Should an author use language that is historically accurate or politically correct?
May 2, 2007 by Lillie
David Bowles has a post at Writing the Westward Sagas on Political Correctness vs. Historical Accuracy.
I am David’s editor, and we have been trying to decide whether or not to use certain terms that would have been used by his characters at the time but are now considered offensive.
Another book I’m editing also faces the same challenge. Like David’s books, this other book tells the story of the author’s ancestors. Since his ancestors were slaves, it would be difficult to describe their lives without using the words they were called. Obviously the author would not be using the words offensively, because the book is a tribute to his family.
What do you think? Should an author remain true to history and use the language of the times or should he tell his story without using words that would offend someone today?
[tags]biased language, political correctness, historical accuracy[/tags]
A difficult situation. Honestly, I would not be offended by the language used in a historical setting… especially if I know the author doesn’t use it simply for shock value.
At the same time I think if the books can be written without using such language, more power to those involved. But if the books lose impact or accuracy for not doing so… then use them.
Thanks, Sincerity. Someone made a comment to David’s post that suggested putting a kind of disclaimer in the front of the book, explaining that certain words are used to be historically accurate. That may be a good option. We’re not talking about these words on every page, but an occasional use in specific situations that wouldn’t be the same without them.
I say write the disclaimer up front in an author’s note, and use the words. It’s important to use them, because by glossing it over, you lose the impact of how negative that stuff war.
It’s like writing about a war where nobody gets hurt. Makes it easy to romanticize.
I think that’s what we’ll do. Thanks, Charles.
I think the disclaimer is probably your best option, although personally, I would opt to use historically accurate language, except where it might be offensive and simply change the few places where it isn´t appropriate.
Thanks for your thoughts, At Home Mom! There aren’t a lot of places that “offensive” words are used, and not a lot of words, and I really think they need to be there.
Many novels, stories, non-fiction books bend (or break) history, the truth, and all that, for the sake of being non-offensive, or non-controversial, or making more money. However, refraining from using language that’s now “offensive” is changing history, is censoring yourself, is a political decision.
Obviously, from the point of view of historical truth, of free speech, of not giving into to politically-correct whims, changing the language-in-question is a defeat.
So, really, it depends on why you’d want to make the decision: it won’t help the book, it might help sales or appease the gods.
…but, if you’re going to put in a disclaimer, just leave the language out!
Thanks for your comment, Aureliusz. Something to think about -use the language or don’t use it, but don’t be wishy-washy.
Historically correct should win out – especially if one wants to get the culture of the times across. Perhaps in this instance the reader SHOULD be offended.
Good point, The Barrow-Wight. People need to understand history as it really happened.
If you’re presenting it in the context of history, I believe you should be historically accurate. It does no one any good to whitewash history.
Thanks, Lisa. I’m glad to see most people agree. David was getting a little concerned when he was told not to use “offensive” language. He’s really committed to historical accuracy.
I agree with Sincerity and others on this. History should not be cleaned up but at the same time it shouldn’t be for shock value. Unfortunately this too is difficult because most of us would be shocked if we knew the truth about our history. I mean by this that history has already been glossed over a lot — so when an author writes in a historically accurate manner, it may have no option but to appear shocking.
-Jason, from Ask Jason
Thanks, Jason. You’re right that too often history has been glossed over. We can’t learn from the past if we don’t know the past.
The value of historical writing is that it tells us what really was. Unless we know exactly what really was it’s difficult to appreciate what it meant to live in those times. Advising your client to soften the language would only weaken the message. If the reality of history is offensive, that’s only more reason to avoid repeating it. Exposing the disrespect that was rampant in former days may go a long way toward building respect today.
Thanks for your comment, Mark. I’m glad to see the consensus is to be historically accurate.
Politically correct language is just all sorts of failure. To be vauge, convoluted, or wrong just so you can avoid offending people is never a good idea. What if I said I was offended by politically correct writing? To avoid offending me, you would have to be historically accurate. See how everybody wins?
Dylan,
That’s a great example of being offended by politically correct writing! Thanks for the input.
If you want a book to fit the historical setting then you should write it how it was.
Thanks, David, for your comment and agreement that history should be presented as it really happened.
Please do not sugar coat history to match todays standards. The truth must trump people feelings, always.
Mark,
Both of my clients remained true to history in their books.