Several questions about language

[chordatesrock]

I have a few questions I was hoping for some input on. They're all sort of related.

First, how do you handle fics set in canons that do offensive things? Like a canon that uses a character being fat and disabled as a shorthand for the character's moral decay? Or a canon that uses outdated terms like cripple?

Second, what do you usually do about language in canons where you don't know what the characters use? It seems like a lot of fantasy writing likes to use the word cripple to give it an old-timey feel. Do you think that's a harmful pattern? Do you prefer to have characters use the language you prefer people to use in real life? Do you choose solely based on plausibility?

Third, I have two similar but distinct questions about reclaimed language. First, if you're writing a character with a disability you don't share, is it problematic to write about the character reclaiming slurs that don't apply to you? And second, when people in real-life self-identify using reclaimed slurs that don't apply to you, is it better to refer to them that way or to use uncontroversial language?

Fourth and finally, what do you do about non-reclaimed slurs characters apply to themselves or deliberately reject for themselves? For instance, is the line "he wasn't hearing things, he wasn't crazy, he just had [people] talking in his head" problematic in itself or does it depend on what else is in the fic?

Comments

[staranise]

I'm kind of making little flaily motions of distress at being unable to articulate a good answer to most of your questions, because the answer is so hugely "it depends!". There's no one single rule here! It's something you very much have to decide for yourself because no matter what you do, you're gonna get flack for it. Include characters when you don't have authentic knowledge of their experience? Oppressive. Only include types of characters you know well? Oppressive. At the end of the day, you've got to risk something and know that not everyone will think you did right.

"Problematic" doesn't mean "wrong". You're allowed to do/say/think/make problematic things and be okay with it. It just means "related to this big problem". I realize there are a ton of people out there who disagree with me on this and think you should never ever do anything problematic, but the more I live and write and study, the more I think it's impossible to not be problematic somehow. I think you've gotta make peace with that if you don't want to spend your life constantly afraid of screwing up and being evil.

So sometimes my characters use absolutely awful language. That's their lived experiences; that's what the people they're like talk like. I can't suddenly erase every ignorant or bigoted person from the universe when I write, and sometimes when you're writing about people with one oppression, they end up turning lateral oppression on some other group. It depends on the story as to whether I let the narrator be uncertain and ambivalent, or whether I clearly signal that this is Not Okay.

Sometimes my characters embody distressing cliches. Sometimes it's for a reason (like to undermine it) and sometimes they just are. If I'm really worried about it, I try to find someone else in the story to be a counter-example--if my female character really wants a husband and babies, then I try to work another woman in there somewhere who doesn't, and shares roughly the same moral valence/level of audience sympathy.

Because it's one thing to use "cripple" as a word. You can carry all the connotations of that (as a useless, worthless non-member of society) or try to graft on new meanings, especially in fantasy (where maybe cripples get honour and respect for their experiences, or are trusted with important tasks).

The only real hard-and-fast line I have is outside of fiction. If I'm writing a character, they're the decider of whether they use problematic language (and if it gets eyebrow-raising, I question whether that scene/POV/whatever needs to be shared with the world). But IRL, I don't use reclaimed derogatory language if I'm not part of that group. I'm not Black or Aboriginal, so I don't call people "n***er" or "Indian".

[chordatesrock]

Thank you. That's helpful and interesting. :)

Thank you!

[ysabetwordsmith]

I'm really pleased to see someone other than me pointing out that there is no unmarked case, no "safe" space to write where you won't piss people off. No matter what you do, it's going to annoy somebody, so you might as well just figure out your own stance and please yourself.

Me, I aim for diversity and do the research as best I can to get things right. Other folks have their own solutions and that's fine too.

[lilacsigil]

Answers to questions one and two (as for three and four, I would generally avoid reclaiming anything that doesn't belong to me, because it's not mine to reclaim. And writing about it - my nano has a blind major character in a pre-modern setting - I would tend to avoid real world identity politics unless writing a character who would be really aware of them because they often don't apply and/or don't come naturally from the worldbuilding or characterisation.)

I always find this question "language in canons" question interesting, because so many authors seem to take the "yes, there's DRAGONS and SPACE LASERS but that guy's a cripple, that's what people said back then! See my historical authenticity!" It's lazy, and one of those things that people just seem to take as background. A well-researched book has a reason for everything, and it might well have a reason for disabled characters being scorned - for example (even though I hated the movie) 300 had a specific, culturally relevant and well-articulated reason why the one disabled character was scorned, but then failed to show any interest in why "warrior" was the only valued role for men, not messenger or farmer or cartographer or artist or even spy.

Steampunk canons are often the other way around, praising the disabled and the cybernetic because it gives someone an opportunity to be different and sometimes better than the human norm. Sometimes this is really interesting, and sometimes it's fetishistic, but it's often a nice break from "character is blinded, kills self" or "character has a limp, is obviously a traitor", "character is mentally ill, is a serial killer".

[chordatesrock]

That and women. Apparently, sexism must exist in all medieval settings, too. I wonder whether there's a reason for why oppression in general is Realistic and Gritty and Historically Accurate, but actually being realistic (for instance, using real-world geography and not including magic) is not. I feel like maybe people view there being a PC Police who, in this particular era and culture and no others (ever), have adopted unreasonable conceits that can only survive because society has such a surplus that it can afford to make up for what people can't really do in order to pretend they're equal. If that were true, then in a society where people really needed to make sure things got done, they would have to devalue people who can't measure up.

So it might be that it's seen as Gritty and Realistic because it's Edgy And Un-PC to admit to Those Things Everyone Else Is Too Polite To Say (i.e, that some people are more equal than others).

I would really like to be wrong about that, because if that's true, it means that there are more people out there than I thought who believe that the idea that disabled people can be capable of awesome things and women can be physically strong is just a polite fiction that society maintains for the sake of... I'm not sure, but something like Appeasing The Radical Angry Feminists Who Control Everything and whatever it is people think disability rights activists want. (What do they think we want, anyway?)

What you point out about steampunk is very interesting. Do you think there's a connection between transhumanism and disability rights, in the sense that both value augmenting people with technology in some circumstances? (Steampunk sounds like transhumanism from your description. I'm not familiar with the non-superficial aspects of the genre, so I'm not sure whether that's accurate.)

[jesse_the_k]

it means that there are more people out there than I thought who believe that the idea that disabled people can be capable of awesome things and women can be physically strong is just a polite fiction

Millions and millions of people, thousands and thousands of writers.

whatever it is people think disability rights activists want. (What do they think we want, anyway?)

Good parking spaces and munificent benefits. Yeah, that's pretty reductive, ain't it?

[chordatesrock]

Where I live and in the circles I run in, I tend to see more of the That's Terribly Unfortunate, Poor Thing and We Should Cure That At All Cost types of prejudice, with a bit of Crazy People Are Very Dangerous thrown in for good measure. I've been lucky enough not to personally know anyone who truly believes that disabled people aren't able to work.

I wonder if it would be interesting to study the psychology of people who do believe that. I run into more people in my own life who really believe in Helping Disabled People or at least not getting in their way, but are caught up in pity or misconceptions, than who actively disagree with my ideas.

[sqbr]

I agree with staranise in the broad strokes, but tend to err more towards not using slurs if I can. The way I see it: you make all sorts of choices with a story, choosing a plot that makes it exciting, dialogue that is engaging and expressive and maybe funny etc. This almost always involves fudging or at least picking and choosing from reality/canon. Obviously there are limits, but within those limits, why not make "not adding to the oppression/pain my readers experience" as much a priority as thrills/romance etc? Especially with oppressions I don't experience myself, since it's way too easy to underestimate how much they ruin a story for people who do experience them.

So when I write dialogue and the character says a slur in my head, I try and think of an equally (or almost equally) in character line with the same meaning that doesn't use the slur. Because why not? If they really wouldn't ever express that meaning any other way, then I keep it, but if I can I try and have the narrative poke at their usage.

That said: I'm mostly writing self indulgent somewhat cracky fanfic, if I'm going to have silly slightly 4th wall breaking jokes I don't think it damages the story to also have slightly 4th wall breaking criticism of canon prejudice. If you're writing super realistic fiction you won't be able to get away with it so easily.

I have more to say but have run out of mental energy! It is complicated, and I don't think there's any one right answer.

[staranise]

I totally get this. I've also been thinking that the right answer changes over time and in context.

That said: I'm mostly writing self indulgent somewhat cracky fanfic

Yeah, genre definitely counts too. I tend to write things with guns and explosions and traditional masculinity, like westerns and milsf, and unless I just whitewash my experiences completely I'm stuck with some objectionable content.

I totally do fudge/clean up some stuff for my audience, like toning down the speech of people who realistically would be turning the air blue. But the more I trace back how I got to my position, I think I did take a lot of time to decide that I wanted to get into conversation with those icky bits, like my setting's implicit biases. A lot of what I try to do is get alternate points of view on socially-sanctioned stories. A historian-friend reminds me that in every era, there were people who questioned the icky stuff going on. In every culture, there are people who stick out. I like finding them.

It's definitely hard, though. I step on feet. I have to track back and put up trigger warnings because someone goes "Uh..." and I really had to learn from my mistakes. Some people have taken a real dislike to some of my characters. I'm lucky to have a diverse group of betas, so I get a lot of different points of view over troubling aspects. I also know this is a decision I've made since going on antidepressants and gaining a lot more mental spoons. When I was depressed and it felt like one little mistake would crush me, I stayed a lot further away from problematic things in my stories.

[chordatesrock]

Thanks, both of you. That conversation's helpful.

[jesse_the_k]

But the more I trace back how I got to my position, I think I did take a lot of time to decide that I wanted to get into conversation with those icky bits, like my setting's implicit biases.

And if canon includes bias and language that makes you feel oppressed/angry/uncomfortable, it's possible for OCs to directly challenge that in fic.

[chordatesrock]

That's a really cool idea.

[sqbr]

But the more I trace back how I got to my position, I think I did take a lot of time to decide that I wanted to get into conversation with those icky bits, like my setting's implicit biases. A lot of what I try to do is get alternate points of view on socially-sanctioned stories. A historian-friend reminds me that in every era, there were people who questioned the icky stuff going on. In every culture, there are people who stick out. I like finding them.

Oh, me too! I have lots of prejudice in my stories, and working through how characters deal with it (as both oppressor and oppressed) is really valuable to me. But I tend to avoid slurs which will offend my readers (rather than attitudes which affect the characters) because they can ruin an otherwise enjoyable story for some people.

I had a ponder about why I take this approach after getting your comment, and I think it's because I don't actually tend to find slurs very upsetting myself(*), and so since I can't judge very well how they'll affect the people who are upset by them I just avoid the problem all together.

(*)I mean if someone called me a cripple as an insult I'd be upset, but not much more than I would be if they called me a "useless wheelchair user" as an insult. It's not the individual words that are the problem for me, it's the intent. Or maybe there just aren't any really nasty slurs for any groups I'm in, I'm not sure.

Hmm...

[ysabetwordsmith]

>>First, how do you handle
fics set in canons that do
offensive things?<<

Like the use of "nigger" in
Huckleberry Finn: I
angle the writing to show that
what the characters are saying
is filthy and an indication of
sloppy thought.

>>Second, what do you usually do about language in canons where you don't know what the characters use?<<

If it can be looked up, I look
it up. If not, I extrapolate
based on similar examples. If
it's one of my worlds, I just
wait for the characters to say
something vulgar and write it
down. There's not much I'll
edit out.

>> Do you think that's a harmful pattern? <<

It can be, if overused. I tend
to distinguished between
"handicapped" (impaired but
still functional) vs. "crippled"
(not functional for much) but
that's more a personal thing
than a cultural thing.

>>Do you prefer to have
characters use the language
you prefer people to use in
real life? <<

No, I like them to be more
diverse. They don't even talk
like each other; they certainly
won't all talk like me.

>> Do you choose solely based on plausibility? <<

Primarily. I need language
to be plausible and accurate.
But if there's a gap, I can
make up something to fill it.

>>First, if you're writing a
character with a disability
you don't share, is it
problematic to write about
the character reclaiming
slurs that don't apply to
you?<<

It's liable to annoy some
people if you do, but it will
be out-of-character in some
cases if you don't. Since I
care more about my craft than
about what people think, I
rarely let that stop me. I do
take care to handle things as
responsibly as possible.

>> And second, when people in real-life self-identify using reclaimed slurs that don't apply to you, is it better to refer to them that way or to use uncontroversial language? <<

Depends on the story. If you
really need the reclaimed terms,
use them. If not, use something
more polite.

>> Fourth and finally, what do you do about non-reclaimed slurs characters apply to themselves or deliberately reject for themselves? <<

I usually aim the context to
show that someone uncouth is
using those terms, or that the
character has a flawed
self-image leading to rude
internal dialog. Neither is
rare; people are often mean
to each other and themselves.
The idea is to show that it's
not okay, there are better
ways.

[jadelennox]

(in my answers below, "you" is rhetorical -- I'm not actually saying that you chordatesrock would do any of these things!)

1. If the canon is offensive, I might write a fixit, or I might just avoid doing the offensive thing, depending on the story. So, for example, I might write a story about how the character with a disability is a lot more competent/human/worthwhile (or less super-crip/beautiful in their suffering/magically healed/disabled for REASONS/hurt-comforty) than they are in canon. Alternately, I might just avoid the whole problem and write about those issues (e.g. not incorporating descriptions of fatness or disability). But I will never buy into canon problems of that type IF I see them.
2. I am with the other people here about language. If I think the language is accurate and appropriate, then I will use it and possibly warn, although as some others have said, there are words I will not use. That being said, again as others have said, "cripple" no more gives an accurate old-timey feel than random sexism does, especially in a completely fantasy world. If you want to use offensive terms, do your research and see how people in that context the parent if it was real) actually discussed disabilities of those types. And if it is a fantasy world, why can you have a completely fantastic world with different geography and magic or what have you, but can't imagine another way of looking about disability?
3. if you want to reclaim language which is not used to apply to you, be very, very, very careful. I'm not saying you shouldn't do it, but maybe get a large number of beta readers to whom it does apply. If the particular character canonically uses reclaimed language, of course you should use it, although again do so carefully.
4. the last question is a big old it depends, of course. But keep in mind that there is a difference between how the characters talk about themselves and how the fic overall leads the readers to think.