Writing about writing, (instead of actually writing.)

[eglantine_br]

When a person is writing about the past, especially fiction, especially dialog, there is a temptation to go one of two ways. Either you find yourself sliding into 'ye olde timey pirate talk, arrg," or you render everything modern and strip the past away. It is hard to get the balance. (At least for me, maybe those of you who have done it more or

Comments

[julian_griffith]

The c-word is a REALLY TOUGH one for a modern American writer to use comfortably in historical dialogue. It would just have been anatomical, for them, a tad vulgar, but no more than "cock" or "prick," which I now write without the least blush, after years of Naughty Fanfic. But it's become so hateful, in modern American parlance, that only someone with nerves of steel can do it correctly for the characters.

I can't. My viscount would have used the word easily himself, but I rationalize the fact that he doesn't by deciding that he doesn't want to shock his gently-reared, very young bride, and so it goes to the usual circumlocutions of "inside", and when she only says "there" he echoes it back to her, since it's perfectly obvious to both of them what they're talking about (he's just kissed her there, after all), and so I perpetuate a certain ahistorical delicacy.

Interestingly, neither of the men wound up using "fuck," either, though it would have been unremarkable. The first time it would have come up, the one who ought to have used the word was feeling just a shade too vulnerable to say it, and that set the tone for everything after. Mostly they don't need it, it's understood. And around the young bride... thank goodness for the phrase "lie with."

Yet MORE interestingly, the young bride, in my head, has started using "fuck" in her OWN internal monologue describing some of the things they get up to. Stuff I haven't written yet. But, as she's grown in confidence, she's become willing to use such a direct word. Because it's not a BAD word for her, because what they're doing isn't bad at ALL. (Though the MPAA would faint!)

[eglantine_br]

I particularly noticed the way you handled that moment with them. I thought it was very realistic and sweet, and hot.

And of course, there are many moods of sexual interaction. The speechless vulnerability is perfectly historical if it is right for the person.

I was kidding with Anteros about being a delicate flower. I am no such thing of course. I grew up artificially inseminating goats in our kitchen. My mother had a chest freezer full of frozen Dunkin' Donuts, bits of our own butchered goats, and thermoses of semen.

I once delivered a friends baby.(Not planned, total accident,) Bodies don't scare me. But words... I had to practice saying 'penis' in the mirror, when my son was a tot. i wanted to teach him the right word, and I had never actually said it. Circumlocation, as you say.

[julian_griffith]

All right, now you have to explain the frozen Dunkin' Donuts. ;)

[eglantine_br]

Marthas Vineyard in the 1970s-- no chain restaurants. (We got a Dairy Queen eventually, but it was in the next town, and we seldom went.

My mom would buy the donuts whenever she went off-island, bring them home and freeze them. Big treat!!

[provencepuss]

"But it's become so hateful, in modern American parlance, that only someone with nerves of steel can do it correctly for the characters"

but isn't this just the difficulty that PC has produced? whereas the use of language to be deliberately offensive should be avoided - "no, Virginia, don't call that nice young man from Nigeria a Nigger" the word is avoided by journalists and even historians to relate its usage - what the fuck is a 'racial epithet' when it is at home?; But the writer gets worried that if s/he uses it then there will be trouble. For the same reason historians are beginning to worry about accurately portraying the era of the Third Reich in case ignorant (willfully ignorant?) readers accuse them of sharing the views expressed by their subjects. In some countries they can't even gather the objects that relate to the period because possessing them is considered to be an offense!
c***t used offensively as a synonym for 'woman'is ugly. I forget which parody of Hemingway constantly referred to women as 'slits' but that was even uglier; however the word is not offensive in itself - only in the usage. c***t is an accepted slang word for that part of the female anatomy and dates from C14 Middle English. Used in that context it is fine. The writer should never take responsibility for the interpretation the reader chooses to apply to the correct use of a word. But if you are writing a character who is disrespectful of woman and he calls them c***ts...then you are doing no wrong!

[julian_griffith]

If by "PC" you mean "a greater concern for avoiding words that are hurtful to others," then, yes. And, personally, I would not care to associate with anyone who felt drawn to collect Nazi memorabilia. Let it stay in museums, in context.

And words gather associations over time. In the US, both "cunt" and "nigger" have been used so hatefully in the past that formerly legitimate uses (anatomy, nationality) are permanently tainted. Hence the nerves of steel required to use the first in an anatomical sense where it would be historically appropriate, and the difficulties involved in teaching Huckleberry Finn in a classroom, or for that matter, school children putting on a production of To Kill A Mockingbird. It's hard to say whether the first or the second of those examples is more difficult -- the Mark Twain is older, and the word often used with little animosity, though in context it was a label that signified the object was somewhat less than human. Harper Lee's work is not quite as old, and whenever the characters used the word, it was used hatefully, and while that was accurate, it makes it very difficult for twelve-year-olds in a racially mixed school to even say. They spent a lot of time going over history and context during rehearsals.

Because of the way these words have been tainted, it's a difficult thing indeed for a modern writer to put either of them in the mouth of a historical character and have the reader perceive it the way the character would have -- as a neutral anatomical or descriptive word (though I submit that "nigger" was never quite neutral), and not as a slur. I could point you at a few examples of modern writers managing the trick of having historical characters say "cunt" anatomically without it feeling shocking. I just haven't got the hang of it yet.

[eglantine_br]

That is what I think too-- there are plenty of words that are appropriate in context but still ugly, hurtful, or simply distracting.

And they do gather, or change meaning over time. Mark Twain and Harper Lee were writers of great power and subtlety. And still, they get misunderstood.

[provencepuss]

that is the essence - we must not lose sight of the context. We find slavery offensive but we must remember that at the time it was considered 'normal' because of the misbegotten idea of racial superiority. If kids had to learn about the context before performing To Kill a Mockingbird - that an only be a good thing.
When I studied it (when I was 14 - 1969) the big question put by a teacher (an Irish nun who had trouble with the pronunciation!) was (what would you say to a child who asked what a 'chore lady' is. trouble was, as usual I was about 5 pages ahead and couldn't think what a 'wore lady' (sic) could be!

[julian_griffith]

I agree, learning the context was an excellent thing.

Amusingly, I had no trouble explaining "whore" and "prostitute" when Milo had questions about those words at age 10-11. This is because Milo's childhood videotapes included the Les Miserables 10th Anniversary Concert -- I figured, if I had to listen to these things OVER AND OVER, it could at least be music I liked. So, when Milo asked, I said "Remember the Lovely Ladies?" Milo's face cleared at once, and the concept was plain.