Apologies to those of you who think that I’m flogging a dead horse. But then, you probably didn’t click on this Q&A anyway…
Apologies to those of you who hate rambling intros. You may skip to the final paragraph of this OP.
[I find it an unfortunate dynamic of this forum that few people seem to bother contributing to a topic that isn’t among the 3 at the top of the Q&As page. Perhaps this is due to the fact that they’re the only ones visible on the ‘Community’ page. And once a topic is squeezed out of the latest 10, it’s as dead as that horse that I’m flogging.]
An interesting topic was begun a few Q&As back: ‘Should a would-be author concern themselves with Political Correctness?’ (https://www.writersandartists.co.uk/question/view/2820) The opening premise found NO backers, and I found that a shame because I enjoy an energetic debate.
[There is an obvious clique at large on this forum: Emilie, Jimmy, and I are not only close friends, we are also business colleagues at La Gr@not@. Victoria Fielding is – I certainly HOPE – going to be one of our author/illustrators. She and Clare Williams have each contributed more than 2 items to our refugees anthology. We communicate (often) via e-mails. As do we with Hache L. Jones (an infrequent user of this site). Another few users have also contributed to the anthology, but aren’t in that tight little clique. So why don’t we ‘keep the airways clear’ and stick to chatting among ourselves via e-mails, leaving the rest of you in peace? Perhaps because we benefit from feedback of ALL kinds.]
Since nobody is likely to look in on that old Q&A, there were a few points in the OP that were not dealt with by ANY of the replies, and that I wish to address here. The OP seemed to insinuate that ‘political correctness’ was akin to Stalinism. And that the ‘politically correct’ want ALL writers to deal with ALL minorities in ALL of their books.
I don’t know of ANYBODY that the original poster would tar with the brush of ‘politically correct’ who would consider ‘old Joe Stalin’ to be ‘politically correct’!
And – of COURSE – you don’t have to include all of the following in your books: ‘Black, White and Asian characters […] all […] from the same social class and background […] left-wing and right-wing characters […] an equal mix of Heterosexual, Lesbian and Gay characters’.
But if in NONE of your novels do you include ANY of these variations in the human mix; if, in short, you write as if gays, lesbians, Blacks, Asians, and the working class didn’t even exist… then, my friends, you are a pretty poor excuse for writers. (Just my opinion. Please discuss.)
What was ‘politically correct’ for Adolf Hitler wasn’t for Astrid Lindgren… and vice versa. I, for one, would have been VERY ‘politically INcorrect’ for the former. I wish to be able to write so that Astrid would have been proud of me. My motto (‘politically INcorrect’ for ANY hard-liners [of WHATEVER shade]) is ‘Dare to be different! Break the rules! Make your readers THINK!’ Would anybody like to comment on this dead horse? What do YOU mean by ‘politically correct’?
Dear Emilie,
I have gone to the IMMENSE trouble of following that link you provided (http://jimmsfairytales.com) and I have to admit that it was well worth it!
OK, OK: A serious question deserves a serious answer. The question has, actually, been answered very well by Clare and Jeremy... AND by several people on Adrian Sroka's original post - ‘Should a would-be author concern themselves with Political Correctness?’ (https://www.writersandartists.co.uk/question/view/2820) for those of you who skipped to the final paragraph of W's OP.
I'd be seriously interested in knowing just what Adrian means by it, aside from finding the concept somehow evil.
But back to me. What is correct according to MY politics? Questioning EVERYTHING - especially what politicians and vested-interest press tell you.
And as a writer/editor/publisher (in general, but also in particular of children's books)?
Stimulating thought.
Breaking stereotypes and prejudices.
NEVER presenting the outsider, the underdog, the oppressed as threatening. To take just one example which ties this in with the above 'what politicians and vested-interest press tell you': To propagate the myth that we are under THREAT from refugees (whether political, economic, or sexually-obliged), to instil in children the idea that foreigners are not to be trusted and are out to steal our jobs (after we have raped their countries and built our national wealth largely by stealing them blind)... I find that an act of despicable proportions!
To encourage the reader - of whatever age - to attempt to see the world through the eyes of 'The Other', to realise that there is ALWAYS more than one side to EVERY story. (See my lovely friend Jimmy's web-site http://jimmsfairytales.com - I know that you can't click on that, but it's well worth the HUGE effort of copying-and-pasting it into your URL bar!)
Not to pretend that 'The Other' (lesbians, gays, transsexuals, single parents, the handicapped, people of other races, religions, nationalities, politics, whatever) just doesn't exist.
In short (as others have indicated) to encourage readers - no matter how young, no matter how old and set in their ways - to be DECENT human beings.
The fact that the word 'political' is related to politicians, the very use of the phrase is seen as something to be ridiculed.
Since politicians are not seen as being reliable, lying all the time, never answering a straight question. Political people are very rarely correct about anything.
Maybe the phrase 'politically correct' should changed to 'humanely correct' (or humanly correct) since it is humans we're talking about.