Tayari's Blog: Obama Is Messing With My Manuscript!
Posted by TayariJones on February 18, 2008 09:37 AM
Filed under
Writing
Here's a writing issue. My new novel, "The Outside Child", is set in Atlanta, circa 1987. Check out this paragraph decribing one of the characters, paying special attention to the last line:
Raleigh isn’t bad looking; he’s just really white looking. White enough to pass. My mother claims that she knew right away that Raleigh was a black man; she says it was something about his elbows. But my guess is that when she saw him with James, it was clear who was in charge and what real white man would let James call all the shots? None that my mother ever heard of, so she started checking out his body and found something about his joints that confirmed her hunches. And even she admits that in winter, when his elbows and knees are covered, he’s as white as the president.
So here is the issue. This line made sense in 1987, when the narrator is speaking, but since it may not make so much when the book is published, do I have to change it? And even if I don't have to change it, should I? Does the line have less kick if Barak, Michelle, and those beautiful girls are sleeping on Pennsylvania Avenue?
![[divider]](http://www.tayarijones.com/images/divider.jpg)
There are 9 comments on "Obama Is Messing With My Manuscript!". If you'd like to leave a comment, click here to jump down to the comments entry form.
Comment #1, by carleen ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.tayarijones.com/blog/nav-commenters.gif)
How about "white as Reagan"?
Don't you love that such assumptions just might be changing??
February 18, 2008 10:25 AM
Comment #2, by readwillett
How about "as white as those on Mt. Rushmore."?
Hi, I've been reading your blog for a couple of months now. Thanks for all the great advice/info.
February 18, 2008 11:07 AM
Comment #3, by readwillett
How about "as white as those on Mt. Rushmore."?
Hi, I've been reading your blog for a couple of months now. Thanks for all the great advice/info.
February 18, 2008 11:13 AM
Comment #4, by Erin !
If your narrator is speaking from 1987, I'd think the line might have *more* kick under those circumstances. It would make it clear that 1987 was a slightly different time...even if there are plenty of people around who remember it well.
February 18, 2008 11:33 AM
Comment #5, by Tinesha
I agree with Erin, be true to the time - the narrator doesn't know the future and only knows the circumstances of the time - and I think that is punch enough because even when someone who's born in 2022 reads it - that line will provide history enough for them to know that things hadn't always been like "this."
February 18, 2008 12:25 PM
Comment #6, by Judy
Wow, what interesting responses. Any of them would work, I think, but I agree with Erin and Tinesha about the impress of history written the way you have it. And that's my two cents.
February 19, 2008 12:55 PM
Comment #7, by Judy
Wow, what interesting responses. Any of them would work, I think, but I agree with Erin and Tinesha about the impress of history written the way you have it. And that's my two cents.
February 19, 2008 12:56 PM
Comment #8, by Ladylee
Leave it as is, especially since you are writing in that particular time period. Wouldn't make much sense now, but back then it does.
February 19, 2008 03:40 PM
Comment #9, by kgs
I'm with Erin and others. The line has more punch now that we can't assume that any more. Grounds it in that era.
February 20, 2008 12:49 PM