Ever bite your tongue so much that you ended up stammering, searching for a politically correct way to say something that needs to be said? I'm stammering right now. I can't keep up with what's acceptable to the American public and what's not in terms of the English language. One minute anything goes and the next it's Miss Manners on deck with a bar of soap aimed at your potty mouth. Shock jocks and angry rappers are suddenly (finally?) out, but we can still accept the idea that homosexuality can be "cured" in the matter of a few hours? That women can show off their naked nether region to the paparazzi and still make big bucks? What is entertainment? What is politically acceptable entertainment? Are they one and the same? I think not.
Yes, I'm bugged about Don Imus being hung out to dry so soon after OJ Simpson was offered big money to tell how he would have killed, if he had killed. Imus uses words to make his living and so do I, so perhaps my senses are a bit skewed on this. In mysteries, shady characters need to sound shady. Cruel killers don't mince words. Where do the language police draw the line? How is this going to impact on the next patch of dialogue I write? Do I need to tell it like it is, or should I delete all my expletives like Nixon's published tapes did?
Will Elmore Leonard have to scrub his dialogue?
The English language is lush with options. Multisyllabic words compete with four lettered words every day. If you want to make a point, you go for the gut punch, the Anglo Saxon brute force words. If you want to make a point and make it seem brilliant, you elucidate in the Latin base, and that ends up obfuscating the point, but that's the point, after all.
Mark Twain once said that literature was like wine. His books, he explained, were like water. Then he added, "Everyone drinks water." Smart man, Mr. Twain. He, too, took the words of his own culture and of the slave culture and annoyed the reading public with his honesty. "The vernacular" is what it's called: the language of the people. Like it or not, words define us, and we define the words. It's up to us to proceed with care.
I've spent most of my recent years reengineering my language arts because of what Twain said, and because of what his ear saved for us to ponder. Early on I was addicted to the multisyllabic words - they distanced me from my rural roots, made me a woman of the world, put me in an upper crust and made me feel superior. Not any more. When my characters play in the mud, I intend to get muddy, too.
If my characters all become politically correct speakers, my books will be doomed. So, where' s the line? I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Write On!
Nan
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Politically Correct and Tongue Tied
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Can a topic be both meaty and thorny? Good one, Nan.
I'm not sure where I draw the line, but I think about consequences. If the raw, unfiltered quality is true to the story, the author's decision is about the depth of the possible consequences, and whether she's willing to suffer them.
Books with certain "language" and graphic detail are less likely to become book club and library picks, because of the audiences those organizations are trying to serve. That also goes into publishers considerations of possible sales when deciding on acquisitions.
I'm pegged as writing "very dark" material which, apparently, reads much bleaker than my own impression of it and frankly too dark for some of the bigger houses, as they tell my agent. My next MS will be lighter in tone and theme, because I'd like to be in print, and I'd like my sister-in-law to be able to read something I've written without nightmares.
Though I'm quite proud of the work I did, I'm looking forward to the challenge of communicating menace in different ways. Some of the scariest old film dramas didn't use "bad words", but frightening psychological implications or physicality to give characters their sharp edges.
I know I can write whatever pops into my head, and that's pure freedom, but no one's obliged to invest their money in buying or promoting my personal vision, and I sure wish they would someday. I think the same logic applies to any creative venture that one aspires to get paid to do, even radio hosting. The artist's freedom in creating is sacrosanct, but the market will decide if it's interested in paying the freight for that expression.
Dashing off to work but please check Sarah Weinman's post re #%&@ noir. http://www.sarahweinman.com/
Back later. Terrie
There's a big difference between a character saying something in dialogue and a real person saying something - particularly when that real person has an audience. Or at least, that's the way I see it.
Unfortunately, readers often see dialogue as the writer's own take on a situation. Remember when Stephen King had a character kick a dog to death. Some people swore they'd never read his books again - and it didn't matter how many times he explained that he wasn't okaying such behaviour, some readers could not see any difference between this character thinking that behaviour was acceptable and King thinking such a thing - and he didn't. The only thing King was trying to say was "this character is a bad man".
So I do worry about that sometime - but I still write what I believe the character would have thought, done, said. Anything else would be a lie.
In real life, however, I watch my tongue. I don't give myself the freedom I extend to my characters. Am I being two-faced?
You're a flesh and blood person. Speaking carefully demonstrates prudence and often kindness. Even if you characters get killed for misspeaking, you can recuscitate them, so they can safely have BIG MOUTHS.
Post a Comment