What's in a name? Quite a lot, according to one of my publisher's website (Random House US). I suppose it is funny but, last year, when I tried to answer a question about novelists that inspired me, I found my mention of Charles Dickens and Fanny Burney censored to Charles ****ens and ***** Burney. I hope Blogger can cope with my obscenity. Spare a thought for a guy called Dick Cockfoster or a girl blessed with the name Frances (commonly known as Fanny) Titmouse. I imagine their emails get put straight into spam.
To be fair to Random, I should point out this entry was made on a site for teen readers so the duty of care is higher for the owner, but still, our modern censorship does seem to be overly strong in all the wrong areas. We are very lax elsewhere. As the women's groups appearing before
the Leveson Enquiry on 24th January pointed out, we live in a society which thinks it is OK to feature naked women in papers at child-eye level and put rape victims on trial in the way their stories are reported. I wouldn't mind a bit of blanking out of that but wouldn't it be so much better if editors realised that it is sick to do so?
Everyday I come across the problem of modern censorship in writing historical fiction. Let's start with self-censorship. We are not all going to agree, of course, on the depiction of sex and levels of violence and language when writing for a younger audience. My own personal guide is a connection to the parallel world of cinema certification. Would this be OK in a PG-13 (UK 12A) film or does it deserve a higher rating? It does not stop me writing a no holds barred piece if I wished but I wouldn't put it on the teen or children's market.
However, there is undoubtedly a tension with the desire to be true to the historical period where what we think is going too far would not have raised any eyebrows. For the Tudors, marriage at 12 was allowed, as was burning of religious martyrs and torture - all tricky things to depict for young readers if they are to have a convincing and honest treatment. For my Cat Royal books set in Drury Lane (under the pen name Julia Golding) my heroine lives in what was the red light district and prostitutes worked the theatre audience. I dealt with that by not dwelling on it, in the same way my character would find it all part of her 'normal' so not needing comment. I've also written about the issue of the slave trade and had to be very careful with the language used about black people as that era had no problem belittling Africans and using the term Negro, all of which now sound extremely insulting. Bearing in mind these books are going to be read by children as young as eight, I bear a responsibility for what I expose them too. I strove to tone down the language where necessary without hiding the brutality of that system, because I believed that was the point that needed to be made. The injustice of the slave trade is the underlying obscenity that fuelled the more superficial words and attitudes. No doubt others would draw the line elsewhere but I can only say that 'I did my best'.
 |
German edition of The Other Countess
- I wonder how they translated the rude words? |
Now I come briefly to the censorship of others. It has an illustrious history: Shakespeare had to submit his plays for approval by the Master of the Revels, though his problems hinged on politics and blasphemy rather than sexual innuendo and language that occupies the modern wielder of the blue pencil. Down at my much humbler level, I have found it frustrating and amusing at times. I have kept an email exchange with my editor at Puffin where we debated how I might refer to the male sex organs in a way that respected the spirit of Tudor bawdy. I was allowed cod piece (old fashioned so passable) but not cock (too sharp). I argued. I gave in. The ghost of Thomas Bowdler still haunts us.
I would be very interested to hear what censorship my fellow writers have experienced and what you, as a reader, think about all this. It reveals our own period's manners and mores more acutely than perhaps any other subject, does it not?
Eve Edwards
P.S. I hope I haven't offended you...
To be fair to Random, I should point out this entry was made on a site for teen readers so the duty of care is higher for the owner, but still, our modern censorship does seem to be overly strong in all the wrong areas. We are very lax elsewhere. As the women's groups appearing before the Leveson Enquiry on 24th January pointed out, we live in a society which thinks it is OK to feature naked women in papers at child-eye level and put rape victims on trial in the way their stories are reported. I wouldn't mind a bit of blanking out of that but wouldn't it be so much better if editors realised that it is sick to do so?
