Do you think literary texts should be cleared of offensive language, or do you feel the authentic language should be kept in place in the interests of historical context and characterization?
Literary texts should be open to offensive language because the writer is telling the truth about something true. Reading a passage or book makes me more interested to read more because I like reading offensive words; the offensive words make more intrigued to tell whats going on an passage. I feel the authentic language should be open to the readers because being honest to the reading is very outgoing to read. Also, whoever the person writing has to be very intellectual in the way its writing because readers might take it personal. In my personal opinion, the offensive language is a truthful way to express the moment of situation grabbing the readers’ attention to read. Also I wouldn’t take it offensive because it was truthful to tell the situation.
2 thoughts on “Hilda Basurto Curiel – Week 9 Discussion”
I totally agree with your perspective on this. I also believe that keeping offensive language in literary texts can be important for capturing the truth of a situation and providing an authentic portrayal of historical context and characterization. It definitely makes me more interested in reading because it feels like we’re getting a genuine look at how things were, even if it’s uncomfortable.
I think you’re right about the need for writers to be thoughtful in their approach, ensuring that the language serves a purpose and doesn’t just shock or offend without reason.
Hilda, I like that word you use here —truth! If we santize texts, we are softening some truths, I think. We are diluting an understanding of the time and place of a story and, maybe even more importantly, softening the truth about a character’s personality, morals, or worldview.