Which brings me to the point of my post. Should we as writers take our reader into account? If so, how much? Do we plow ahead full force with little to no regard for his or her reactions? Or do we consider the reader’s sensibilities? In the case of The Sky is Everywhere, the light use of the R-word was unexpected and not in keeping with the main character. If use of the word was contextually relevant to story or character development, then I could understand. But the R-word was lightly tossed out as if trying to pass for a more neutral word like jerk or loser. If a writer is going to flippantly throw out words, then why not the N-word for the Black reader or the F- or G- words for the gay audience? It is the same offensive and derogatory language, after all.
So, while I thoroughly enjoyed the book until now, I am not sure I will continue. Maybe when my sensibilities stop bristling. Maybe if I can muster enough forgiveness. Maybe then I will continue. Maybe not. Certainly if I do, my experience will be less than it was before; it will be tainted by the word.
Perhaps it is a good thing to think of the reader—at least on occasion—when writing.
For more information on the R-Word and how to end it visit Spread the Word to End the Word.
I definitely think that if a word doesn't match the story, character, time, or place then it shouldn't be in there. In some novels, I find that language is acceptable due to the context in which it's used--but I tend to prefer no derogatory terms at all in the books I read.
ReplyDeleteIt's a tough one! The world is what the world is, and yes teenagers will say horrible things and use horrible terms, and that is an unfortunate reality.
ReplyDeleteThere was much debate as you may recall about the 'n' word in Huck Finn, a classic, and the removal of such word. You can imagine the difficulties presented to a black child reading that book as it stands in school, but in saying that, we can not erase what is, or what has been.
So while I don't advocate it myself and try to avoid such terms by thinking of other choices, I still think it is a debate of some magnitude. We can't hide our heads, but we don't have to contribute either.
Escape Artist,
ReplyDeleteHuck Finn was written in a different time in history--over 100 years ago. The context is a much different one. Today, the use of the word would likely be much more objectionable due to raised understanding that was not present when Twain wrote his novel. In today's context, it is more of a blatent ignorance of its impact or utter disregard for it unless it contributes to the story or character--which it does not here. So it is comparing apples to oranges. It is not the same at all to me as the reader. Of course, the nice counterpoint to freedom of speech/press is that I do not have to read something I find objectionable. And I don't.
Thanks for the post.