I think that literary works should keep their original language because it keeps the work’s validity and gives us a clear picture of history. Words used by writers like Flannery O’Connor in their stories showed how people really thought and felt at that time, including prejudices and social attitudes. If you change their words, it can change the historical background and make the story less powerful. By sticking to the original language, readers can get into the text the way it was meant to be read and have deep conversations about the ideas it offers. Some words are insulting now, but they help us remember the past and see how language and society have changed over time. We shouldn’t limit literature; instead, we should use it as a chance to think about, study, and learn from the past. But I also know that some people might find some of the words I use offensive. In school settings, content warnings or led talks can help set the scene while still protecting the original work’s integrity. Literature should push us, even if it makes us feel bad because feeling bad can help us understand things better and think more critically.
Powered by:
top
One thought on “Oscar Orellana Discussion board #9”
I see what you mean, and I think you have a very good point. Using the original language in works like O’Connor’s does help preserve the integrity of time and place. It gives a more honest portrayal of what people believed and said during the time, although it can make people uncomfortable. Substituting those words could weaken the impact and make it harder to have critical conversations about race and history and learn about the characters.