Simple Mystery » Historical Fiction

Racism, Realism, and the 20th Century

jane — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:28:00 +0000

Writing a book that takes place in 1928 requires certain adjustments. Adjustments in my way of thinking, but also in my way of using words. Kitty uses “O.K,” not the more modern spelling “okay.” She would never dream of taking the Lord’s name in vain. And when she wants to call bullshit, she calls “applesauce” instead.

But there are times when I just can’t go whole hog for 1928 speech. Such as, when it comes to race. The language of 1928 was, let’s face it, pretty racist. And I don’t just mean the actual words, like, you know, like that word. I mean the grammar was racist.

Pick up a newspaper from the early twentieth century, and you’ll notice something funny. A story about a white man reads, “Joe Watson was run over by a car today.” But a story about a black man reads, “Joe Watson, colored, was run over by a car today.” The subject’s race was apparently as essential to the article as the subject’s gender is today.

And then there’s the use of words that denote race as nouns, rather than as adjectives. Maybe you’ll think this is a small quibble, but I think it’s not. I think it matters. Say something like “A Negro was sitting on the park bench,” and you’re using the word “Negro” in place of the word “man.” It begins to sound like you don’t think the subject is a man at all — at least not in the same way that “a (white) man sitting on the park bench” would be. Kitty uses twenties vocabulary such as “Oriental” and “Negro,” because those are the words that are available to her — but she would no more say “a Negro” than I would say “a black.”

And her attitudes are, I’ll cheerfully admit, much more egalitarian than the average person of her day. Kitty sees race very easily — in fact, she sees it with a finer grain than most modern people, as she generally notes the heritage of white characters, be they Irish or Italian or Polish. But she doesn’t stereotype, look down on, or fear people because of their race. She believes all men are created equal.

This may not be realistic, but realism doesn’t necessarily make good fiction. And there are other things to worry about besides realism: (1) the reader’s enjoyment of the book (reading about characters who are badly out of step with modern mores isn’t all that enjoyable) and (2) my own morals.

A Loaf of Bread Cost What?

jane — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 00:46:00 +0000

Ever wondered how much your house would have cost in 1880? 1900? 1930? Now you can find out, with this handy dandy Inflation Calculator.

I only wish I had found this resource a year ago. I’ve been limping along by assuming the dollar was worth about ten times its current value in 1928; turns out I wasn’t far off. But now that I’m in revision, it’s nice to know I’ve got some real numbers to work with.

1920s Slang

jane — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:05:00 +0000

For my book I’ve done research into a lot of subjects, including 1920’s slang. People in the 20’s, like people of every time period, had their own unique way of making themselves understood. “Horesefeathers!” they might say, or “None of your beeswax!” “That’s the cat’s pajamas!”

Fast forward to the 2000’s. (The Aughts? The Zips? How did we let this decade slip by without giving it a decent name?) Most of this language has now been downgraded to cutesy, juvenile slang. Problem is, my characters aren’t supposed to sound cutesy and juvenile when they say it. They’re, like, for serious.

So: opinions? Can the 20’s slang, or stick it only in the mouths of characters who can reasonably be a little bit cute? Any ideas?