'Sensitivity readers'? Yes, please!

[Bluma Bezbroda]

Came across this article, I have to say I really liked it:

Publishers are hiring 'sensitivity readers' to flag potentially offensive content

Issues like PC are a returning subject on this forum, so let's not let that tradition die out But, seriously, I think it's a great thing. I also really like how the writers interviewed there seem to not be interested in avoiding popularity/financial loses by publishing something that might be an offensive misrepresentation—it's rather a genuine concern to not do any harm. That's really important, especially when providing products meant for young audience! Also, extremely interesting point about cultural appropriation. Indeed, wouldn't it be better if we had more minority authors published, than to pay minority readers to help create the works of the privileged majority?

What do you think?

 

[Matnov]

I think that readers should be made aware that a book has received an official stamp of approval from a 'sensitivity reader' so that they can decide for themselves before buying it. Personally I believe that sensitivity is a major character flaw in people and would not read a book that was deemed to be a 'sensitive' one because for my money, that equates to turgid. But each to their own.

In terms of my own output, I would be highly offended if my work was not offensive to at least one section of society although I would pay good money to read the report compiled by such readers on the series that features my literary hero, Sir Harry Paget Flashman VC, KCB, KCIE. I would imagine the little snowflakes would require numerous safe-spaces to retreat to if they read any of his adventures in the Victorian era along with many hours of counselling.

 

[Emurelda]

Hmmm...not a big fan of sensitivity readers either. If this does go ahead then yes, put in a mark saying it's been filtered or something. People should be made to feel free to write what they want and read what they want. In reality most people can balance social responsibility with personal right to freely express themselves. There are always outliers and that demographic of outliers increases in direct proportion to 'pc' requirements which causes a frustration to festure. Sooner or later that frustration needs an outlet, whether that's voting for Brexit or Trump - it will be expressed one way or another. So no, I'm not a big fan of forcing people to conform to be sensitive all the time even if I disagree with their outlook. It's healthier to learn what others think, even just knowing it exists, however polar opposite it is to ones views.

 

[Carol Rose]

What @Emurelda said. The whole idea of having someone filter a book for content before it hits the shelves is WAY too "1984" for me.

 

[Paul Whybrow]

Such a move is a form of censorship. What next—cerificate ratings, as used for films—swear words, sex, violence and political and religious opinion moderated?

Historically, Thomas Bowdler was a sensitive soul, whose cleaned-up versions of Shakespeare and Edward Gibbon's Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire, led to the disparaging term bowdlerisation.

 

[Bluma Bezbroda]

Hmmmm I have the idea that that's not what the whole thing is about. I don't think it's censorship at all. It's a) a desire to be truthful in one's portrayal of things b) just plain sensitivity and respect. I don't have a desire to write about, let's say, black community BUT have I had one, I would definitely consult people who are actual members of it. It's just arrogant to assume you can do without.

Giving offence is a big no-no for me. Controversy yes, food for thought and unpopular opinions (note: hate is not an opinion) by all means. But if someone can not do better than provoke anger, in whatever medium, I consider that not worthy of my attention.

Misrepresentation, which is the subject of the article I shared is another thing. It's usually done not on purpose, but is harmful. It makes people that are being misrepresented feel shitty and that's the only reason I need to avoid it by all costs.

Wow, did I just manage to write a whole post without one misspeling? Whohooo

 

[Emurelda]

My protaganist is a black 12 year old boy. According to my understanding of this article I am not allowed to write my story. I disagree. From my point of view anyone can write with another point of view based on their own creative insight. No one should stop that.

As for misrepresentation, that only assumes one fundamental error, that grouped people are a homgenised bunch who can only relate to within their demographic, whatever they choose that to be. We forget that actually we are all fundamentally similar and can put ourselves in each others shoes if we want. Some may agree some will disagree. That's ok.

Some confuse disagreement with offense. The only commonality these two variables have are that they are subjective and one in particular being contentious because it is of the heart and not of the mind.

 

[Bluma Bezbroda]

Is it that you are not allowed? Or is it that you (and all of us) should acgnowledge, that you have to take in mnd some additional factors?

One of my stories is about love between two men. I get these comments that I should not write about what I don't know. The thing is, I'm not writing about gay scene, coming out's or discrimination of gay people in society. That, indeed, would be a task way beyond me, at present at least. If I would fuck it up by misrepresenting these sometimes very painful subjects, folks would have all the right to hold it against me.

I'm writing about two people who fall in love. Whether that's the same when two men or two women or man/woman is concerned—this is the controversy. That is the thought process I would like to initiate in the reader.

The thing is, I want to make the reader think, not to hate me.

 

[Emurelda]

No one complained when JK Rowling wrote about an 11 year old boy wizard. It's not an issue in my eyes but made into an issue. All of our characters are fictional based on our viewpoint and no matter how much research we do, we won't be able to represent all within a certain demographic. The more I think about it the more of a non-issue I find this article to be especially when we look at other books such as his Dark Materials, and many examples when writers were not typical of their protacganist.

Funny how they 'got away' with it. Why is it suddenly not ok. THAT is what I'm intrigued by. Who are these people suddenly taking offence when all this time no one has done so for so long. And why do people choose to be offended, it's a choice not obligatory to take offense. I can tell you that .

Do research, sure, that kinda goes without saying for me.

 

[Carol Rose]

Sorry, but no one has the right to censor someone else's fiction, and that's exactly what this would be, no matter how you spin it. As for practicing sensitivity in my writing, that's on ME to figure out. Unless I want to lose readers, that is.

I'm an adult. I can research a subject or a culture. I can ask people who have been there, done that if I want to write about something that might be tricky for me to pull off. But in the end, it's MY words on the paper and any offense taken by a third party is subjective.

I mean let's face it. You can offend anyone without even meaning to. And those looking for offense will always find it. It works both ways.

To suggest an author has to filter their words in a story so as not to offend anyone is very unrealistic, if you truly think about it. No matter what they write about, someone could potentially be offended, even if the subject matter isn't controversial.

Where do you draw the line? And who decides what is offensive, or to whom, and how offensive it is? Who decides what the words *should* say instead? How far does it go?

Have you read 1984? Seriously. That's exactly what was done to everything in the story. Every book, every news article, everything. Filtered. Any reference to what the Party didn't want said was removed. The written word was completely whitewashed - a term that in and of itself is offensive to many people because of the connotations that "white" equals "good and pure."

See what I mean?

 

[Bluma Bezbroda]

Carol, of course I've read 1984 Also, may I remind you, I come from a country that seen the horrors of censorship and is seeing them again now.

It's not that I don't understand what you all are saying. I just have a continuing impression that we are speaking about very different things. You are talking about someone being offended. I am talking about not doing harm.

I am also more than aware that people will take offence (I know ones that are offended by the mere fact that I exist), no matter how you'd try to avoid it. TBH, I'm not even trying to avoid it, except being regularly civil. But I also strongly believe that I am responsible for what I say and create.

 

[Sea-shore]

I agree with @Bluma Bezbroda here. I don’t think it is about censorship.

I have been listening and reading up on cultural appropriation ( a new concept for me) and am starting to see the damage it has for future generations. A little more thought and care on what is written now, I feel, is a good thing.

 

[Emurelda]

I guess without examples the terms 'harm' and 'damage' aren't clear to me how this manifests from people's work even when they get it wrong. And there already is a lot out there that is already 'wrong' but it's there to be analysed, discredited, corrected, learned from and so on. At the end of the day all this is going to do is create a new market; filtered work vs non-filtered work. People can't stop each other from writing well-intentioned work on the one hand and hate material that could 'harm' (that needs to be defined) on the other.

I don't think anyone here is arguing against writing with care and consideration. But there is work that isn't written with care and consideration - is that going to be made illegal? I'm not a fan of people mocking each other but I recognise that others for some bizarre reason have to mock. It's not a crime - is it?

 

[Emurelda]

I agree with @Bluma Bezbroda here. I don’t think it is about censorship.

I have been listening and reading up on cultural appropriation ( a new concept for me) and am starting to see the damage it has for future generations. A little more thought and care on what is written now, I feel, is a good thing.

I imagine someone somewhere in the not so distant past got super excited and proud of themselves when they coined the term 'cultural appropriation'. I wear denims and t-shirts majority of the time, I must be culturally appropriating the American culture. It's more madness in my eyes. Of course there are people who mock other cultures and undermine them - I've seen it in both the Muslim community as much as other communities too. No one culture has the monopoly of this grievance. But should it stop us adopting each others culture if we fancy? Again there will always be people who mock - that can't be gotten away from.

 

[Bluma Bezbroda]

I'm the last person ever who would advocate making something illegal. For a simple reason—it doesn't work. Making jokes about gas chambers in a private setting is not illegal, but people tend not to do it because it's frowned upon. Remove that stigma, lets say, go to todays Warsaw, and people are LOLing over Aushwitz. Is that really such a great thing?

You can buy rape manuals. They are there and they sell—I'm not talking about a few creeps here, authors of these books are making a living out of it. Should we ban it? No, that would just make them disseminate their work in a different way. But, whenever you write a book in which rape is normalized you are putting a little brick into reinforcing the notion that rape is not all that bad and, thus, creating space for such authors. Perhaps even bringing them few more readers.

Culture mixing is a great thing. I will get dreadlocks in few weeks, I've heard that some people think it is cultural appropriation. I strongly dissagree. Cultural appropriation is not when cultures verge, it's when one culture thrives on the other's expense.

 

[Sea-shore]

Cultural appropriation - Wikipedia

 

[Robinne Weiss]

I'm not comfortable when somebody in authority says, "You can't publish this, because it's offensive." But I'm a great fan of being respectful to others. I used to teach my heritage interpretation students that they should eliminate everything about themselves that would detract from their message when they were speaking to a group (cover offensive tattoos, remove excess jewelry and piercings, wear clean and modest clothing). Not because they shouldn't express themselves, but because if their appearance distracted from their message, then they weren't going to be able to effectively communicate. If my writing, by its offensiveness, detracts from the story I'm trying to tell, then the offensiveness is a problem. I listen very carefully when any early reader tells me something's off-colour, and I do my best to portray diverse characters with respect and compassion, even when they are my 'baddies'. Is that censorship? I think of it more as basic human decency.

I have no problem with an author writing whatever they want, no matter how offensive, but I also understand where the publishers are coming from. They are counting on putting out a marketable product--if their books don't sell, they won't be around long. If a book they're investing in is likely to offend a large segment of its potential market, they have a strong interest in changing the book so it doesn't. Perhaps they shouldn't have offered the author a contract if they had concerns? Perhaps authors should make sure they have an 'out' in their contract, in case they and the publisher can't agree on the final text? I don't have an answer here. I see the validity of both sides of the argument.

 

[Carol Rose]

I hear what all of you are saying, but I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Having respect for the culture and people you're writing about, not doing any harm, practicing sensitivity, being mindful of inclusion and diversity ... all of these are different sides of the same coin, and they fall to the writer, not to some third party or governing body to make the distinction. That IS censorship, no matter how you choose to label it. It's also fraught with the very concepts some of you are arguing against because where does it end? Who has the final say, and what gives that person the power or the right to deem someone else's work inappropriate, offensive, or illegal?

And, by the way, we've already done that throughout history. We've banned books. We've banned certain types of writing. And it didn't work. People did it anyway. And when the governing body doing the banning and the censoring fell, so did the restrictive practices.

Yes, there is material out there that promotes hate and violence. There is material out there that mocks certain cultures. There always has been. Always. I'm not saying it's right or that I condone it. I do not. But ... and here's my point.... I also DO NOT READ IT. As humans we have the gift of free will. In my eyes - and this is only my perception (but they do say it's everything), what some of you are suggesting would take away that free will. It would take away my CHOICE of what I read or what I pass over. Sorry folks, but I have a huge problem with that, and if you think about it, most people would. Because where does THAT end? Today it might be my reading choices. Tomorrow it could be what brand of toothpaste or shampoo I use. And the next day, it might be what I say, or who I choose to love.

The sad truth is that you're not going to stop people from writing things that offend, or that promote violence and hate, by having a third party censor their work. Not unless you shut down Amazon, and all the other platforms whereby people can publish their work. A traditional publisher has the right to refuse any book, for their own reasons, and it certainly is within their power to do so. But no one who truly wants to promote hate and violence needs a traditional publisher to do it.

All it takes is a keyboard and the ability to use a computer to "publish" a book on Amazon, or one of the other third party publishing platforms. And for that matter, anyone can promote their agenda on their blog or website, for free. They don't even have to sell their writing to make their point. The best anyone can do in that instance is report the site or the blog to the hosting company, as most of them have rules in their teams of service against certain types of posts. Even reporting books to Amazon will sometimes lead to the book being removed. Sometimes.

Am I saying any of this is acceptable or should simply be taken in stride? No. Of course not. But it's been going on well before any of us were born, and I suspect it will continue because human beings are human beings. Perhaps one day it will change. We can certainly hold out hope that it does. But if history proves anything, it proves that hate and violence have always existed among human beings. No matter which ancient texts you read, across cultures and religions, you will find instances of hate for other groups, other cultures, other people. You will find violence against fellow man. You will find fear of those who are different. You will find instances where a dominant culture or religion has attempted to "force" people to become just like them - to convert them, if you will. All in the name of their supreme being.

What I'm saying is that none of what you're suggesting we ban from all writing is new to people. It's as ancient as we as a race are. That doesn't make it right. Not at all. I don't have any answers for eradicating it. We have access to all the education in the world at our fingertips, but you can't get inside someone's head. You can't force them to think a certain way. Until our HEARTS change, the hate and the violence will exist.

 

[Katie-Ellen]

Harm though, or bad taste, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. But as already mentioned, it is a concern, even a hot potato for publishers as discussed here: Article from The Bookseller

One of the nastiest, most upsetting novels I've yet read was The Klansman. Yet, if it was in my power to ban it, I wouldn't. It dealt with 'real' people, not caricatures, and the writer ensured, that though legal justice failed the innocent, karma caught up with the Klansman cop and broke his heart.

Went touring in the Peak District yesterday, Castleton, parking by a sign that said, 'This Way To The Devil's Arse.'

If ever I get walking again, I shall head straight there, definitely.

 

[Bernard Stacey]

I'm a bit late to this thread (catching up) but it seems to be just a further example of how there is no limit to the things some people can get upset about. Are there really readers out there who need their literary intake formally sanitised so that their sensibilities are not affected? It appears there are.
Isn't one of the joys of reading to be challenged, taken out of ones comfort zone, made to think? A book with which one profoundly disagrees (on whatever level) is surely more valuable than some saccharine formulaic effort that ticks all the PC boxes but wouldn't tax even those with single-figure IQs.
There is already a form of 'censorship' in so far as no publisher in their right mind would publish out-and-out offensive racism / jokes about Auschwitz, etc: it would ruin their reputation, not to mention their profit margin.
We already have our foods marked with traffic light labels for fat, salt, and sugar so we can 'choose healthily'. Are we to have the same for books (though of course that glorious human free will that Carol mentioned means that we would happily be able to ignore it).
I am reminded of a line from Demolition Man - a dystopian movie to watch when there's nothing else on and you don't want to be taxed too much though there are a few good bits in it, especially this bit (from one of the underground rebel characters):

"I'm the enemy because I like to think. I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy that could sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs or the side order of gravy fries? I want high cholesterol. I would eat bacon and butter and buckets of cheese. Okay? I want to smoke Cuban cigars the size of Cincinnati in the nonsmoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-O all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I might suddenly feel the need to. Okay, pal?"

 

[Paul Whybrow]

Is that really a quote from Demolition Man, Bernard? Or did you simply describe what you're planning to do next weekend?!

 

[Marc Joan]

Photos please.

 

[Marc Joan]

Harm though, or bad taste, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. But as already mentioned, it is a concern, even a hot potato for publishers as discussed here: Article from The Bookseller

One of the nastiest, most upsetting novels I've yet read was The Klansman. Yet, if it was in my power to ban it, I wouldn't. It dealt with 'real' people, not caricatures, and the writer ensured, that though legal justice failed the innocent, karma caught up with the Klansman cop and broke his heart.

Went touring in the Peak District yesterday, Castleton, parking by a sign that said, 'This Way To The Devil's Arse.'

If ever I get walking again, I shall head straight there, definitely.

The Devil has an arse in Snowdonia too, near Bethesda, but I can't recall the Cymraeg... Guess somebody ripped him a second one? That'll teach him to cause mischief

 

[Luciferette]

I'm late, here, too, but I'm interested in what this would mean for historical fiction. If we're to write realistic characters who resonate with their period, surely that suggests they would have beliefs and moral standards that most modern readers find alien, if not repugnant? The dialogue alone is a minefield!
A writer can use these characters as a mirror to our times, sure; "a warning from history", if you like, but even the very inclusion of some words would immediately raise a red flag for any sensitivity reader - it'd be fascinating to see the criteria for what would pass the test.

 

[Bernard Stacey]

Is that really a quote from Demolition Man, Bernard? Or did you simply describe what you're planning to do next weekend?!

Don't be silly. I don't smoke cigars.

 

[Matnov]

And lets not even begin to think about the novel in which Flashman finds himself caught up in the underground escape route for African-American Slaves!

 

[Katie-Ellen]

Plus he's a total bodice-ripper, old Flashman. Not averse to it while the fair maiden is unconscious or asleep, either, yikes. Restorative, don't ye know. Put some colour in her cheeks.

 

[Emurelda]

View attachment 1514

And lets not even begin to think about the novel in which Flashman finds himself caught up in the underground escape route for African-American Slaves!

It'll be interesting to see the reaction of people when a new book comes out soon where white people are slaves and black people are their owners. I was surprised when the author told a group of us that he was creating a book of such nature. He won a major publishing contract to complete it. No sensitivity readers there then! lol.

 

[Katie-Ellen]

Well, yes, white slavery. A lot of that too down the ages. A lot of slavery, full stop, of every kind. It didn't used to be safe to live in Devon and Cornwall. Barbary corsairs.

 

[Emurelda]

Well, yes, white slavery. A lot of that too down the ages. A lot of slavery, full stop, of every kind. It didn't used to be safe to live in Devon and Cornwall. Barbary corsairs.

Yes - the context of the one I mentioned was based in the US. I don't know any more than that except that it was a direct reciprocation of its history.