Article on the pitfalls of Sensitivity Readers.

[Phyrebrat]

My sister forwarded me this exceptionally interesting article on sensitivity readers. I

It’s clearly of great importance to writers here and I am posting it in the resources forum with the hopes that it does not devolve into any kind of discussion of politics/sociopolitical diatribes. Which in any case are banned on Chrons.

How sensitivity readers corrupt literature

They sullied my memoir to suit their agenda

unherd.com

 

[Vladd67]

Just how are these not modern day censors?

 

[Venusian Broon]

Just how are these not modern day censors?

Well, as the author states at the end, she didn't take up any of the suggestions, so she wasn't censored. Although, yes, she moved to another publisher, so we don't know if she would be pressured if she had stayed with the original one.

 

[JS Wiig]

Another nail in the coffin of the “traditional” publishing model, in my opinion.

Why would a writer subject themselves to this when there are alternative and potentially just as lucrative paths to their readers?

 

[sule]

I wonder at the efficacy of those specific sensitivity readers, especially since one of them thought it was their job to "correct" grammatical mistakes, but in my opinion it is usually a good idea for writers to get experts to read through their work (especially when said work concerns something within that reader's area of expertise) not because they should fear "backlash" but because writers should want to present as accurate a portrayal of their subject as they can. Of course, it behooves the writer (and/or publisher) to find people with relevant expertise who can helpfully communicate that expertise to the writer. This article makes it sound like the publisher failed to do exactly that, but I don't think that this one specific case should reflect on all sensitivity readers.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

So, there is such a thing as a "sensitivity reader". I learn something new every day. I assume such scrutiny is not automatic but was applied in this case after the book became controversial on social media. I don't really see how the sensitivity readers "sullied [her] memoir". Surely they are providing a private service to the writer and/or publisher. It doesn't seem fair to pour quite so much scorn on them. They are just doing what it says on the tin (hire them or don't hire them.....and if you do, pay them and take or leave the results). The real conflict here would surely be between the author (who may have been a little stubborn?) and a publisher (that could have been more supportive?).

I think social media has caused many of the problems we see here. It is just way too easy to jump on a bandwagon with little to no understanding of the issues and no knowledge of the individuals involved. And I think this writer made a mistake in engaging with the critics (always destined to make matters worse). I think its fair to say she acknowledges this in the interview.

 

[Mon0Zer0]

A while back, Amelie Wen-Zhao's book "Blood Heir" was cancelled over it's depiction of slavery. "The slavery storylines in her novel “represent a specific critique of the epidemic of indentured labor and human trafficking prevalent in many industries across Asia, including in my own home country”. So it seemed that the people who pressured Wen-Zhao and her publishers completely missed (or didn't care about) the context and meaning of the book.

I can't help but wonder, is policing art and literature effective in trying to tackle the kinds of issues it wants to tackle? Does rigid, over-sensitivity to the history of American slavery obstruct valid work on modern slavery? Can fantasy fiction tackle these important issues?

I think of the fuss made about Alan Moore a few years back where he was accused of over-using sexual assault in stories like watchmen. Yet the kneejerk rush to cancel seems to miss out that when those stories were published there was a conspiracy of silence around sexual assault that meant people believed it wasn't as prevalent (or horrific) as it was. It was only the normalisation of discourse around these issues that people can actually talk about it (like #MeToo).

There is a balance, of course - women in refrigerators was an over-used trope, for sure. But there is a difference between what Wen-Zhao and Moore are doing with their use of these sensitive topics to highlight social ill and a hack using trauma endured by women as cheap motivation for a male protagonist.

As I understand it, Wen-Zhao did republish Blood Heir after making changes - but in the process the spirit has been lost as she changed it to appease critics.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Just how are these not modern day censors?

because they give advice only. You can still publish and be damned. And you will be damned if you get a subject wrong and can be picked apart from it. Personally i think many ‚classics‘ would have benefitted from thinking more deeply about their words

 

[Mon0Zer0]

So, there is such a thing as a "sensitivity reader". I learn something new every day. I assume such scrutiny is not automatic but was applied in this case after the book became controversial on social media. I don't really see how the sensitivity readers "sullied [her] memoir". Surely they are providing a private service to the writer and/or publisher. It doesn't seem fair to pour quite so much scorn on them. They are just doing what it says on the tin (hire them or don't hire them.....and if you do, pay them and take or leave the results). The real conflict here would surely be between the author (who may have been a little stubborn?) and a publisher (that could have been more supportive?).

I think, these have quite a lot of weight, particularly as publishers are increasingly skittish and wary of social media blowback. It's pretty expensive to have to pulp a load of books if there's an early stage backlash against the author.

I think social media has caused many of the problems we see here. It is just way too easy to jump on a bandwagon with little to no understanding of the issues and no knowledge of the individuals involved. And I think this writer made a mistake in engaging with the critics (always destined to make matters worse). I think its fair to say she acknowledges this in the interview.

Social Media is definitely part of the equation and, imho, there is a lot more in the mix, from the way technology in general is shaping our lives, lack of community, certain parts of Academia, the media industry, failure of politicians, the economy to tackle deep seated social ills etc.

 

[JS Wiig]

And you will be damned if you get a subject wrong and can be picked apart from it.

As well one should be. “Let the free market weed out the hacks!” I say.

More than social media I think it’s our litigious society scared to death of getting sued. Even the party in the “right” ends up paying out the arse so better to err on the side of “censorship” rather than risk potential perceived impropriety.

At what point does it become too much risk for a publisher to market but only the plainest of works?

 

[Jo Zebedee]

At what point does it become too much risk for a publisher to market but only the plainest of works?

about 10 years ago. But that’s to do with making money and lowest common denominator readers

 

[AnyaKimlin]

Honestly, as I read her article I could see why her homophobia was flagged. I am not LGBTQ and I would have flagged it. That makes me wonder about the other issues and how they were presented in the book itself.

What I have learned living with those who are minority groups and being part of more than one myself is that it's very, very difficult to get it right and it takes a shed load of humility to even hope to get it right. I'm going to get things wrong because I just don't understand enough. Having been married to a trans woman for twenty years, had a lesbian mother, an intersex brother, a queer kid and best friend who is gay for nearly thirty years, I now know I haven't done enough research to get LGBTQplus characters and issues right. I think I get it and then they say something that makes me think and reassess my life. I can write a good character but I wouldn't dream of publishing without opinions from those that have been there and done that.

I know how painful I find it when they get the North of Scotland wrong in books and media - it's not just painful it's part of why we no longer have a life saving maternity unit because the place is seen as backwards, remote and stuck in a time warp, and they can't recruit doctors. But I get a lot of people tell me "It's only comedy" or "It's only fiction". I am just lucky that in 2003 the unit was in operation or my eldest and I would not be alive.

I think anyone wholesale rejecting sensitivity readers is nuts. I know that having been brought up in the time I was and where I was that I cannot avoid being transphobic. homophobic, racist and even misogynistic.

It's not censorship - it's capitalism. Nobody is entitled to an audience (as people from minority groups that are misrepresented constantly have been told all my writing life). Anybody can reject what the publishers say and self publish.

I will be exercising my capitalist right and not buying a book that appears to proud of its bigotry.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Another nail in the coffin of the “traditional” publishing model, in my opinion.

Why would a writer subject themselves to this when there are alternative and potentially just as lucrative paths to their readers?

Many mny many indie writers use sensitivity readers

 

[JS Wiig]

Many mny many indie writers use sensitivity readers.

I’m sure they do, and it’s probably a good idea depending on what kind of story one is writing. I’m sure it’s probably a turn off for some others. The experience described in the article is probably not typical.

 

[JS Wiig]

Many mny many indie writers use sensitivity readers…

I admittedly have no experience with the publishing industry, and am likely way off base concerning everything here, which is why I am engaging: to learn.

But…

It seems to me a not insignificant difference between an indie author who uses a sensitivity reader because they want to, versus a traditional arrangement where the engagement may be more stipulatory, perhaps even contractual.

 

[Dan Jones]

I read about this in Private Eye over a year ago and to be frank, noone came out this tawdry affair looking good. The most telling detail was the book had been published for around a year before the alleged "offence" was spotted and spread by somebody on Twitter. So presumably it was all fine and dandy in that time?

Picador obviously read the book before publishing it in its original form and didn't see any problems with it. Social media did its usual thing of having thousands of people pile in who hadn't read the book (more people shared the offences than copies of the book had been sold). Clanchy and Picador both capitulated, with the upshot being that Clanchy was jettisoned. It used to be the case that a publisher would stand behind its authors (as the article states). Philip Pullman, in his position as President of the Society of Authors, weighed in. Pullman, having had his own run-ins with would-be censors (the Church, when HDM was published), like his idol John Milton, is a fierce advocate of free speech, and strongly sided with Clanchy, calling her detractors better off in the Taliban. He later apologised for the tweet. The Society of Authors took a dim view, and announced that Pullman was out of line, did not represent the Society (WTAF!?), and was going to be sent for re-education and sensitivity training. The whole thing stank.

And it's easy to say that the book now is available in its original, "unabridged" form. And I reckon this new printing will hit the shelves and cause nary a titter apart from in certain literary circles who follow this sort of thing (guilty, m'lud). So what harm has been done? Well, how about causing undue stress and threats to the livelihoods of the parties involved? Or public pillory? And a sense that they are now on a watchlist and that it could happen again? As Mark Steyn is fond of saying, "the process is the punishment."

As far as I'm concerned people can pay for sensitivity readers if they want to do their due diligence. My opinion is that it won't save them. Not when offence is perceived, regardless of intent. I would rather published and be damned. Famous last words, perhaps, but at least I could honestly stand behind the words I'd written and say that it was the honest truth as I saw it. No one gets to judge the soul, or the morality, of another. We've known that for at least two thousand years. Not a good idea to start doing it now.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I admittedly have no experience with the publishing industry, and am likely way off base concerning everything here, which is why I am engaging: to learn.

But…

It seems to me a not insignificant difference between an indie author who uses a sensitivity reader because they want to, versus a traditional arrangement where the engagement may be more stipulatory, perhaps even contractual.

Publishers invest a good amount of money in books like this. They suffer reputational damage if things blow up. If you go with trad publishing you accept that the publisher has the right to do this. What they don’t have (courtesy of a long ago court case by Jackie Collins iirc) is the right to force the author to actually make the changes, as far as i know.

 

[HareBrain]

I'd be interested in hearing from anyone here who's paid for this service (rather than getting a friend of a friend to check out a few possibly contentious passages).

 

[AnyaKimlin]

I'd be interested in hearing from anyone here who's paid for this service (rather than getting a friend of a friend to check out a few possibly contentious passages).

I've recently paid for a person with DID to look over my character with DID - I wanted someone who would rip any issues to shreds. The last thing I want is a character that feeds into the destructive narrative that books and the media usually portray.

They actually didn't totally rip my character to shreds (I had written her with help from friends). But the feedback and issues flagged have made for a much, much better character.

I've balanced it with feedback from my writers' group to make the idea understandable. I don't have DID and was really nervous about writing my character, but I had promised a friend I would for their child have a DID character that their child could read and not feel attacked and harmed.

 

[JS Wiig]

If you go with trad publishing you accept that the publisher has the right to do this.

I suppose that was my original point, that a certain number of writers ala @Dan Jones would rather skip the trad pub route because of things like this, and pursue alternative paths to their readers.