I agree with the author of the article. We, as writers, should be willing to include controversial subjects in our writings, as opposed to not mentioning them at all. However, one must not go overboard on including controversial topics. We need to tread carefully.

I like Bradley’s insight on this topic. It was an interesting article.

As Athena subsequently pointed out, a word with a unique meaning within a culture is fair game. FWIW, I checked the Gutenberg editions of various works by D, and did find three instances of “da” in The Brothers Karamazov – in the phrase “auto da fe”, which is a Spanish phrase and a fine example of the sort of usage Athena is talking about! 

I disagree, Athena.  I think it helps keep the reader in the frame that this is a Slavic culture. 

What is a Slavic culture? Cultures of Slavic countries vary widely.

Not every Slavic language uses net and da for no and yes. I once corrected a friend who used da to indicate that his character was Czech, while yes in Czech is actually ano. (it matters; perhaps not to everyone, but it matters, just as it matters to get the science right, although many readers may skip the science).

Thee are many ways to describe a culture by talking about the culture’s language(s), but indicating how basic words (such as yes and no) sound in that language tells us very little, if anything, about the actual culture.

Should a translation, of, say, Dostoevsky eschew all Russian words on the basis that its a translation?

Have you ever looked at a translation of Dostoyevsky? There are quite a few of them floating around, by various translators, but to my knowledge not a single one of them has an instance of da or net, or any other common word, floating in a sea of English.  

Brad B’s article has some thoughtful elements, though it actually isn’t about what it says on the tin—it’s not about “poltiical correctness” for example. I know that term actually has very little meaning, but I think most people understand the term as having a negative connotation: it’s the social phenomenon of language policing and euphemism. He doesn’t discuss the actually existing phenomenon of “PC” at all.

Then there’s “interface”, which isn’t offensive (no need to apologize for it on that ground Brad B.) but also manages to be at right angles with how English is actually used.  He’s a writer, right? This piece is being written to discuss his book—the cover leads right to amazon!—so, yeah, as a regular reader of this site if I see some content that isn’t well-thought out I’m going to mention it here. I also objected to the SFSignal review of Transformers 3 that gave the film 3.5 stars. (Out of five that is, not 3.5 out of  “all the stars in the sky.”) Yet no right-wing white-knighting emerged from that!

And when the usual crowd of wannabe He-Men who are just! so! victimized! by…well, by whom, who knows because they’re universally too cowardly to name any names or have a real discussion, show up, I’m going to point that out too. To his credit, Brad B. didn’t engage with any of the usual He-Man hobbyhorses, but when one subtitles one piece “One Writer’s Thoughts on Political Correctness” one is making an open invitation to all sorts of semiliterates to show up and complain about their work being criticized. And hey, you showed up!

But anyone who only wants positive feedback should share their writing only with their mamas. No writer you hold in esteem ever tell you that? They should have.

It’s one thing if you want to denote something that doesn’t exist outside that particular culture or can only be named/described with a long string of words.  For example, if you want to say borscht, izba, troika, etc.  That will give you plenty of cultural framing, whether it’s an original or a translation.  Yes and no… ixnay.

Specific words that can not be easily translated, maybe. Like if I’m talking in Spanish I wouldn’t translate “atole” as “mush” because it’s a specific drink. But you should be able to understand that my characters are Mexican without me having to add a gratitious “Si” y “Andale” like they do in the movies where the characters are speaking in English (while supposedly they are speaking Spanish) and then for colour they throw a random word like “por favor”.

Well, sure. That’s our point, or at least it’s mine. In fact, I think it’s Brad B’s original point, and the point of Laura Mixon’s comments. Many people would rather not think about this stuff too deeply; that’s why many people keep getting this stuff wrong. If I use academic terminology, it’s because I’m familiar with those terms, and they’re useful and accurate. I don’t think intersubjectivity is a tough one to grasp.

I’d also point out that the O.P. was specifically about a writer’s perspective, not that of “most readers,” whoever they are. Whatever readers are or aren’t willing to think about, professional authors ought to take care to do their job well, which, again, is Brad B’s point. They ought to want to do their job well. That means accurately representing different kinds of people.

I’m also amused by your concern with my reputation. Christ, it’s not even “Lurkers support me in email!” it’s “Some unnamed person I was venting at gave me a blow-off and I don’t even know it!”

I disagree, Athena.  I think it helps keep the reader in the frame that this is a Slavic culture. 

Should a translation, of, say, Dostoevsky eschew all Russian words on the basis that its a translation?

I wonder how the YouTube generation will be biased. Certainly not in the same ways. I imagine they’ll have access to more widely available material, and so in some ways they *could* become more accepting. Then again, what we’re seeing now in politics (and it’s leaking over into our moral structure here in the US) is the advent of these “islands” of morality and social leadership. Those that wish to steep themselves in a particular point of view can do so, more so than they could a decade ago simply because there are now these self-feeding sources of ideology. On the one hand, there are some that preach acceptance and understanding, but these seem to be outweighed by those that preach isolationism and protectionism, which can very quickly lead to a widening of social, economical, and racial lines, not only in America but across the globe.