class, the decision to remove the above mentioned offensive word was still big news. My professor was getting really tired of the phone calls from the media, so he told us what he really thought of the decision.
The point to his argument was that Huck is merely repeating something his degenerate father would say since he is easily influenced by the adults around him. In that time period, the N-word was a common part of the American language. Huck never uses it to hurt or offend anyone, especially Jim. He views Jim as a friend and it never occurs to him that such a pergorative term would be hurtful to him. Just because it is offensive today does not mean it should be removed. If anything, it is just a part of Huck's characterization as it is part of the setting. In other words: removing it was stupid. People were simply too lazy to explain it to children who were exposed to it.
By the way, the class was on humor. What can get any less PC than that?
My point is, that offensive words or things that aren't PC are sometimes that little hard truth that the world a writer is using, but it's important that the writer themselves is cautious with what they say. The characters can be the ones who use their words to cause pain, as long as the writer makes it clear that they themselves do not intend what they've written.
Don't know if that makes sense. Dog barking. A bit distracted.
|
|
Joined: 4/27/2011
Posts: 608
|
@GD: I think the reading public has been well-served by writers who "saw clearly and wrote honestly." The problem is that they tend to kill themselves.
I'm not sure I entirely understand what it is that you're driving at. “Political correctness"—like definitions of what constitutes pornography or “gratuitous violence”—oftentimes lies in the eye of the beholder, yes?
I answered as honestly and thoughtfully as I could. But I distrust the question. (“Your honor, he’s leading the witness!”) Mark Twain, Toni Morrison, George Orwell, Harlan Ellison—my god, just about every writer of note (high-brow or low-brow, master or mistress of commercial genres or “interpretive literature”) has been attacked at one time or another for offending sensibilities. That’s a given, isn’t it? Political correctness = bad; damn near 100% of us agree. So where’s the argument? The area of disagreement? Just what is it that we are talking about, and why?
I think you want red meat to further the discussion. Alright; I’ll take the bait.
Here’s a longer take on the issue:
When a right-winger starts bending my ear about “political correctness” I cut them off as soon as I can and say: “What is it you want to say that you feel you can’t say? Let’s fast-forward to the end here; just say it already! Out with it. Enough whining; speak! But know this—if what is about to come out of your mouth is outrageously racist, homophobic, misogynistic—or needlessly and thoughtlessly cruel to a particular people or culture—I may very well tell you so. You ‘hating on a motherfucka’ because of their race, gender, religion, orientation, etc.—and me telling you that what you just said is vile and disgusting isn’t ‘political correctness’; it’s you being a dick and me calling you on it. You want to know what ‘political correctness’ is, pal? Talk to writers who ran afoul of McCarthy and his HUAC-era black list. Talk to a self-professed atheist in—oh, just about anywhere in America today. Talk to a bisexual man or woman who has to put up with endless crap from both camps; gay and straight. Walk in those shoes for awhile and then come back and moan to me about how your white-privileged, hetero-Christian male ass is suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune. O, woe is me!—I can’t use n-word and gay slurs and c-word and [insert your favorite slur here] as freely and easily as I used to. That is to say—you certainly can but don’t want to take the heat for having done so. Which makes you not only a brainstem and a bigot but a coward.”
On the other hand—or should I say political camp?—I become equally annoyed and irritated when certain kinds of crusading lefties (FYI: I consider myself a card-carrying socialist and fighting progressive—because I is) mangle language, reason and reality (horrible outcomes) in pursuit of social and economic justice (laudable goals); tell me I can never criticize a particular man or woman because of their race, gender, religion, politics, etc.; conflate science with male patriarchy whilst elevating mysticism (“alternate ways of knowing”) to a higher intellectual and spiritual plane as a better, truer means by which to apprehend reality and our ultimate place in the cosmos. I grow exasperated and annoyed when people who should know better (there’s my lefty bias showing—I expect more cogent thought, tolerance and fairness from the left than I do the right) condemn people like E. O. Wilson for daring to suggest that sociobiology (evolution, genetics, ethology) might shed revealing light on human behavior; I roll my eyes at nonsensical, ugly and a-historical formulations like “her-story” as a suggested (or classroom-mandated) replacement for the word “history” (while noting that feminists have a very real and valid point to make—history, in the main, has been extremely cruel, patriarchal and sexist in its attempt to efface, minimize, distort or otherwise erase the contributions great female artists, philosophers and politicians have made to world culture); I am weary and wary unto death of the kind of thought-police/social critic person who would make comedy less funny, language less truthful and life less interesting, variegated and colorful.
I hope you find this answer more satisfactory and elaborative.
The short answer to the question: "Need a writer be politically-correct?" is: of course not! The longer answer is: but good luck getting published if you are a liberal writer submitting your manuscript to a conservative editor—or the reverse—or your stuff is racist, hateful dreck which deserves to go unremarked and unnoticed.
@LeeAnna: I agree! Love Mark Twain! His satire is as funny, fresh, acid-tongued, biting and relevant as the day he wrote it—maybe more so. I’d comment at greater length but GD has exhausted me, LeeAnna. The clever dog has enticed me into spending three hours writing and re-writing my answer to him and once again I’ve using up the energy I’d intended for fictive pursuits; an activity I thought would take but a moment’s time has drained Carl's brain and crippled me poor, crook'd typing fingers!
|
|
Joined: 4/30/2011
Posts: 662
|
@Carl: No problem. I've been thinking that one of my characters might be considered offensive to some people. You're familiar with her darling personality. And I've come to realize that I wouldn't change a thing about her.
Of course, I find sparkling vampires offensive. See, you never know what might set a person off. I actually think I got too much sun exposure today. That might explain the itching ear and irritability. I hate nice days and love them all at the same time. But that's not entirely relevant now, is it?
I'm loving this conversation. Moar please!
|
|
Joined: 5/25/2011
Posts: 121
|
2₵ time! Not much to add after Carl steps in (although I will point out, Carl [how ya been?], that if you were from a real city, instead of a little insignificant burg on a Midwestern lake, you’d know that the correct pronunciation is ‘muhthafucka’ J). Be that as it may, the entire PC nonsense is a function of social engineering denying context and social evolution. The social engineer proclaims, “We must show respect for all! So ban derogatory terms. If these words are excised from the vocabulary of the people all will be treated equally and with respect!” (I, of course, sitting in the back of the room raise my hand and ask, “But what if I make up a new one, Mr. Pocohole?”). The big problem is that if we change the past in our books, we lose insight into the worst of human behavior (and leave ourselves open to repeating it? Mr. Orwell, why are you smiling?). Consider Quentin Tarantino’s current movie “Django.” (Let me point out I’m not a big Tarantino fan. I firmly believe that if he had directed “Schindler’s List” he would have cast Bugs Bunny as Schindler.) Tarantino has received a lot of flack for excessive use of “nigger.” He rightly points out that this movie takes place in 1858, in the SOUTH (although I find his response fascinating since he doesn’t mind anachronistic firearms which allow him to present his usual blood-bath). Somehow, replacing “Let the dogs tear that nigger up!” with “Let the dogs tear that African American gentleman up!” loses some of its historical bite. Remember, the first step in war is dehumanizing the enemy: Vietnamese were “slopes,” Iraqis “sand-niggers.” So the use of derogatory terms is very important to our understanding of human nature. It’s also a bit like the complaints about the movie “Downfall” which depicted Hitler’s final days. Some were very concerned that humanizing Hitler made him a sympathetic character. Sympathetic? Hitler??? I found it more a warning that there are no cartoonish monsters out there – just real people who are monsters (Think of Saddam Hussein ordering the deaths of thousands while sitting and writing romance novels – go figure). Which lesson is more important? As most have noted, there is a big difference between presenting a character in a story who is racist, sexist, whatever, and writing a racist, sexist, whatever, diatribe. The same can be said for gratuitous language or violence (Mr. Tarantino?), versus language and violence at a level which depicts the time, place and characters you are trying to present. To be a good writer, it can sometimes be a fine line to walk, especially when different readers put the line in different places. Oh well, maybe that was 3₵. J Thanks for starting another great thread GD.
|
|
Joined: 4/27/2011
Posts: 608
|
@Tom: GD does start provocative discussion threads, don't he? :::grin::: More power to him.
I slapped my head the same way you did when I read that "people-might-like-Hitler-now-if-they-see-him-as-a-sociopathic, physically-wasted-and-wrecked-human being" nonsense. How Orwell would have howled at that! "No, you can't have the truth; we don't trust you with it." Like you, I found this man/monster more chilling (didn't think that was even possible) after viewing Downfall.
I wish I could find the pertinent Stephen King passages where he talks about this subject of PC-dom; I don't have the resources near at hand. Briefly, then (and paraphrased from memory) he said: "I've written characters who were gay, straight, religious, non-religious, male, female, etc. Some were right bastards, some heroic and noble, most 'just folks'--flawed, struggling, confused human beings trying to do the right thing. Yet it never fails; I'll get mail that says, 'Why is it you always portray a _____ character as _____?' Never mind the fact that my extended body of work proves that I don't; in their minds I've committed some heinous, unforgivable sin by portraying a certain type in a manner they disaprove of. I got more hate mail because of that scene at the beginning of the Dead Zone where my sociopathic politican kicks a dog to death than anything else I've ever done. Folks, it was just words! I don't condone kicking dogs to death; I portrayed that event--very briefly--to show the reader just how psychotic, violent and evil my bad guy was." [Apologies, SK, for reproducing your words from memory so inelegantly.]
|
|
Joined: 6/28/2011
Posts: 188
|
Carl, I think you did a great job capturing the respective monomanias of the right and the left on this issue. In both cases, I think the problematic accusations spring from the same place: an obsession with righteousness that causes people to look for offense instead of contemplating the actual content before them.
This attitude renders all attempts to police language futile, because the eye that looks for offense will find it, no matter what effort is made to avoid giving it.
|
|
Joined: 5/25/2011
Posts: 121
|
Quick 1₵. How often have you heard cries of: “How dare they defame/insult/belittle/defile us and our beliefs with that utterly horrible, pornographic movie/book/song/television show!” ? And how often, when asked if they had read/watched/listed to it, has the response been: “Of course not, I won’t read/watch/listen to that garbage!”? Human nature! Unfortunately, sigh!, there’s no Martian Book of the Month Club to submit your work to (and if there is just make sure you don’t accidentally defame U’lsdkfhjasde’z and his sacred droppings). J
|
|
|
|
@Carl  uh, What was that middle part again?
Herb is exactly right though, "...you did a great job capturing the respective monomanias of the right and the left on this issue." You are uniquely qualified to write serious blogs for both extremes, the right and the left. But use pseudonyms.
LeeAnna's "little hard truth" is something that I suspect has always been a part of human nature and still is.
@Tom: You Wrote: "“But what if I make up a new one, Mr. Pocohole?”)." Exactly! We make up new words and invent new groups to use them on. It changes nothing to decry pejoratives used against the old out-of-the-mainstream groups because we quickly replace them with new groups to use new pejoratives on. So the question evolves. Why do we do that? (Oh, and, um, dunno about everyone else but I'd enjoy reading more about "U’lsdkfhjasde’z and his sacred droppings." Although I havta say that sounds more like a Carl E. Reed short story
|
|
Joined: 4/27/2011
Posts: 608
|
@GD: Re: Oh, and, um, dunno about everyone else but I'd enjoy reading more about "U’lsdkfhjasde’z and his sacred droppings." Although I havta say that sounds more like a Carl E. Reed short story
Heh-heh!
|
|
Joined: 4/22/2012
Posts: 175
|
Ooh! *rubs hands gleefully together* Good discussion, GD.
@Carl - Holy moly, I am stealing your response to conservative bigotry. Might come in handy with the mother-in-law. ;-P
Personally, I'm pretty much in the same boat as everyone here. Any story, I think, let alone a good story, has to have parts that are uncomfortable or even downright offensive. There's no conflict, no point, if everyone gets along, is there? It doesn't mean the whole plot has to be offensive, but if you want your characters to come across as human, they've gotta have flaws in their interactions with other characters and their environment. Apologies, as I've forgotten already who said this, but I agree with the commenter who previously posted that writing a politically correct depiction of a given character is making a caricature out of their demographics, and I'll add, that is no better than eliminating political correctness from your characters' interactions entirely. "Positive" racism, such as Bill O'Reilly's questionable remark recently that Asians are not liberal by nature and are usually more industrious and hardworking, is still racism. Judging by the reactions from Hawaii, positive stereotyping can be just as offensive as negative stereotyping. And again, if you avoid doing either and have characters that walk the line and are careful not to offend or hurt one another...where's your story??
|
|
Joined: 6/14/2012
Posts: 194
|
Some points I haven't seen made (but I may have missed them) that seem relevant.
Writers can do whatever they damn well please--they can be rude, abrasive, ignorant, vicious, insulting, arrogant, stubborn, and so on and so on. What they should not do is be unwilling to take responsibility for what they wrote. You can say it--and readers can respond to it. If you use abusive language (which is what some mean by "politically correct), some readers will cheer you on (they share your bias) and some readers will rip you a new one (they don't.) You have a right to write it. They have a right to hate it. Given the state of things, you will find your natural audience with people who think like you do, as revealed by your work. If you find that you're being read by people who make your skin crawl (whoever that is) and not by people you wish read you....consider a change. Otherwise, shrug and go on.
As with other parts of your writing, consider that anything you feel particularly proud of and smug about is likely to be one of those "darlings" you should kill. Whether it's fulsome praise or epithet-laced insult...if you're gloating and bouncing in your seat about having had the daring to write it--it's probably chopped liver that's been sitting in the sun too long. (Personally, I hate killing my darlings. They are marvelous, brilliant, 24k gold studded with diamonds darlings and I expect them to flash in the eyes of all...but experience says...pluck them out of the page and drop them into electronic limbo.)
The test is whether whatever it is--the perfect metaphor or the perfect slam--actually contributes to the story. Or not. It is something that just gets you clever points, or does it move things along.
Conflict does not require either blatant "political incorrectness" or avoidance of it. I don't write stories devoid of conflict (understatement.) There's always conflict, and always more than one level of conflict and more than one source of conflict. Action to angst and back again. But I'm rarely accused of being politically incorrect in depicting these conflicts.
One reason is my choice of genres: it is not necessary to recapitulate exactly the same set of features in SF/F as in real life. In fact, by not doing so, it's possible to clarify how the story relates to (or doesn't) the real world. It's much easier to dig into background issues (the effect of economic inequality on health and life span, and the feedback that increases economic inequality, for instance) without the front-and-center stage-dressing of current arguments.
But that's one writer's choice. I want to dig into issues I see as "plot drivers' in the real world, but in the background, not nearly as openly discussed as others. You may not. But the thing is, when I am slammed for something (oh, the Texas conservatives furious with me for the New Texas Godfearing Militia!) I'm not surprised, intimidated, or enraged. I poked the mule with a sharp stick: it kicked. Big surprise. If you poke the mule--or the tiger--and it takes a swipe at you--you have no right to be surprised, or insulted, or feel that life is unfair. On the other hand, if you make a career of doing nothing but poking mules and tigers...you're playing the same simple game over and over. It's easy to make people mad and then feel superior to them. It's harder to write books that help people think for themselves and consider what they really care about.
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Elizabeth: "Writers can do whatever they damn well please .... What they should not do is be unwilling to take responsibility for what they wrote." Perfectly stated
|
|
Joined: 4/27/2011
Posts: 608
|
I'm glad Elizabeth and Nicki joined the conversation. I hope others will join in as well. Come on; don't be shy, people! GD invited us all to the party.
Or as Ted Nugent might scream: "It's a free-for-all!"
.....................................
Related question: Anyone care to share their thoughts on the great Spike Lee vs. Quentin Tarantino Django Unchained controversy?
The best nuanced review and thoughtful, yet ballsy commentary I've read on this issue so far (full disclosure: I have not yet seen the film) was written by Eric Deggans and posted on Salon.com Dec. 27th:
...................................
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/27/tarantino_is_the_baddest_black_filmmaker_working_today/"
................................................
An African-American screenwriter friend of mine marveled at Tarantino’s accomplishment while at a “Django” screening with so few black people watching they could be counted on the fingers of one hand. This almost entirely white audience was laughing and cheering as a black man mowed down one white asshole after another, taking out men too venal, stupid or entitled to admit how much of their world was built on the blood and pain of black slaves.
Making white people cheer the death of white supremacy? To paraphrase a recent controversial monologue by the film’s star: How black is that?
But Quentin Tarantino isn’t black. And that is a fact which has stuck in the craw of many who look askance at this jittery, superstar film geek who has no problem putting the word “nigger” in the mouth of a character if it serves his purposes.
|
|
Joined: 4/26/2011
Posts: 77
|
What one wrote playfully, another reads with tension and passion; what one wrote with tension and passion, another reads playfully.
-- Paul Valery
|
|
Joined: 4/26/2011
Posts: 77
|
Since my protagonist is named Django and since I'm trying to write about hominid slavery, I'll say another word or two.
An issue which surfaced recently for me was the use of what might be construed as "black dialect" by one of the ape slaves. I'm sure its basis lies in my experience of such dialects in the South, where I grew up. Is this "racist"? In any case, I can't seem to make up a dialect out of whole cloth.
And, of course, one point of the work is to draw on the American experience of slavery and racial conflict for inspiration. It's a rich source.
Another issue is what to have the slavers call their slaves. I've been fumbling for something reminiscent of "nigger," but I haven't come up with anything. I've thought about just appropriating that ugly pejorative for use by the future slavers, since in my story, human racism is dead; it's been completely subsumed by inter-species hate. But that strikes me as lazy.
|
|
Joined: 5/25/2011
Posts: 121
|
Carl, re: Django. Maybe only Nixon could go to China. As I mentioned earlier, Tarantino takes atrocity and wraps it in a Looney Tunes cartoon and, of course, runs out of all colors but red by the end. That’s art. When Spielberg released Schindler’s List in 1993, it didn’t crack the 100 million mark at the box office. Jurassic Park (same year) went over 300 mill. I suspect that if Spike Lee had made a serious movie about an escaped slave trying to find his wife with the help of a sympathetic white guy (while graphically illustrating the true horrors of slavery) it would have played in theaters that were emptier than an outdoor soccer stadium during a blizzard (angry black guy movie!). ₰ A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down… ₰ It sure a shell ain’t sugar, but maybe Tarantino has found a way to give the poor, history challenged bozos out there a history lesson. To some degree he’s taken the comic relief bits and made them the center of the movie while flashing the audience pictures from hell they might not otherwise look at. Same for his Jewish fantasy: Inglorious Basterds. I’m still not a fan. I guess I’m too familiar with history to need a court jester to expose his bum and fart while standing on the corpse of someone who was tortured to death in order to notice how horrible torture is. I wonder if Tarantino’s fans realize that’s what he’s doing.
|
|
|
|
I hope we don't have to be politically correct in our writing. I'm likely the least PC person on the planet in real life. Now, I could probably pull off, to a degree, a PC character. But a whole work? HAHA right.
|
|
Joined: 4/30/2011
Posts: 662
|
Mari, so far I don't have a single "balanced" woman in my WIP. I have one planned, but not till the next book. I often wonder how other women might accept my book because of it. Then I realized there isn't room for a woman who isn't cynical, has sociopathic tendencies, or is just plain evil in my world at this moment. It's not that kind of scenario.
Okay, I lied. I introduce a pretty well adjusted lady at the end, but not soon enough to get to know her.
What I'm trying to say is sometimes you just have to go with it and then see what people say. So far I've been lucky. No one has really criticized me for not being PC because I try to let all the characters have their own voices and ideas. I even had one reviewer say that I use stereotypes sparingly, but effectively. In essence, show the reader that the author isn't trying to insert themselves into the story.
|
|
|
|
I've not been criticized - so far - for not being PC, thank the gods.
|
|
Joined: 1/18/2013
Posts: 1
|
I've always equated the idea of being politically correct with censorship, so I'm certainly not going to stifle my speech nor expression on any level. I've stood tall and proud in declaring that I am E.O.O. certified, and as such consider it my responsibility to be an Equal Opportunity Offender. It's in those grey areas that we find the commonalities of life that bring us and our stories together.
|
|
Joined: 8/21/2011
Posts: 394
|
Lots of good material in this thread to mull over.
While I agree that as a society we should be more "politically correct" (I should interject, however, that I never liked that phrase), we just aren't there yet. Sometimes I wonder if we'll ever reach the point where no group is belittled. We seem to have an excellent track record of replacing one group with the next; of coming up with new derogatory terms to pepper our speech with.
I'm old enough to remember the race riots that hit Philadelphia in the late '60s. Remember watching one of them from the living room window. Those riots were between black and white students at the nearby high school. More than 40 years later, at the same school, there was more racial strife: this time between the immigrant Asian students and the African American students.
On MLK day, I participated in an art project at the National Museum of American Jewish History. One of the lead-in questions we had the kids thinks about was "Why is it important to learn about other cultures?" Their answers were amazing. My favorite: "To make more friends." These were very young children - all races, all nationalities, varying socioeconomic backgrounds - that were united by art and their innocence. Maybe, by the time they get into high school, "race riot" will be something they only read about in their history or sociology books.
But I digress.
Should writers be politically correct? How can we be? One of our roles is that of a mirror to society (past, present, and, yes, future). A mirror surrounded by that harsh lighting that shows every single damn flaw. The world we live in and the people who live in it are flawed. The worlds and characters we create need to be flawed, too, if they're going to speak to the reader.
Should the "N-word" be removed from Mark Twain's work? Hell, no! Should Tarantino not have used it in his movie? Again, no (not a Tarantino fan). For that matter, should all the slurs be removed from Shakespeare? If a writer is creating a racist, misogynistic character, then that character had better come off as racist and misogynistic - both in his (or her) language and actions.
On a personal note: I'm Sicilian (both sets of grandparents came from the same region of Sicily). During a period of time in the '80s, there was a series of mob hits in my part of the city. I worked at the library while in college and, inevitably, after a hit, someone would jokingly ask me, "Was that a relative of yours?" I'd laugh it off; then get a little ticked off. Then came "The Sopranos" and the constant "What do you mean you don't watch it? You're Italian, aren't you?" So, I watched it one night. Hated it. Thought it exploited every stereotype out there with respect to the mob and Italian Americans. Did I go on a letter-writing spree and belittle anyone I knew who watched it? No. It was a fictional TV series that reflected a segment of the Italian-American culture. What really offended me (and still does) is the simple fact that there are still bozos out there who want to be mobsters; that there are still people in the neighborhoods around me who are "capos" and "soldiers" with nicknames like Mickey the Nose and Tony Two Thumbs. The guy on trial now is Joseph "Mousie" Massimino. Mousie. . .
Politically correct? Language is a living, evolving, vibrant, colorful creature that reflects society. We can no more whitewash our language as we can our society.
|
|
|
|
This is the way I feel about being "politically correct" ~ I'm not "sight impaired" - I'm effing blind. That's the long and the short of it.
|
|
Joined: 1/18/2013
Posts: 1
|
Depends.
"On what?" you say.
The truth of the matter is: If you want to sell a piece of work, and the editor or publisher requires it, then you pretty much must be as PC as required.
On the other hand, are we talking about fiction or non-fiction?
As a self-published fiction writer- which is different than a fictional writer, which some of my friends say I am - I have pretty much written whatever comes to mind. Short of letting it get unnecessarily dirty or gross, my writer's constitution (unwritten, at this writing) won't let me be PC. My day job requires that my day personality be completely PC. These days, that's the workplace! Almost as boring as Windows 8. When I sit down at the old Windows 7, after a long day of holding my tongue, I like to let it rip. Nothing's going to stop me.
Thinking of whether I should write something or not, and in what context, is akin to writer's block. There's no flow if you're inhibited by some imagined obligation to tailor the words to be the least possible offense to the biggest possible audience.
Nobody in this world learns anything without an offense. If I tell you you dress like a slob, you may go on dressing like a slob, but you may also be motivated to learn what parts of your wardrobe make you appear so. If you tell me I dress like a slob, I may wonder why, or I may say, "Thank you very much, my good person. It's what I was going for." Both sides learn something in the process.
I say, "Offend away!" The world will let you know when you've crossed the line.
|
|
Joined: 11/11/2012
Posts: 13
|
I think about being politically correct like I think about the old saying of "what is pornography?" Answer: "I'm not sure, but I know it when I see it." Same thing goes for being PC. If someone says, "I'm not a racist", it means they're probably a racist.You just know it when you see it. If you don't know it when you see it, then you are probably not reading whatever we are writing; probably don't read much anyway. And in that case, I most likely won't be swayed by what you think, one way or another.
|
|
|
|