Editing literature, the power of words

[A. Vulgarweed]

responding to several things...hope that's OK

>At 3:20 AM +0000 7/1/02, catlady_de_los_angeles wrote:
>>
>>I wish JKR had decided, even under a publisher's nagging, to call
>>female mages wizardesses instead of witches. That small change would
>>have saved so much conflict with confused Fundamentalists and so much
>>confusion with Wicca.
>
and Jennifer wrote:
>I agree that it would have spared a few people a certain amount of
>confusion, but I think most people can tell the difference between,
>say, the Good Witch of the North in the Wizard of Oz and the average
>Wiccan.  Rowling is drawing on that same cultural meme-pool.  I can't
>think of any precedent for the term "wizardess;" it would have to be
>"sorcerer" and "sorceress," and that would change the flavor quite a
>bit.  The nice young lady with the wand and the cauldron and the
>pointy hat is, in common culture, a witch, and personally, I am
>rather fond of people getting over the "all witches are EEEEEVILLLL"
>meme, whether the witches in question are fictional or not.

The scary old lady with all the acoutrements is a witch also, culturally.
Oh, booga booga! But even in the Wiccan community itself there has been
controversy over whether to use the word "witch" or not, and some Wiccans
still refuse to do so. Among those Wiccans who DO use it, however, it is a
gender-neutral term; male witches are witches just as much as female ones.
(Which I like, because it undercuts a lot of the aspect of sexism that
holds that any man who takes on a traditionally female name or role is
somehow degrading himself; nope, none of the male witches I know think it's
an insult at all). JKR clearly does not use it that way. I also like that
because even in the history of magic in this world, in Western culture,
there's been a schism between "high magic," which is very spiritual and
noble and pure and abstract and usually practiced by men, and "low magic"
which is scary and evil and dirty and has a lot of sex and body fluids and
is just about base animal nature stuff, and is usually practiced by women.
JKR rolls right over that dichotomy pretty neatly too. Nope, males are
wizards and females are witches, end of story. Same kind of magic, no
stigma on one that the other doesn't have.

And yes, exactly, most people who pause to think about it for a minute or
two can easily tell the difference between the kind of witch Hermione
Granger is, the kind of witch Samantha on _Bewitched_ is, the kind of
witches who go to that scary dance school in _Suspiria_ are, and the kind
of witch I am. I would hope, anyway.

I mean, Snoopy isn't really all that much like actual real-world dogs, is
he? Maybe about as much as Buck Rogers is like actual astronauts.


>Besides, the Fundamentalists in question would have gotten upset over
>anything that portrayed people who use magic, cauldrons, broomsicks,
>etc. in a positive light, even if JKR had called them Pfurgleblatzes.

It's what they like to do, get upset. If pop culture ceased to provide them
with things to get upset about, they'd be very bored and sad.


And Rachel writes:
>
>By the way....congrats, Brazil!  That was quite a game!

Obrigata! Si, penta!.

Well worth shooting my sleep pattern all to hell for (coverage started at
5:30 in my time zone, and on a weekend night I find that *far* easier to
stay up for than to get up for).

and Cindy:
>
>Similarly, there is a state in the South in the U.S. (Virginia?)
>that has a state song that does or did have the word "darkies" in
>the original version.  Would it be wrong to change that lyric on the
>ground that it is offensive to some citizens of the state?  Or
>should the state retain the racist language on the ground that that
>is what the original lyricist wrote?

An original line in "My Old Kentucky Home" goes: "'Tis summer, and the
darkies are gay." I believe that in Kentucky, they no longer use that
line--either omitting that verse entirely or changing that line to
something else, for obvious reasons.

I'm generally opposed to bowdlerization to protect delicate sensibilities,
but in that case, no, I think you *have* to. If you have a line that
offends large numbers of people and that schoolchildren absolutely cannot
sing without giggling in your _state song_, it's gotta go. Now, most people
know what Stephen Foster originally wrote, and why it's not appropriate
today. To a certain degree (if I can do this without invoking Godwin's
Law), you might compare it to Germany purging the "Deutschland uber alles"
verse from "Das Lied der Deutschen." I don't know the words of that, but I
believe it was removed as much for its very bad associations as for its
content. I don't blame them.

on the N-Word:

And in editions of the Kipling book aimed at children in particular, it
doesn't bother me if the N-word is changed to something else. No, I don't
take refusing to say "the N-word" as a sign of weakness or fear. On what
basis would I be "afraid" of it; I'm not black. But I do know that black
people are hurt and angered by that word, with good reason--because it's a
*nasty hateful word.* And yes, I am also aware that many young black people
use it freely among themselves, as a sort of reclaiming, much as gays and
lesbians have done with words that are slurs against them and as feminists
have done with words like "slut" and "bitch." All well and good. I'm not
black, though, so I can't do it. Just can't. When I talk with friends IRL,
I swear like a sailor as a normal matter of habit and so do most people I
know...but there are indeed some words that one just doesn't say, and
racial slurs are those words. No good ever comes of them. Coming out of the
mouth of someone who isn't part of that group, they can't express anything
positive. Some "free-speech" types get all up in arms about this...I don't
see the big problem. I'm *fine* with that. There's LOTS of strong
historical reasons why that word just doesn't sound good coming out of my
pale mouth, no matter how "brave" or pomo or "honest" my intentions.

I _will_ point out that there *are* a few white people left, particularly
some less-educated and elderly ones, who _do_ use the word in what THEY
THINK is a neutral manner....as sort of synonymous with "Negro," which was
a fairly neutral word 50 years ago. They -really do not- *mean* any active
malice behind it. There is, however, no evidence that actual black people
have ever taken it that way or ever will, which shouldn't be surprising,
should it?.

There's a famous short poem by Countee Cullen that sums up the impact of
that word on a child horrifically and beautifully; cannot recall the title
of it, but it's in a lot of poetry collections. After reading that, I find
"N-word" should be good enough for anybody.

JKR's use of the dread of saying a word WRT Voldemort is very different,
because "Voldemort" is a NAME, and the tradition of names having power is
fundamental in tons of magical literature and folklore. Even now there are
all sorts of folk beliefs and religious tenets about speaking the names of
the dead, the enemy, of evil spirits, of God, etc. Our expression "Speak of
the devil," usually said when someone you were just gossiping about walks
into the room, started out as half of "Speak of the devil, and look, he
appears!" Dumbledore's probably right about fear to speak his name giving
him more power....but you *wonder* a little bit, don't you? Get a little
chill? It's a totally different usage, I think. Besides, if the whole
wizard community chanted "Voldemort" for days on end, it's not like his
power would *vanish*, would it?

AV