I think I must have read all his books, along with CS Forester, when I was supposed to be studying in the library in 5th year! Anyway - I have been re-reading recently, the latest is 'The Zulu Trilogy' - Marie, Child of the Storm and Finished. HRH does of course use language that was acceptable at the time but may not be so now. His extensive use of 'Kafir' and 'Savage' to describe the indiginous Afican people and descriptions of how they need a firm hand by the White Man, many would, today, find offensive. But those were the attitudes prevelent at the time. He does, incidentaly, on many occasion, show that he is a great admirer of the Zulu and other peoples and in a language that would today be considered a little patronising makes it quite clear that the 'hero' (Alan Quartermain in this instance) holds his bearers and native hunters in high regard.

I am quite happy to regard this as just something that did happen in the past and, in fact, see the language and attitude of the fictional characters as a window into past attitudes. But do other people see it as such? I suspect if a modern writer were to use the same language and terminology the books may be frowned upon. I loved the books as a youngster and still do now. But modern sensitivities tells me that such language and attitudes should not be perpetuated.

How do we reconcile this?

Cheers

DeG

---

See Thread I (click)