Myths of the Golden Era -- Exploded!

[Flicka]

I too am a history major. Secondary subjects were Latin and History of Religion. Anyone who thinks explicit language is a 20th century invention is needs to read up. Catullus is a good starting point, and please, do not miss out on Rochester's works from the late 17th century or Wilkes' Essay on Woman from the 1760s. Also, some Victorian erotica, perhaps?

As for the existence of crossdressing, homosexuality and drugs in the 20s, any biography on a member of the 'Bright Young People' will tell you abou thar, but then you can also simply read something by Evelyn Waugh...

 

[LizzieMaine]

Returning to myths of the Golden Era, one particular myth, if I may call it such, that I've found, one perpetuated on movie forums such as IMDB.com, is that history was perfectly clean. Nobody swore. Everyone was straight and drug-free and that nobody drank a drop of alcohol.

The opposite of this myth is also a myth, however -- that *everybody* swore, drank, shot up, and carried on and we just pretend they didn't. The Era was not the Rinso White image portrayed by the Breen Office, but neither was it a Boardwalk Empire-style carnival of constant violence and obscenity. People knew there was a time and a place to tear off a fine display of swearing, for example, but the average persond didn't punctuate every sentence they uttered with obscenities.

My grandfather, born in 1904, was a master of the art of applied swearing -- some of his constructions would have made Mark Twain proud -- but I never, ever, in the eighteen years our lives overlapped, heard him use the f-word. Swearing in the Era tended to be far more colorfully blasphemous, with a touch of scatology, than the monotonous, unimaginative emphasis on that one particular sexual term that characterizes swearing today.

Another myth that isn't true is one perpetuated by the pro-marijuana-legalization crowd: that before the federal crackdown on marijuana in 1937, "pot was commonly used and could be bought in any drugstore." This is false. During the years before 1937, marijuana smoking was common in the United States only along the Mexican border among immigrant laborers, and among traveling jazz musicians who had picked up the habit while traveling thru that region. It had been made illegal in ten states before the 1930s, mostly in the West and South. It was largely unknown to the general public -- hence the "reefer madness" furor of the mid-thirties when it did begin to spread beyond those boundaries.

What was legal at the time, and available in drug stores, was Fluid Extract of Cannabis which was available only thru a doctor's prescription, and was occasionally given as a pain reliever, although its popularity declined sharply after the introduction of aspirin. By the 1930's it was considered archaic, and rarely prescribed.

The only documented sale of actual marijuana in smoking form as a medical product prior to the modern era was its use in anti-asthmatic cigarettes manufactured by a French firm, Grimault and Co., in the late 19th Century. These were never sold direct to the public in the United States, but could only be obtained thru a doctor's prescription. These were not pure marijuana in the sense and style that's used today -- they were a in fact a mixture of dried belladonna treated with cannabis extract. They were never widely used here -- cubeb cigarettes were far more common as an anti-asthmatic treatment -- and by the thirties were largely forgotten.

 

[Noirblack]

My grandfather, born in 1904, was a master of the art of applied swearing -- some of his constructions would have made Mark Twain proud

I don't recall ever reading any swear words in Mark Twain's works.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Mark Twain was an enthusiastic booster of the swearing habit in his private life, and was considered one of the champion cursers of the 19th Century.

 

[KayEn78]

The supreme irony of it all is that this is the best-educated generation the world has ever known -- and yet also the most bone-dumb. It's not that they're just ignorant, they just don't see why they should care.

Exactly.

Exactly. There's too many timeswhere people just say, "You're a sesspool of useless knowledge." or "No one would care about that!"

-Kristi

 

[KayEn78]

Cursing, drinking, smoking, sex...it was all there. It'sjust that, in those days of the Era, people knew the proper time and place to swear. It wasn't so "in your face" as it is now. When you went out in public, you acted like a decent human being. But in private? It can be a different story.

What gets me is that with writing, especially stories set in another time, people tend to put 21st Century twists or 21st Century modern slang in a story supposedly set in the 1950s, '60s or even '70s. It just doesn't work. People should do all aspects of research and write how the time really was. Don't pepper it with 21st Century thoughts or ideas. It's disrespectful to the time then. But then, that's just me. I like to write how it was to the best of my knowledge and research. When I write historical fiction or even fan fiction, I don't cut corners when it comes to history. I don't care how minor a detail may be. I want it as accurate and authentic as possible.

-Kristi

 

[scotrace]

I wonder where the whole "Greatest Briton" mythology came from...

Often attributed to the old man: "History will be kind to me. For I intend to write it."

 

[LizzieMaine]

This is the thing that really bugs me the most about "Boardwalk Empire," which is, visually speaking, a very careful reconstruction of the early/mid-twenties. But the speech patterns of the characters are strictly 21st Century, and they don't seem to have made much, if any effort to actually make the characters talk like people did at the time. A certain word referring to incestuous practices wasn't widely used outside urban African-American circles until the 1970s -- and there's no positive documentation of its use in American slang by anyone before about 1928 -- but it's constantly being swung around in modern portrayals of the Era like it was everyday language. It wasn't.

 

[KayEn78]

I found this article to be fascinating. It's about the profanity used in The Pacific (2010). These people say that they didn't curse like that. In other cases of wartime, yes, people did curse a blue streak.

http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/opinion/profanity-in-series-atypical-of-wwii-805740.html

Oh yes, on another note, if you try to educate someone in regards to history or writing historical fiction, you're branded a "Know-it-all!" or they claim that "no one" would look that up, whatever it may be. Not true.

I once knew someone who never even took history in high school. Very scary...
-Kristi

 

[Espee]

Speaking of old vs. new perspectives--
Remember a couple years back, when our President had a bad run for a while-- several problems came up, to which a certain modern descriptive phrase was being applied?
I fixed up a photo where a frustrated Oliver Hardy is grumbling to Stan Laurel, "Well, here's another fine teachable moment you've gotten us into!"

 

[Edward]

I don't recall ever reading any swear words in Mark Twain's works.

Plenty of other words that aren't acceptable in polite company nowadays, though.

Often attributed to the old man: "History will be kind to me. For I intend to write it."

Very true! lol

This is the thing that really bugs me the most about "Boardwalk Empire," which is, visually speaking, a very careful reconstruction of the early/mid-twenties. But the speech patterns of the characters are strictly 21st Century, and they don't seem to have made much, if any effort to actually make the characters talk like people did at the time. A certain word referring to incestuous practices wasn't widely used outside urban African-American circles until the 1970s -- and there's no positive documentation of its use in American slang by anyone before about 1928 -- but it's constantly being swung around in modern portrayals of the Era like it was everyday language. It wasn't.

Would the be Samuel L Jackson's favourite word?

 

[Treetopflyer]

One of my pet peeves is when people say “well, why was I never taught about (fill in blank) in high school?” This usually refers to some PC thing that has come to light in the media about the past. An example is the recent release of the movie Red Tails. So many people have come out and said that they were not taught about the Tuskegee Airmen in school and they were surprised that their story existed. I have to explain, that they have always been in the history books and just because it was not put right in front of your nose in the media does not mean that their story has never been told or people were hiding it. I am an aviation enthusiast and I have read and known about the Tuskegee Airmen pretty much my whole life.

There is not enough time in four years of High school history class to teach everything the media thinks is important. That is when it is up to people to start doing research on their own. The upside to historically based movies is that it gets people interested and they start researching. I have a friend who has a 13 year old daughter, who watched the movie Pearl Harbor, think what you will about the movie, but she found the bases for it interesting and she has since done more research on the bombing of Pearl Harbor and why it happened.

I am sure if it was presented as “Reality” TV then people would be interested.

 

[Noirblack]

Mark Twain was an enthusiastic booster of the swearing habit in his private life, and was considered one of the champion cursers of the 19th Century.

Maybe in his personal life he was a prolific swearer. I just didn't want anyone who hasn't read him yet to get the impression that the language in his books is profane. He's such a great writer that he didn't need to use that sort of language in his written works.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Would the be Samuel L Jackson's favourite word?

It would, and I'm so very very tired of hearing it. It's like all of modern profanity -- lazy, pointless, and stupid. Where are the colorful attacks on the legitimacy of one's target? Where are the highly-elaborated denunciations of his ancestry? Where is the smoking, sulphurous blasphemy? Today's swearing isn't swearing at all -- it's the mindless scribblings of ignoramuses on a bathroom wall.

I think swearing can be likened to the use of a gun. You don't point a gun at anything you don't intend to kill, and you don't swear at anyone unless your intent and purpose is to insult and offend him as thoroughly, as completely, and comprehensively as possible in every aspect of his being. If you don't intend to do that, and aren't equipped to do that, you're just wasting your time with your dopey little f-words.

 

[Shangas]

Oh yes, on another note, if you try to educate someone in regards to history or writing historical fiction, you're branded a "Know-it-all!" or they claim that "no one" would look that up, whatever it may be. Not true.

I'm a writer of historical fiction, as some people here may know. I assure that I have researched the most insane things before I started writing. When I started writing a story set in the 1660s about the Great Plague of London, I spent about six months reading the diaries of John Evelyn and Samuel Pepys, just to get the language right.

And I agree with the consensus on swearing in the GE. People would've been polite enough to keep it in private, in those days, unlike today where it's absolutely everywhere.

---EDIT---

LizzieMaine, your little insight into swearing and insults has reminded me of those "Great Lists of Insults" that get passed around the internet from time to time.

Like this telegraphic gem:

FROM: SHAW; George Bernard.
TO: CHURCHILL; Winston.

"Enclosed are two tickets to the first night of my new play. Bring a friend. If you have one".

FROM: CHURCHILL; Winston.
TO: SHAW; George Bernard.

"Cannot possibly attend first night. Will attend second. If there is one".

 

[dhermann1]

I assume you read Defoe's "Journal of the Plague Year"?

 

[Shangas]

Actually I haven't read that one. I couldn't get my hands on it. But some people did recommend it to me.

---Treetopflyer---

I agree. While they're not always 100% accurate, historical movies do expose you to parts of history that you never knew existed before watching a particular movie. It expands your knowledge and interest, if nothing else. Just so long as you don't take everything in the movie as 100% true.

 

[KayEn78]

It would, and I'm so very very tired of hearing it. It's like all of modern profanity -- lazy, pointless, and stupid. Where are the colorful attacks on the legitimacy of one's target? Where are the highly-elaborated denunciations of his ancestry? Where is the smoking, sulphurous blasphemy? Today's swearing isn't swearing at all -- it's the mindless scribblings of ignoramuses on a bathroom wall.

I think swearing can be likened to the use of a gun. You don't point a gun at anything you don't intend to kill, and you don't swear at anyone unless your intent and purpose is to insult and offend him as thoroughly, as completely, and comprehensively as possible in every aspect of his being. If you don't intend to do that, and aren't equipped to do that, you're just wasting your time with your dopey little f-words.

I'm very sick of it myself. People just chalk it up as "freedom of speech." Please...!

-Kristi

 

[Shangas]

With all the political correctness we have these days, I didn't think "freedom of speech" still existed.

 

[KayEn78]

It does, but for the wrong reasons--like using profanity constantly for no other reason than to show you have a very limited vocabulary or to shock someone.

-Kristi