I love to read. That's not a secret. And, as a rule, I love to read (and subsequently watch) the classics. I especially love to read classic (pre-1960s) science fiction and just to raid the classics section at Waterstones (yes, I love a real-live bookshop). Day of the Triffids by John Wyndham (along with pretty much anything that man has ever written) is my favourite novel of all time. Read it. It's amazing.
In Bridget Jones' Diary (ignore for a second that I just claimed to almost exclusively read the classics), she introduces the idea of "jelly fishing". When a seemingly innocent comment is actually a cover for a biting comment – we've all experienced this in real life. Where I live for example, the phrase "you're looking so well" means "dear Lord, you're looking so fat" (but that's just because we're all bitches hiding under a veneer of manners). These comments always happen during semi-formal events when you're forced to not actually respond. "It's so nice that you're comfortable eating that in front of everyone" (actual sentence a person has said to my face). The point is: these are the truly fun-killing life moments. And, as a mixed race lover of the classics, these moments also happen (at least) once-a-book. But they aren't (almost) socially acceptable body-negative shaming; they are casual moments of period racism. Oh yeah. That shit always gets real.
Does it now?
Some of these moments are subtle, some... not so much. Look, I'm not talking about being "shocked" at the prolific use of the "n-word" (personally, I hate ALL of the N-words... "Need"... "No"... "Nice"... arguably I like that infamous one the most...) in Huckleberry Finn, SPOILER ALERT that's, at least partially, what that book is about and it's used deliberately to illustrate a point. No, I'm talking about the landmines of "period appropriate" racism that wouldn't have raised a SINGLE eyebrow at the time of the book's publication, and may not even raise a lot now. These are statements and prejudices that are COMPLETELY irrelevant to the plot, off-hand comments that succeed in darkly (excuse the potential pun) contextualising the period and justify something my mother has always said: "only white people like to imagine living in the past; and stupid ones at that". PREACH.
Some of you will still have no idea what I'm talking about, so I'm going to feel oh-so-free to give you some examples. For the first, one of my romantic favourites (in book or BBC miniseries form) – no, I'm not talking about Pride and Prejudice, calm down – North and South. The (most recent) BBC Miniseries stars Richard Armitage (purely necessary gif of his perfect face below) as John Thornton, the northern mill owner who falls in love with a beautiful southern higher-class lady.
A large part of the story revolves around his struggles to keep his mill open through the various financial obstacles thrown at him and his multiple failed attempts to combat them. Look, as someone who's studied the Factories Acts and the Industrial Revolution in general, it already takes a lot of conscious overlooking to get emotionally involved in this character but I go with it... for the romance... you understand. But there are two particular story elements that are EXTREMELY PROBLEMATIC for anyone with any semblance of an egalitarian soul. Firstly, there's the (more obvious) use and abuse of the bussed-in Irish workers who are paid to work as scabs for the striking workforce. (Spoiler alert: they are not treated well or remotely respectfully). But the real kicker (for me) is a subtle one. Towards the end of the novel, it becomes clear to Mr. Thornton that he will lose his mill because of (wait for it) elevated prices in West-Indian cotton and his inability to compete with cheap cotton from the Americas. That's right, folks. Our romantic hero, our tragic figure, who we are supposed to admire from building himself up from nothing (despite never having worked a day in truly terrible conditions of a factory in that era – no one cares you used to be a "draper's assistant", John) is losing everything because of a run of poor luck. The poor luck, of course, being the FREEING OF WEST INDIAN SLAVES. Several characters in the novel suggest that he might find better fortunes by moving to the US, meaning SOMEWHERE WHERE HE COULD STILL BENEFIT FROM SLAVERY. Our hero, ladies and gentlemen. What a guy. Thank God (spoiler alert) that he took the easy way out and married for money.
I still love that novel but, by God, does it burn. Especially when such a large chunk of it is dedicated to pointing out social inequality... just... not the inequality of black people or the Irish. Fuck them, amirite?
And this is common throughout a lot of literature. For me personally the "there's 6 black Cordelias named after me" comment from Brideshead Revisited came out of nowhere. As did the "stop acting like a bunch of painted Niggers" criticism (which, by the way, is supposed to be read as a sensible statement by the last sane child) in the Lord of the Flies. These comments aren't supposed to really mean anything. That's the point. It gives the reader (if you have eyes to see and ears to listen) and TRUE idea of what the past was like beyond the sugar-coated version we so often have shoved down our throats.
Trust me, they do,
And that's important. Not just because we're so often presented with a (again, excuse the pun) whitewashed/ politically correct version of history but also because it's so clearly symptomatic of a modern problem. Racism is not over. Classism is not over. Xenophobia (fear of Xena) is not over. And it's the mental habit of pretending that those problems don't exist which leads to people glossing over the dodgier parts of their favourite classics. Read them. Enjoy them. But do it for what they are. Understand that this noble, romantic lead would be deplorable by modern standards and while you're at it, recognise that he also EXISTS NOW. Companies still use slave labour to make clothes and to fish and to do whatever they need doing. And the people running those companies have rich, full lives and are often (probably, I don't run in these wealthy circles) very sympathetic people.
These attitudes may be "of their time" and very illustrative of a specific historical period, but you must be smoking something EXTREMELY illegal if you think that there weren't people then who thought it was wrong and fought against it (I'm looking at you Quakers), just like people fight against injustice now, if there weren't, nothing would have changed. And thank God it has.
And, just to be even more of a fun-suck, now that you've opened your eyes to the particularities of period works, go give Friends (and/or How I Met Your Mother) another watch. Just. So. Offensive.
Live in the real world. Those characters certainly do.