# Sensitivity Readers



## MzSnowleopard

I read this term for the first time today in WD's Writer's Yearbook 2019. The blurb is at the bottom of page 7. _The #MeToo Reckoning._

Apparently it's spurred on by racism and insensitivity in YA and Romance novels, the blurb called them 'hot buttons'. 

I'd like to hear more about this, in greater detail.


----------



## Dluuni

I think part of this is because it has become less acceptable to release with painful and offensive stereotypes in the place of characters, like they used to in the past. If you have a character that is a member of a minority in your piece, it is probably best to include at least one member of that minority in your pre-readers so they can point out mistakes and awfulness and help with your research.
I lost about twenty years of my life because of bad stereotypes in place of real representation - basically everything between high school and middle age is just gone and I can never get it back. I'm a bit sore about that, I don't want to see it perpetuated any more, and if we see someone spreading the sorts of things that misinformed us and the people around us, today we have the ability to write and disseminate reviews warning people about them. Various communities have organized and become very good at telling people worldwide if something is good or bad representation; you want to be part of the good, not the bad for obvious reasons.


----------



## Bayview

I think sensitivity readers started for the reasons @Dlunni mentioned - it's good to get an insider perspective if you're writing a character who is significantly different from yourself. Originally, I think this was done on a voluntary basis - A person writing a character from Group X would ask for a Group X person to beta read for them, a Group X person would volunteer, and things went on well. But as more and more people are writing from varied perspectives (a good thing!), people from Group X started getting tired of working to help other people all the time at the expense of their own pursuits. So the non-X writers would be frustrated b/c they WANTED to be responsible but couldn't find a way, and the Group X people would be frustrated because they were being pressured to put in more work than they wanted.

Paid "sensitivity readers" often work for publishers rather than authors, but I think some self-published authors hire them directly.

I'm currently writing a book with a Sikh MC and a double-amputee MC, and I'm hoping to find sensitivity readers for both parts, just to catch the little errors I don't know I'm making. Like, I know Sikh people in real life, so I feel like I've got a reasonable grasp on that, but I haven't intimately lived their lives and there may be things I include in the story that don't ring true because of that. And I don't actually know any double amputees in real life, so I want to get an authentic perspective on how I'm portraying that, as well.

Some people seem to think it's a form of censorship, but I see it as a form of research. If I _know_ I don't know something, I can look it up. But there's probably stuff I don't know I don't know, and that's where sensitivity readers come in.

(And, yes, from a financial perspective I'd vastly prefer it if I could persuade people to do this for free. And possibly the groups I'm looking at are under-represented enough that I could still find people who are willing to read just as a favour. But if I can't find them for free, I'll try to find someone I can pay.)


----------



## Kevin

Interesting- so basically you have 'sensitivity readers' go through your manuscript to point out PC problems before publishing. Sort of like looking for allergins in a recipe before the dish is served.


----------



## Bayview

Kevin said:


> Interesting- so basically you have 'sensitivity readers' go through your manuscript to point out PC problems before publishing. Sort of like looking for allergins in a recipe before the dish is served.



"PC problems" has layers of political stuff that I'm not comfortable with... "PC" is often used to dismiss valid concerns.

I think a lot of the time sensitivity readers can pick up really prosaic, non-political, non-controversial stuff. I'm not trying to find sensitivity readers because I'm worried about _offending_ people, I'm trying to find sensitivity readers because I want to get my story right.

If I write a story with a really near-sighted character and I have that character wake up in the middle of the night and NOT grope for her glasses before investigating a sound, I haven't written something that's likely to _offend_ a near-sighted reader, but I've missed the opportunity to make my character as real and vivid as possible. Now, I used to wear glasses so I know about this issue, and I think glasses-wearers are common enough that I'd likely have someone point this out to me just in the normal course of beta reading or editing. But if it were a more obscure disability, I think I might benefit from getting someone who deals with it to read my story.

When I write stories that involve guns, I try to get someone who uses guns a lot to read the story over to catch little glitches. I know I've been caught over-doing the recoil a shooter would feel from a certain weapon... I wrote the recoil as being a serious thing, and the reader told me that for a character that size firing that gun, it really wouldn't have been such a big deal. That's good for me to know, and I'm glad it got caught. Again, not because I worry about being "PC", but because I like my books to accurately reflect what I'm trying to portray.

ETA: Sensitivity readers do tend to come from under-represented cultures, so they'd be more focused on the cultural stuff than something as prosaic as guns. But it's no less useful for a sensitivity reader to tell me that... I don't know, that I was right that Sikh's want shoes off before people enter the home, but it was really unlikely that the hostess would show any sign that she was offended by a character NOT doing that. Hospitality trumps shoe-etiquette. Maybe. But I'm not a Sikh insider, so I can't know that for sure. My sensitivity reader could help me out with that.


----------



## Guard Dog

Bayview, I don't get the impression you're so much in need of, or wanting, Sensitivity Readers as much as Technical Advisors.

In other words, you want accuracy more than you want the latest public opinion, demand, or preferred image of any particular group(s).

Is that about right?


G.D.


----------



## Bayview

Guard Dog said:


> Bayview, I don't get the impression you're so much in need of, or wanting, Sensitivity Readers as much as Technical Advisors.
> 
> In other words, you want accuracy more than you want the latest public opinion, demand, or preferred image of any particular group(s).
> 
> Is that about right?
> 
> 
> G.D.



I feel like you and I have very different perceptions of what sensitivity readers do. Can you explain what your perception is based on?


----------



## SueC

In line with the "sensitivity" subject, I have run into a few issues in my writing. I like writing historical novels/stories and I am often faced with the insensitivity of the times I am writing about. I struggle with this all of the time, because past events involving people of color were often brutal. But if my story is about people or a family who lived during those times, it would be amiss to not include them, especially if the events were germane to the story line. I also struggle with some descriptions and I'm not even sure this is a sensitive issue or not. I sometimes feel compelled to identify race when my character is a person of color, but not so much if they are not. I don't know why I feel that way, but in my head when I am writing, I see them and while I am not usually a fan of physical descriptions, sometimes I try other methods (i.e. "dark features," "ebony skin," etc.). I do wonder how people of color see that. 

I am never disrespectful, but I think the sensitivity issues have gone so far beyond just being respectful. I guess the most obvious example I can think of is saying Merry Christmas to a non-Christian. Somehow that has become offensive and while I have never met anyone who is offended by the greeting, public opinion (media) seems to say it is so. I don't know why anyone would be upset by a warm wish for good will. Anyway, other examples exist. 

I wouldn't mind a "fact checker," but a sensitivity checker seems to squelch creativity somewhat.


----------



## Guard Dog

Bayview said:


> I feel like you and I have very different perceptions of what sensitivity readers do. Can you explain what your perception is based on?



Do we?

I see sensitivity readers as being people that are more concerned with someone not getting their feelings hurt, due to some commonly-held belief ( right or wrong ) being included in a writing.

I also think that if you get a member of some group or the other that is actually not a typical example of that particular group, that they may not actually be as capable in that capacity as the writer might want, either due to them not being sensitive to some of the things most other members would be, or due to them not agreeing with the more vocal members of that community.

After all, being 'Politically Correct' isn't necessarily about being accurate to to the behavior or characteristics of any particular person or group of people, it's about what they _want_. 

The job of a Tech Advisor though, is to ensure accuracy... whether it's concerning a particular culture - and that includes anything from your Sikh example, to the crew of a nuclear submarine - or how closed-door legal proceedings are conducted, without regard for anone's feelings on the subject.

Let me ask you this: which would you rather have as an advisor concerning a story of a Japanese-American that was held in a concentration camp during WW II, someone who wanted to express a personal view of the experience, or someone who wanted to give a detailed account of what it was actually like from a technical perspective, leaving you the writer to construct both the story and the character's opinion and beliefs concerning the experience?

A Sensitivity Reader is likely to give you the first, with only their personal perspective of things, where a Technical Advisor is much more likely to give you the second, along with several examples or accounts of how various people handled the situation.

And my thinking is, due to you saying you valued accuracy over any concerns of offending anyone, that you'd prefer the latter.


G.D.


----------



## Kevin

Sensitivity readers vet a book for steriotyoes, biases, offensive language in regards to portrayals of, or references to,  the underrepresented.


----------



## Guard Dog

Kevin said:


> ...underrepresented.



I'd ask someone to give me a definition for this word, but I'm pretty sure I already know what I'd get.

Instead, I'll ask this:

If a person is a member of a minority... one that say, makes up 12 or 13 percent of a population, but is seen in current media productions 20 percent of the time or more... are they underrepresented?

What if that person is in a group that makes up 1 percent of the population, but is seen 5 to 10 percent of the time? Same thing?

Because most of the groups that are claiming to be "underrepresented", I have seen on TV and in movies far more than their actual numbers, population-wise, would lead a person to believe was accurate for area whatever production was supposed to take place in. And I'm speaking of the past 50 years or more, not just right now today.

So, I'll repeat what I said earlier; "PC" and 'Sensitivity" are _not_ about accuracy, it's about what the particular group _wants_. 

And I'll add this to the statement; the day their wants quit being useful to certain people in power, or who are after power of some kind, their wants will stop being of much importance to anyone but them, and all of this 'Politically Correct' nonsense will cease.



G.D.


----------



## Bayview

Guard Dog said:


> Do we?
> 
> I see sensitivity readers as being people that are more concerned with someone not getting their feelings hurt, due to some commonly-held belief ( right or wrong ) being included in a writing.
> 
> I also think that if you get a member of some group or the other that is actually not a typical example of that particular group, that they may not actually be as capable in that capacity as the writer might want, either due to them not being sensitive to some of the things most other members would be, or due to them not agreeing with the more vocal members of that community.
> 
> After all, being 'Politically Correct' isn't necessarily about being accurate to to the behavior or characteristics of any particular person or group of people, it's about what they _want_.
> 
> The job of a Tech Advisor though, is to ensure accuracy... whether it's concerning a particular culture - and that includes anything from your Sikh example, to the crew of a nuclear submarine - or how closed-door legal proceedings are conducted, without regard for anone's feelings on the subject.
> 
> Let me ask you this: which would you rather have as an advisor concerning a story of a Japanese-American that was held in a concentration camp during WW II, someone who wanted to express a personal view of the experience, or someone who wanted to give a detailed account of what it was actually like from a technical perspective, leaving you the writer to construct both the story and the character's opinion and beliefs concerning the experience?
> 
> A Sensitivity Reader is likely to give you the first, with only their personal perspective of things, where a Technical Advisor is much more likely to give you the second, along with several examples or accounts of how various people handled the situation.
> 
> And my thinking is, due to you saying you valued accuracy over any concerns of offending anyone, that you'd prefer the latter.
> 
> 
> G.D.



I don't accept the distinction you're making between Sensitivity Readers and Technical Advisers. 

In the case of Interred Japanese Americans in WW 2, I'd want my story read by someone who'd been an interred Japanese American in WW 2. I wouldn't want that person to give me a personal view of the experience (I can read that in lots of places) OR a detailed account from a technical perspective (which I can also read in a lot of places). I'd want someone to read MY story and point out areas that didn't read true to them.

I think it comes back to the don't-know-what-you-don't-know issue. I can do loads of research, but it's still quite possible that something will slip through because it doesn't even occur to me as an area that I need to look at. This could be something factual or it could be something more nebulous.

For a factual example... I remember reading a book with a contemporary African American heroine a few years ago and I was totally distracted by how much time she spent thinking about and dealing with her hair. I'm white, my hair is naturally pretty straight, and I'd just never really realized how much damn effort goes into hair straightening for a lot of black women. If I'd been writing a book about a black woman with straightened hair, I could have done some research and gotten the _facts_, but reading the fictional account from a black perspective made me get a better understanding of the day-to-day details. And I might never even have bothered to _do_ the research, because before I'd read this book it really hadn't occurred to me that black women's hair care was THAT different from my experience. If I'd written a black woman who had a quick shower and blow-dried her hair straight, I'd really like to think SOMEONE would catch that for me.

I'm not too worried about the semantics of what the person is called, but I want someone from that culture to read my MS and point things out to me.


----------



## Guard Dog

Bayview said:


> I don't accept the distinction you're making between Sensitivity Readers and Technical Advisers.



It's honestly nothing more than the difference between emotional and factual/logical/accurate.

With one, the story 'feels right' and is comfortable, with the other, they may tell you that it's uncomfortable and unpleasant as a thing can get, but it is accurate and factual.



G.D.


----------



## Terry D

I think we might be losing sight of the fact that 'sensitivity readers' do actually exist and serve a pretty defined purpose. They aren't 'technical advisers' and they don't exist simply to keep the writing from being offensive.  Their job is to help the writer be culturally accurate, not politically correct. A sensitivity reader for a story about the Plains Indians, might not be able to tell you that you got the process for chipping an arrowhead out of flint wrong, but she might be able to tell you that you missed the fact that the Lakota had two languages, one for each gender and your protagonist was speaking in the wrong voice. Some sensitivity readers might serve both functions, but not necessarily. The desire to be accurate isn't the same as the desire not to offend.


----------



## Bayview

Guard Dog said:


> It's honestly nothing more than the difference between emotional and factual/logical/accurate.
> 
> With one, the story 'feels right' and is comfortable, with the other, they may tell you that it's uncomfortable and unpleasant as a thing can get, but it is accurate and factual.



I don't think there's the same dichotomy between the two that you seem to sense. I think it's totally possible for a story to feel right _and_ be unpleasant.

I read somewhere that "sensitivity" is a trigger word for people who don't like the idea of trigger words. I feel like that may be what's going on, here... you just don't like the word?

I don't care what we call these people, but if I write about a character from a subculture I don't belong to or don't have a _lot_ of intimate experience with, then I want someone from that subculture to read my work and share his or her impressions. And I'm willing to pay people for the work if I have to.


----------



## Guard Dog

Bayview said:


> ... you just don't like the word?



Nah, I just don't care for the context it's usually used in these days. Words don't bother me at all. The thought(s) behind them can really get on my last nerve though. 

...especially when that word is being used to camouflage the thought to some degree or the other. 
( Which is exactly what terms like 'Politically Correct' do. And far too often, the thought behind something like 'You're insensitive' is just someone's way of saying 'How dare you not think the way I want you to!")

Anyway, enough of this. You see things from your perspective, I see 'em from mine.

No harm done so long as it's just a discussion, and nobody is trying to force anybody else to their way of thinking, or their particular opinion.


G.D.


----------



## Theglasshouse

I think Leec is a good example of someone looking for those sort of readers. He writes for a general audience and wants to include native americans as a culture in his novel. He has submitted his work to a some of these "sensitivity readers." I do think it is a good practice to do for writing novels.


----------



## Dluuni

Guard Dog said:


> If a person is a member of a minority... one that say, makes up 12 or 13 percent of a population, but is seen in current media productions 20 percent of the time or more... are they underrepresented?
> 
> What if that person is in a group that makes up 1 percent of the population, but is seen 5 to 10 percent of the time? Same thing?


What groups are you talking about, here? I just pulled down the GLAAD annual Where We Are report ( https://www.glaad.org/whereweareontv18 ). Black is at about 20%.That's underrepresented if the representation in that 20% is BAD. I can't speak to that. That would be a reason for the readers. A notable portion of the 20% is the rise of shows with all ethnic casts, so it isn't distributed evenly. 

1%? Transgender people are 0.6%, asexuals are 1.0%.out of all recurring characters on TV, including streaming, in 2018 there were 27 trans characters, 17 of which were women to five men - those numbers should be even. I don't know if the five NB characters is proportional, since they often have their own communities that may or may not cross over. 
There were exactly two asexual characters. In total. 
There are a LOT of recurring characters in "all TV programs on all networks", even limited to 2018 production, as serials tend to be ensemble stories. Those form a very low percentage as a result. 



> So, I'll repeat what I said earlier; "PC" and 'Sensitivity" are _not_ about accuracy, it's about what the particular group _wants_.


Well, the entire thing is about politeness. If I mirror some of the things people find it socially acceptable to say to and about me in public - exact same statement, but switching the nouns around to refer to the people saying the original statement - I get banned and treated like a dangerous radical. Nowadays it is acceptable for people to say things like "Wait, what do you mean by that?" or "That's pretty mean to say", which is quite a ways short of being able to respond in the same ways as they were being subject to, but it's something. 
People who haven't been on the receiving end think they can pop off with statements like, well, let's mirror here, "Most gun owners are into children and blood relatives" and think that won't be seen as rude or inappropriate when they market in Texas. It just doesn't occur to them that maybe their cishet allo white NT uncle is maybe not a good source of information about say, hijabi TGPOC women. So it's important to have someone to check for that kind of thing. 



> And I'll add this to the statement; the day their wants quit being useful to certain people in power, or who are after power of some kind, their wants will stop being of much importance to anyone but them, and all of this 'Politically Correct' nonsense will cease.


 Are you TRYING to sound like a villain making a vague ominous threat here? Because you're a bit late, I already have to help fight against attempts to do that as it is.


----------



## MzSnowleopard

Wow, not sure what I was expected in responses but they have been interesting. I've just got a few snip remarks to make.

If this were about being sensitive to readers. We wouldn't see so many 'F-bombs' in novels. I can't read Tom Clancy's Bear and the Dragon because I find the extreme over use of this word unacceptable. And yet, culturally, we use it like we use If And Or, and But. A well placed F can do wonders in a book, even if it's the only one used. However, an over abundance of use in them, well, that's just tacky and insensitive.

I had an experience once on the bus. These two kids sat behind me and the boy was talking. Every third or forth word was an F-bomb. I finally had it and turned to snap "You talk to your mother with that mouth?" He looked at me with a smile and said "yes ma'am." Like he was proud of it. The girl just rolled her eyes.

When we talk about culture, I hear people saying how certain things should be or need to be phrased in specific ways. And we should glorify writers for being insensitive or racist.

I can get behind this to some degree. I will give respect to my characters who non-white, but I draw the line and writing or calling someone Insert Nation-American. These terms are political correctness. Why do I say this? Because of this:

when blacks tell me "I'm African American."
I tell them "Then I'm European American." 
They look at me and laugh like I've said something absurd then they say "You're white."

Who's being insensitive now?

The point of my comment is to show just how absurd these labels are.

Another issue I have is, a few months back I read an article on how the Laura Ingalls Wilder Award was being renamed because she was racist. Why was she viewed as this? In her books, she uses terms like 'darky' to refer to black. This was the language of her time.

Also, growing up, a number of books like Tom Sawyer were bad because of the languages used. Again, the writer used the language of the times.

This kind of reference would never fly today, even if someone was writing a book set in their times.

It's my opinion that people are mislabeling these issues saying "it's the writer" when in truth, it's our ways that have evolved, changed. The writer was simply using the words, the vocabulary of their times. They're not insensitive, it's what they knew.

And the first piece of advice that I received in being a writer was "Write what you know."


----------



## Dluuni

If I pick up a book written in 1985 and it has an insensitive description in it, okay, I can see that.

If I pick up a new, 2019 release and it has me portrayed horribly, somebody is getting a one way ticket to one star review forest and probably bashed on a large medium. The bar has been raised.

And I'm sorry if I am a bit grumpy, but somebody decided to suggest that people like me and my husband should be rounded up and killed by being force marched in chains to sweep for land mines a few hours ago on a reputable newspaper site, with two people chiming in to "agree 100%", and it just sits there for hours and hours. Because that kind of thing is apparently okay to say, and if I complain, I'm just being overly PC and sensitive. I see that kind of thing every few days, but today it's just a bit more exhausting than usual.

I mean, I guess it's my fault for wanting to read a newspaper article that was relevant to me. 

I don't want to have to deal with awful stuff like that in books of fiction that I _paid for_. So I am happy that there are more people being paid to check for that stuff as part of the editing process.


----------



## Guard Dog

Dluuni said:


> Are you TRYING to sound like a villain making a vague ominous threat here?



Nope, I'm being blunt, direct and honest, per usual, basing what I'm saying on observations that cover a lot of years.

If you don't like that... *shrug* 

You really aren't any more special that anyone else, and are quite free to hit the 'ignore' button and not read a thing I write.



Dluuni said:


> I don't want....





Guard Dog said:


> ... being 'Politically Correct' isn't necessarily about being accurate to to the behavior or characteristics of any particular person or group of people, it's about what they _want_.



Yeah, "Don't want" works too.

I could certainly make a very long list of things I don't like or don't want, just as everyone here can.

It won't change a thing though.



Dluuni said:


> Well, the entire thing is about politeness.



Politeness to the point of dishonesty, more often than not these days.

And although I won't set out to intentionally offend anyone, I'm not going to tiptoe around their particular sensibilities when I speak, just because someone doesn't like what I say, or how I say it.



Dluuni said:


> "Wait, what do you mean by that?" or "That's pretty mean to say",



Somewhere out there are people who will find anything that a person can say or write offensive, just as someone somewhere will like things someone else finds horrible and offensive.

So what? Walking around with a chip on one's shoulder for long enough, someone will be encountered sooner or later that'll knock it off. That's just life and human nature.

And some people are, as one of my drill instructors used to say "spring-loaded in the dumb ass position".

Again, so what? Deal with 'em and move on. Or deal with 'em _BY_ moving on.

Concerning me trying to be a villain... nope. I'm just speaking my mind.

...which, according to various comments I have received in my time here, some people actually appreciate.

Lastly, if you personally feel threatened by me or something i say... that's all on you. Because I don't waist my time with that sort of bullshit. And I certainly wouldn't waste my time with doing so over the damned internet, even if I were inclined to make actual threats.

...but do remember that you can simply use the ignore function and not have to read or respond to anything I have to say, if it offends your delicate sensibilities.

Because I certainly don't have any intentions of changing, for you or anyone else.



G.D.

P.S., one of several reasons I quit being a moderator is because I got tired of reading crap from people I'd rather just ignore past a certain point.
( Yes, I like my 'Ignore Pile'.)


----------



## MzSnowleopard

one thing in this conversation that catches my 'wait a minute' twitch is this paying for sensitivity readers. WTF? My beta readers do it for 1. the experience, 2, helping a fellow writer, they don't get paid for it. I don't know any beta reader that does- so why would or should a sensitivity reader be paid? If they're saying they decided to start charging or complaining about the amount of work, then move on. 

And I think that's the bottom line on the lot of the subjects in this thread. If something doesn't appeal to you, if something offends you- MOVE ON! Take the book back and get a refund, this alone would tell the publisher, the writer that you found their book not to your liking.

In this day and age of electronic and virtual communications everyone is voicing themselves on forums, blogs, etc. Sometimes, the most powerful statement we can make is a shake of our head and turning away. You know, like we used to do in person. But not today, people feel compelled to tell the world their thoughts on something because we can. We don't stop think if we should.

People have voice to me their belief that I need to have this type of character or that type in my novels- and if I don't my book won't sell. 
I put this into the same file drawer as the comments telling me my books won't see unless I have at least one sex scene- because I'm a woman.

I, personally, think that my writing style is considerate of other races and gender preferences. The problem is that "people in general' seem to feel it necessary to deem my book(s) unworthy unless I include what they want.

I don't use words that are now considered derogatory and unacceptable by today's social standards- words like cripple or darky or retard to name a few we're all familiar with. 

I mentioned in a previous post about my offense of Tom Clancy's The Bear and The Dragon. I can't get a refund because the book was a gift. I didn't give the gift back not because I didn't want to offend the person but because she had moved away. I keep thinking 'one of these days I'll get rid of it.' Maybe I'll donate to a library. The point is- I decided it wasn't my kind of book. I believe that you can write a good book, a winner even, without the f-bombs and heavy use of foul language. That's me, it's my opinion and preference. I do not believe that I have the right to go onto my blog, twitter or a forum and bash the book and Clancy for his use of the words. Clancy obviously didn't have a problem with using f-bombs, and apparently his publisher didn't have an issue either. That's their choices, I made mine when I chose to put it down and move on. There was no blog post, no tweet, I just moved on to the next book. 

I didn't need a sensitivity reader then. And I'm seriously questioning the motive behind the need for them now. Is it really about sensitivity or is it about telling writers what they can and can't have, what they need to have in their books?

Whatever happened to letting the writer write the story that's in their imagination?


----------



## sigmadog

I see the words "Sensitivity Reader" but my mind reads "Political Officer".


----------



## Guard Dog

MzSnowleopard, before I say anything else, I want you to know that I absolutely do love and appreciate your post, #22, which is currently right above this one as I type.

...but I also want to point out the incongruity, paradox, and often-hypocritical nature of the human race:

And that's the fact, that for reasons I cannot begin to fathom, people still have problems with WORDS, but not necessarily the THOUGHT behind them.

For instance, you say you can't read a book that contains a lot of 'F-Bombs'... and yet, in your very first line above, you say "WTF", here: 



MzSnowleopard said:


> one thing in this conversation that catches my 'wait a minute' twitch is this paying for sensitivity readers. WTF?



What. The. 'F-bomb'... That's the thought.

No, you didn't use the actual word, but you very much did pass along the THOUGHT it represents.

I just find that hysterically funny.

And I personally work under the... theory? Practice?... that if I'm gonna think it, and it's an actual part of my thinking process, I might as well use the very word that best passes along my thought and meaning.

...and if people don't like that thought or meaning, fine, I understand. But getting twitchy over the word or words I use to carry it, and NOT the actual thought... just seems weird/odd to me. 

After all, the sole and only purpose of language is to accurately carry what's in one person's mind to that of others.
( And yes, I've said this many times before, both on this forum and many other places. )

We are all here to better learn how to use language to convey our thoughts, in the end, and it just seems counter-productive to me to throw out certain words just because we have some personal dislike or prejudice concerning  a few of 'em.



G.D.

Edit: Yep, Sigmadog slipped in there before I finished typing. Now the post I'm referring to is above his.


----------



## Phil Istine

*Mod note: Yes, a potentially sensitive area.

Just a general reminder to keep the posts impersonal.

Thanks*


----------



## Dluuni

Major issue is just that people insist that they aren't being rude, they're avoiding the obvious slurs, and that's enough to write a character from various minorities.

It is not. 

There are many, many layers of experience that people outside those communities are completely clueless about, and they are incredibly fundamental ones. The usual misunderstandings creates a hideously offensive caricature that didn't say anything overtly rude, but is still creepy and messed up. You can do a lot of incredibly offensive stuff while never saying a single slur or repeating any of the worst stereotypes, and it's usually done without any malicious intent. 

I don't write M/M or F/F plots right now because I simply do not understand them well enough. I've never been in either of those communities, nor have I really ever had any reason to deal with them much. At some point, I'm sure I am going to have to do a LOT of research to find out how to make a plot like that work, but I do not feel like I can do it justice with my current level of understanding. This baffles people for some reason; people think they understand me and my husband's life because 'I have a gay friend', but LG people are among the most clueless out there.

Almost my _entire genre_ is a horror show of creepy and offensive caricature that I can't stand. People with no experience in the community insist on writing about the community, and it is all misleading, it is all full of stereotypes that literally cause people to be murdered, and it is all pervertedly creepy in ways that I cannot comprehend the attraction of. I have to scroll down a long, long way just to find something that isn't completely bizarre. My husband picked one of them up and ended up throwing the book across the room in disgust a quarter of the way in, because _that's not how this works, that's not how any of this works_. And from comments of random people I encounter on the street, people assume they are all accurate and true to the point that the most common reaction is to start arguing that _I_, not they,am wrong about my own life story.

So no, you can't just think your way through these things, you need help.

I use beta readers and my contacts to connect with people in the appropriate communities. I can imagine a large publishing house would have people on staff to check that who get paid, if only because of the quantity of work. I'm not sure why people would be shocked to find that a large publisher would rely on paid employees for that rather than relying on charity, and it's one of many things that as a solitary author, you probably can get away with farming out for free with favors much in the way that I have to make my own covers rather than having an art director and a graphic designer who can design them for me. I'm just asking people to occasionally proof a couple chapters, not giving them a dozen books a week, every week to proof.


----------



## Jack of all trades

I want to touch on a few points that have been made.


Compensation 

Using an unpaid beta reader is potluck. You can get what you paid for -- nothing. At least nothing good. So the idea that a writer *shouldn't* pay for services is faulty.

Is it possible to find someone who will do the well just to help out? Sure! And the service can be excellent. But it might not. 

If someone does a job, any job, well, why should that person do it for free? There will be so many wanting that service that the person will not have time for his/her own projects, or possibly a paying job. No. I don't blame others for wanting to be paid for services rendered.

At the same time, I understand that not everyone can afford to pay for services. In that case, one must search for the right person who can do the job well and is willing to do it for free. 


Sensitivity Reader versus Beta Reader

A sensitivity reader is a specialized beta reader. You might find a beta reader that can give you feedback on how you portray a certain group, but you might not. 


Sensitivity readers are police, or why can't I just write the story I want to write

There is no law that says you must use sensitivity readers. Of course you can write what you want. Of course the reader who is offended can simply return the book for a full refund. But how does that help *you*, the writer? 

It doesn't. You may never know why a particular book is being returned. If the reader doesn't write a review, and many don't, you will be clueless. And your reputation will already be established as someone who doesn't understand (insert name of group), but pretends you do anyway. 

Once a reputation is created, it's difficult to change. That's acknowledged here when staff allows previously banned members to join under a new name. It gives a clean start. But once readers know your real name, getting a clean start can be impossible.

The job of the sensitivity reader, as I understand it, is simply to give the author information. What the author does with that info is totally under the author's control. You, as the author, can use it to make modifications, or not. It is a way to help authors get their books and stories sold. At least increase the odds. 

If you don't like sensitivity readers, don't use them.


----------



## Gumby

*Admin Note:*





> Once a reputation is created, it's difficult to change. That's acknowledged here when staff allows previously banned members to join under a new name. It gives a clean start. But once readers know your real name, getting a clean start can be impossible.



This is blatantly false, Jack. We do not knowingly allow previously banned members to join under a new name. A banned member may apply for re-admittance to the forum (a.k.a. Amnesty) but that is completely up to Admin to decide and they are not issued a new name or allowed to create a new identity. Get your facts straight before you publicly comment concerning our policies.


----------



## Kevin

sigmadog said:


> I see the words "Sensitivity Reader" but my mind reads "Political Officer".


it seems part of the formula right now to make money. Harlequin ya is a big deal, right? If you're trying to be successful you may have to pay attention to this stuff or risk getting blackballed. Welcome to the awoke world.


----------



## Guard Dog

Kevin said:


> Welcome to the awoke world.



Man, do _NOT_ get me started. uker: 8-[

( I can go from zero to 'Terminally Offensive' faster than the speed of thought, where stuff like that 'We waz Kangs' crap is concerned. It's one of the reasons I avoid some conversations like the plague. )


G.D.


----------



## Kyle R

I view it as just a new title for something that's existed for decades now: having a reader with life experience that relates to the fictional scenario(s) being written about.

For example, if I'm writing from the POV of a war veteran, it would probably help to have an actual war veteran read the story and offer suggestions/corrections where needed. That's a sensitivity reader.

Likewise for cultural/ethnic representation (and so on). It's not a new concept. It just has a name now—and is being rebranded as a paid service. :encouragement:


----------



## sigmadog

In a lot of my writing, I make it a point to be insensitive. Wonder what a sensitivity reader would think of this in one of my stories, "The Suicide Bombers"…



> The town unanimously adopted a “live and let live” policy towards the Suicide Bombers. Soon they became accepted members of the community. The father joined the Fraternal Order of Elks and participated in that organization’s weekly functions (now completely alcohol and pork free). The mother traded recipes for bludgeoned goat and other staples with the womenfolk, who no longer wore makeup or dressed provocatively like infidel whores.
> 
> In summers, they vacationed at the lake, the children playing in the water with life-preservers fitted over the top of their bomb-vests. Father would lie on a towel in the sand, dozing in the sun with his finger resting gently on the big red button, with mother right beside him on her own towel, sweating in the sun beneath her full length burka, a bulge showing in her middle where the explosive waistband was strapped. They were a happy family and these were happy times.



…then again, scratch that. I don't really care what a sensitivity reader would think.


----------



## Guard Dog

Why did I just hear the words "Silence! I keel you!" in my head? :devilish:





G.D.


----------



## Terry D

Guard Dog said:


> So, I'll repeat what I said earlier; "PC" and 'Sensitivity" are _not_ about accuracy, it's about what the particular group _wants_.



Since sensitivity readers perform a function _for the author_, and offer only an opinion, not a mandate, then this statement is patently untrue. I don't give a damn if someone finds what I write offensive -- and my last novel did offend some readers -- but I sure as hell want to be _accurate_ in my depiction of cultures and life-styles I'm not familiar with. Being offensive is a choice. Being offensive and _wrong_ is ignorant.


----------



## Squalid Glass

Goodness, how arrogant does one have to be to write about people and cultures they don’t understand then be offended when those who know better call them out for their inevitable oversights and mistakes?


----------



## SueC

Well, this has really been a fun read. The thing that keeps nagging at me is that we writers write stories we want to tell. For the most part (not always, of course) characters are created and developed with a familiarity. We generally know how father's act, or should act; same thing for mothers, nuns, priests, etc. If we want our characters to act in a familiar way, great. Most people know what that is. But sometimes we want a nun who swears, a priest who doesn't like Hispanics or a father who picks his nose in public. Some people may find these characterizations offensive, but in our heads, in our stories, that's what they are! 

I wrote a story where a black man told another person about something that happened when he was twelve. His mother was lynched for killing a sheriff who had raped her and her oldest son was lynched beside her for defending his mother. No one in my story had participated in the actual lynching, but I wonder how they would look if I had included them? Would they swear and use "offensive" language? I would certainly think so! Their ugly bias would be on full display and readers probably would not like them one bit. But they would be genuine; they would be my creation of what I thought a person who did such things might look like.

If some readers find language and behavior of fictional characters offensive, it is their right to throw the book out. That is not a book for them. I believe, however, that such readers are only looking for work that fits their own imagination, their own idea of what is acceptable, and that is very limiting, don't you think? Some writers write rough; they often portray types of individuals that many of us have no experience with. But you have to respect their ability to reach down and take that nun and give her a mouth more suited to a (insert some word here).

Sensitivity Readers aside, I think writers should write and create those characters for us, the horrible ones with the foul mouths that we couldn't even imagine, and I think we should read about those we don't like as often as possible. Have you ever laughed out loud at a character that is so ridiculously horrendous, so unexpectedly obnoxious? You don't have to tell anyone you laughed, but really. Open it up a little.


----------



## Kevin

From now on the the term is not blacklisted, but luminescent-challenged enumeration. You see 'list' is insensitive to lispers, erm, the enunciatingly divergent. You see, there's nothing wrong with it; its natural. And no more 'retarded'. How dare you? I don't care if it's a medical term- and that's a lie!-   Really...


----------



## Guard Dog

A medical term? I guess you've never had to retard the timin' on an old Ford or Chevy to keep it runnin'. ;-) ( Pre-electronic ignition days, when ya had to twist on the distributor and either advance or retard when the sparks went off. )

Too bad ya can't just twist on people's heads and get the same effect... Crank it one way, they're brighter, the other... Well, never mind that one. Too many folks seem to already be at the rear stop, and their head would likely just fall off. :-|



G.D.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord

I like the idea of sensitivity readers, and I'm thinking I'm going to have to reach out to some for the story I'm working on now (since it's set in our universe), but there's one thing about it that's nagging me: people within cultural groups have different experiences. I understand that, say, an adopted child understands waaaay more about that experience than me, but they also don't have a monopoly on the experience of adopted children. Differences in parents, siblings, whether or not they've been adopted internationally, etc. are all going to weigh in. 

Like, I might be mildly offended if a book about a homeschooled family depicted that experience negatively, because that was not _my _experience. But other people who have been homeschooled have their own experiences, some of which might match up better to the depiction in the given book. 

I guess what I'm asking is, in using sensitivity readers, am I depending too much on _one _person's experience? I don't know what the alternative would be, though. More just asking for the sake of argument.


----------



## Guard Dog

ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> I guess what I'm asking is, in using sensitivity readers, am I depending too much on _one _person's experience? I don't know what the alternative would be, though. More just asking for the sake of argument.



Any time you ask only ONE person, you're going to get a fair portion of their own bias, even if they actively try to keep that out of whatever advice they give.

After all, they can only give you the view from their own perspective.

The solution to this is to ask multiple people from that same culture or whatever, and 'average them out', paying the most attention to the things they've said that are common to all of them.
( police do this as well, since if you ask 10 people to describe something they all saw, you'll still get 10 different variations of what happened, as a rule )

The point here is that although two different people lived in what you would think was the same culture or situation, it will most likely be different enough that the pair would argue over various portions of whatever you write, one maybe being fine with it, the other not, and telling you that they never experienced or knew of any instance of it.

Ever notice that some countries have different dialects spoken in some regions than what's considered the "main" portion of the place?

In my own case, I'm not entirely sure if my father's side of the family is actually German, or possibly Russian, Polish or something else, given where his parents were actually from. They might be one or the other of something, or some combination thereof.

Complicating things is the fact that people in that area at the time spoke a very old dialect/variation of German, along with at least some other language... Russian, I think.
( My grandmother became very fluent in English, speaking with very little accent, but my grandfather never really mastered the language. In fact, when he drank too much NOBODY could figure out what the hell he was sayin', when he started mashing English, German, and no tellin' what else, all up in the same sentence. )

To get back to what I was saying though, how much good do you think my grandparents would be in advising you on typical German culture in the '20s or '30s? 
And how much do you think their views would deviate from someone from central or southern Germany, rather than Konigsberg/East Prussia/Kaliningrad, where they were from?



G.D.


----------



## Dluuni

One source is better than no sources. Two sources is better than one source. After you pick up more than say, thirty two sources, you do not get anything new from adding more sources, and thirty two is plenty for even rigorous qualitative research.


----------



## Bayview

ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> I like the idea of sensitivity readers, and I'm thinking I'm going to have to reach out to some for the story I'm working on now (since it's set in our universe), but there's one thing about it that's nagging me: people within cultural groups have different experiences. I understand that, say, an adopted child understands waaaay more about that experience than me, but they also don't have a monopoly on the experience of adopted children. Differences in parents, siblings, whether or not they've been adopted internationally, etc. are all going to weigh in.
> 
> Like, I might be mildly offended if a book about a homeschooled family depicted that experience negatively, because that was not _my _experience. But other people who have been homeschooled have their own experiences, some of which might match up better to the depiction in the given book.
> 
> I guess what I'm asking is, in using sensitivity readers, am I depending too much on _one _person's experience? I don't know what the alternative would be, though. More just asking for the sake of argument.



I don't think you can JUST rely on a sensitivity reader, but it would be one more tool in your toolbox. As Dluuni says, more perspectives are better, but not all these perspectives have to be from sensitivity readers! You aren't losing access to all the other tools - extensive reading and research, thoughtful reflection, imagination and empathy, etc.

Sensitivity readers aren't "instead of", they're "as well as".


----------



## SueC

From G.D.



> To get back to what I was saying though, how much good do you think my grandparents would be in advising you on typical German culture in the '20s or '30s?
> And how much do you think their views would deviate from someone from central or southern Germany, rather than Konigsberg/East Prussia/Kaliningrad, where they were from?



That is an excellent point, G.D. I think it all really depends on what our characters are up to, what we expect of them in their travels. I had submitted work to a publisher, where I had briefly mentioned that one of my lesser characters came from a Creole background. Just trying to add some dimension, and the publisher asked me to expand on that. What a can of worms! Apparently the term "creole" has had multiple definitions over generations, depending on time and place. Sometimes they were a mixture of black and white races, sometimes just white and then again, maybe just black. Usually located in southern Louisiana, but not always. I learned a lot about "placage" relationships that were basically one man involved in multiple marriages and were legal!

So, when looking for verification or confirmation of "how things were," it may be a lot more complicated than first appearing. Like your grandparents, if the written characters were from areas where gp's were from, maybe they could agree. But what if your grandparents were mavericks? What if, even though they came from that same area as a character, they were way ahead of their time and had a different idea all together?

The possibilities are endless.


----------



## Guard Dog

Yeah, about the only thing I can say for sure is that they both most likely came from "European Stock".

Past that, there's no telling what a DNA test would show.

Given the history of that area, and the fact that it sounds like it was a "Pocket Culture" up until after WW I ( Which both lived through there ), they could very well even have a common relative to some of my other relatives, from the Irish side and not know it.  ( Those "Norse" folks settled in places from Ireland all the way over past where my grandparents were from, as well as both north and south of there. )

So all they could really tell anyone was what their own experience was in that time, and that place.

Also, concerning multiple sources... the real problem there is making sure you get the _right_ source, rather than just multiples of the _wrong_ source.

Because one or two of the right ones will be a whole lot better than a bunch of the wrong ones, where the 'signal' is more likely to get lost in the 'noise'.

One way or the other though, it's all a crap-shoot, and all anyone can do is either work to ensure they get information that's as accurate as they have access to, or just write whatever they like, and let the chips fall where they will.



G.D.


----------



## Guard Dog

I also have a thought on the idea of paid "Sensitivity Readers"...

And that's the fact, that as anyone who's been alive for more than a couple of decades probably knows, that any time money gets involved with a particular activity, all sorts of people start showin' up, claimin' to have knowledge, skills, or expertise concerning that thing that they don't actually have.

These con-men/women will say or do whatever they have to, tell you whatever they think you want to hear, just to get your money into their pocket.

So it seems to me that it's inevitable that the same will happen concerning "Sensitivity Readers".

In fact, I'd be surprised if it hasn't already.

So here's the question:

If a person knows so little about something that they feel the need to find an advisor, and pay them for that advice... How do you verify that you're actually getting what you've paid for, before it's too late?

After all, you don't know what it is you're wanting them to tell you. The best you can do is hire yet another "Sensitivity Reader", and hope THAT one isn't the huckster.

So what do you do? Go on what feels right? Or what makes sense? Or just rely on your own research to guide you?

...or maybe find someone you know you can trust to check up on 'em as a favor? 

Me, I'd just keep my cash in my pocket, do all that other free stuff, and take my chances.

After all, I wouldn't have any worse a chance of gettin' it right than anyone else, and still have money in my pocket ta boot. 

( And if your book sucks and falls flat, then you've learned something, aren't any worse for wear, and are a bit less broke that you probably would've been if you'd hired the wrong person. Plus, you've earned an education that's actually useful when you try again. )



G.D.


----------



## Kevin

Kyle R said:


> I view it as just a new title for something that's existed for decades now: having a reader with life experience that relates to the fictional scenario(s) being written about.
> 
> For example, if I'm writing from the POV of a war veteran, it would probably help to have an actual war veteran read the story and offer suggestions/corrections where needed. That's a sensitivity reader.
> 
> Likewise for cultural/ethnic representation (and so on). It's not a new concept. It just has a name now—and is being rebranded as a paid service. :encouragement:


If these sensitivity readers that have existed forever are simply about technical accuracy then why don't they call them technical advisors? There's no need to invent a new term except to convey a new, different meaning. Sensitivity is a trigger word, you betcha. It triggers bunny rabbits and 'aw' noises in some, and wtf is this, now?  from others.


----------



## Terry D

Guard Dog said:


> If a person knows so little about something that they feel the need to find an advisor, and pay them for that advice... How do you verify that you're actually getting what you've paid for, before it's too late?



Probably the same way you would vet a 'Technical Adviser', or a proof reader, or a paid editor. Any paid resource is an open season for potential fraud.


----------



## Kevin

Is there a choice?  It seems to me that there is not going to be a choice given at the big publishers. You will do as they say or they won't publish you. Same as corporate- you will take the sensitivity courses or you will be terminated. Similarly, but slightly different, in Hollywood, you will expouse the correct political line (or keep your mouth shut), otherwise, no work for you. 
 I wonder if that's how it works in academia?


----------



## epimetheus

Kevin said:


> I wonder if that's how it works in academia?



To an extent. Recently James Watson (of the Watson and Crick team that shafted Franklin and 'discovered' DNA) was stripped of his honorary titles for being racist. The difference (in science at least) is that the evidence will speak for itself, and Watson's shown himself to be incompetent in that regard with his agenda on 'racial' science. 

They could have done nothing and just let him continue to make a fool of himself, but since he's not towing the party line they made an example of him.


----------



## Kyle R

Kevin said:


> If these sensitivity readers that have existed forever are simply about technical accuracy then why don't they call them technical advisors? There's no need to invent a new term except to convey a new, different meaning. Sensitivity is a trigger word, you betcha. It triggers bunny rabbits and 'aw' noises in some, and wtf is this, now?  from others.



I agree that "Sensitivity Reader" sounds a bit wishy-washy. "Diversity Editor" seems more apt, to me. :encouragement:

I think we're seeing this phenomenon because authors seem to be, more and more these days, choosing to write from the POV of racial/cultural/sexual identities different from their own.


----------



## Guard Dog

Terry D said:


> Probably the same way you would vet a 'Technical Adviser', or a proof reader, or a paid editor. Any paid resource is an open season for potential fraud.



The difference being a Technical Adviser is much more likely to be along the lines of a historian or other "professional" with a verifiable background, area of study, or other training, where almost any yo-yo with the proper colored skin, ethnicity, or other semi-verifiable trait can claim to be a "professional sensitivity reader".

Hell, can you imagine the trouble Ironpony could get into if he hired a "sensitivity reader" for his screenplay?

It just don't bear thinkin' about...  ale:



G.D.


----------



## Terry D

Guard Dog said:


> The difference being a Technical Adviser is much more likely to be along the lines of a historian or other "professional" with a verifiable background, area of study, or other training, where almost any yo-yo with the proper colored skin, ethnicity, or other semi-verifiable trait can claim to be a "professional sensitivity reader".
> 
> Hell, can you imagine the trouble Ironpony could get into if he hired a "sensitivity reader" for his screenplay?
> 
> It just don't bear thinkin' about...  ale:
> 
> 
> 
> G.D.



I really can't say, because I don't know any professional sensitivity readers and have no idea what qualifications they offer. Do you? If not, then you are simply speculating based on your own bias. It's easy to guess what 'could' be, but it's just as easy to speculate that some wanna-be mercenary with a subscription to Soldier of Fortune could try to pass himself off as a technical adviser. 

Since the stated purpose -- as far as I've seen in this thread -- for sensitivity readers is to offer opinions on the cultural accuracy of a book, the background and training you mention as prerequisites for a technical adviser would come through that person's immersion in that culture. I'd be tempted to let the author who is considering using such an adviser determine whether those 'qualifications' suit the needs of their particular book.

I think 'Sensitivity Reader' is an unfortunate label for a potentially useful service. It's obvious from the reactions in this thread that the title triggers knee-jerk reactions. In the spirit of full disclosure, my first reaction to the idea of sensitivity readers (a term I'd not heard before this thread) was, "Oh, hell no! I don't need someone else telling me what I can and cannot write." But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that if I'm going to expand my writing very far beyond my own experiences I'm going to run the risk of making mistakes that will make me look like an idiot. And I don't like looking like an idiot. To avoid that I have two choices: First is to not stray far from what I know well (and where's the fun in that?) Or, I can do whatever it takes to learn about the cultures I choose to write about. Now, I've never used a sensitivity reader and don't know if I ever will, but I think they might be a good resource (not a sole resource) for fact-checking novels in terms of culture. Hell, I'd like it if writers better represented my culture. If they did, there would be fewer books where most of the old, white, heterosexuals are portrayed as bigoted homophobes, and where people from the Midwest are unsophisticated, rubes. 

There are a number of types of editors I can hire to work on my book; proof readers, content editors, line editors, etc. Each targets a specific area of the manuscript. That's all sensitivity reading is, just a targeted form of beta-reading. Nothing to get my knickers in a twist about.


----------



## sigmadog

Sensitivity Reader (SR): "I've finished my review of your novel."

Author: "Great! What do you think?"

(SR): "It's a great and substantial read, with wonderful descriptions and a thrilling story…"

Author: "Yes! Yes! I'm quite happy with it."

(SR): "…but in reading I found several passages and at least one major character very problematic."

Author: "Oh? Do tell!"

(SR): "Well, Mr. Twain…"


----------



## Guard Dog

Terry D said:


> I really can't say, because I don't know any professional sensitivity readers and have no idea what qualifications they offer. Do you? If not, then you are simply speculating based on your own bias. It's easy to guess what 'could' be, but it's just as easy to speculate that some wanna-be mercenary with a subscription to Soldier of Fortune could try to pass himself off as a technical adviser.



Okay, first off... Fuck that. I could very easily work as an advisor in some capacity, concerning the Vietnam war, due to the fact I've spent a great deal of time speaking with veterans of that conflict ( one in particular ), not due to my own military experience, or the magazines I bought and read for entertainment and informational value. 

Speaking as someone who used to read that very magazine, with no interest in becoming any sort of mercenary, you've just shown your own bias, with your own words and choice of reference material.

Second, you're also showing your own bias very clearly in using that not only as a reference in your comment and opinion, and using it as support for those, but as something factually correct as well. Which it is not.

Thirdly, all of this is a matter of opinion, with nothing more than the "majority"  to corroborate it, which we also do not have here.

So, all we have is speculation and both your and my opinion and bias.

So what? hardly enough to form a consensus, is it?



Terry D said:


> Since the stated purpose -- as far as I've seen in this thread -- for sensitivity readers is to offer opinions on the cultural accuracy of a book, the background and training you mention as prerequisites for a technical adviser would come through that person's immersion in that culture. I'd be tempted to let the author who is considering using such an adviser determine whether those 'qualifications' suit the needs of their particular book.



A person who's qualifications would come from having studied ALL of that culture, in the case of someone studying it in it's entirety ( as in a technical adviser who specializes in that particular culture. ), not just a very specific portion of it, which is what you actually get from someone who lived through some portion of it.



Terry D said:


> I think 'Sensitivity Reader' is an unfortunate label for a potentially useful service. It's obvious from the reactions in this thread that the title triggers knee-jerk reactions. In the spirit of full disclosure, my first reaction to the idea of sensitivity readers (a term I'd not heard before this thread) was, "Oh, hell no! I don't need someone else telling me what I can and cannot write." But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that if I'm going to expand my writing very far beyond my own experiences I'm going to run the risk of making mistakes that will make me look like an idiot. And I don't like looking like an idiot. To avoid that I have two choices: First is to not stray far from what I know well (and where's the fun in that?) Or, I can do whatever it takes to learn about the cultures I choose to write about. Now, I've never used a sensitivity reader and don't know if I ever will, but I think they might be a good resource (not a sole resource) for fact-checking novels in terms of culture. Hell, I'd like it if writers better represented my culture. If they did, there would be fewer books where most of the old, white, heterosexuals are portrayed as bigoted homophobes, and where people from the Midwest are unsophisticated, rubes.



I agree, for the most part. But would also point out that 'stereotypes' exist because of the truth they represent, not the factual whole of the story, or person(s) they describe.
Believe me, living and coming from where I do, I know why certain stereotypes exist, seeing the truth they present on a daily basis.
That doesen't mean I'm a part of that reality though, nor does my existence make it false.
Also, I'm vividly aware that some 'facts' are more factual than others. ( People lie to suit themselves, after all. )

So... what's your real interest? Telling a story, telling a factual story, that has no more mistruths in it than absolutely necessary, or making money?

That will determine which way a person wants to go, and the actual value of a 'Sensitivity Reader'.



Terry D said:


> There are a number of types of editors I can hire to work on my book; proof readers, content editors, line editors, etc. Each targets a specific area of the manuscript. That's all sensitivity reading is, just a targeted form of beta-reading. Nothing to get my knickers in a twist about.



30 or 40 years ago, I probably would have agreed with you.
Today though, I'm not so sure I can, or am willing to risk.
I'm quite sure these 'Sensitivity Readers' have an entire other purpose. One that wasn't needed a while back, nor should be needed today, if people were... less sensitive... to things that don't really matter, or have any actual impact on their lives, past giving them some imaginary importance, or sense of actually mattering, in the grand scheme of things. Whatever the hell THAT might be.

The fact is, publishers are trying to tailor things to their best, high-dollar market, for their own gain. And if that's a person's interest, and what they choose to get involved with, then someone to guide them in a way that conforms to that is beneficial, if not an outright necessity.

However, if a person is of a mind just to tell a good story... who needs an advisor? All they need is a good story, and an ability to describe it.

So in the end, those of us just looking to learn how to tell a story don't need any "sensitivity adviser'.

And those planning on becoming rich, famous, and someone history will remember are likely just damned delusional fools, with delusions of grandeur.

Or am I wrong?



G.D.


----------



## luckyscars

In direct response to the OP because this is the kind of thread which tends to hit peak-idiocy around page 2 or 3.

I am familiar with sensitivity auditors though I have only come across them in certain types of book - stuff targeted at minors and work in which the subject matter is sensitive (books set in the Deep South during Jim Crow, for instance) and therefore any misunderstandings could be damaging.

It would not surprise me to hear of growing usage of them these days. I don't know why anybody would look at it as anything beyond a beta read by somebody who may be qualified to make a specific type of judgement.

 Some audiences you need to be more mindful of this than others. It's common sense and goes along with basic human decency as well as quality assurance: If you are liable to mishandle racial or sexual issues in a book aimed at teenagers, you deserve to fail as an author. Not because of political correctness but because you are mishandling your subject matter, no different than if you are writing about planes in ignorance of aerodynamics. 

I know of zero cases, _zero_, of this stuff resulting in actual censorship or anything similar. There is a massive difference between a private company (publisher) mandating a certain treatment of subject matter in books printed in their name and the Orwellian Police State and anybody who believes in the "slippery slope" is nothing but a snake oil seller trying to inject alt-right politics into literature. 

Pretty much the same people who disparage sensitivity training are the reason it exists in the first place.


----------



## luckyscars

sigmadog said:


> Sensitivity Reader (SR): "I've finished my review of your novel."
> 
> Author: "Great! What do you think?"
> 
> (SR): "It's a great and substantial read, with wonderful descriptions and a thrilling story…"
> 
> Author: "Yes! Yes! I'm quite happy with it."
> 
> (SR): "…but in reading I found several passages and at least one major character very problematic."
> 
> Author: "Oh? Do tell!"
> 
> (SR): "Well, Mr. Twain…"



Ah yes, the old "people from two centuries ago didn't need it so why do I?" argument, as beloved by mental health critics, racial dog-whistlers, and anti-vaccination mothers worldwide.


----------



## Guard Dog

luckyscars said:


> Pretty much the same people who disparage sensitivity training are the reason it exists in the first place.





Hey, Luckyscars... would you believe that I've not only been through several of the State of Tennessee's "Sensitivity Training" classes, but was also one of the instructor's ( a woman ) favorite attendees?

( Yes, she and I both believe(d) the classes are a load of crap, and serve no real purpose other than the political. )

I've never been accused or suspected of sexual harassment, or racial insensitivity, despite having worked in a variety of environments and having ended up with 3 wives I first met in the workplace. And I've NEVER conducted myself in any manner that isn't "me", and the same as you'll see in evidence around these forums.

So yeah, I will stand by the statement that "sensitivity classes" are a load of bullshit, and that anyone with even the slightest amount of good sense does not need them. And also, that they are of absolutely no use, or of any good, where those who are actually the problem are concerned. ( Usually the people who are the highest up the "ladder", and can 'bury' anything they don't want discovered or known. )



G.D.


----------



## Terry D

Guard Dog said:


> Okay, first off... Fuck that. I could very easily work as an advisor in some capacity, concerning the Vietnam war, due to the fact I've spent a great deal of time speaking with veterans of that conflict ( one in particular ), not due to my own military experience, or the magazines I bought and read for entertainment and informational value.
> 
> Speaking as someone who used to read that very magazine, with no interest in becoming any sort of mercenary, you've just shown your own bias, with your own words and choice of reference material.
> 
> Second, you're also showing your own bias very clearly in using that not only as a reference in your comment and opinion, and using it as support for those, but as something factually correct as well. Which it is not.



So, in my haste to reply to your comments I drew on a stereotype which didn't accurately reflect the culture I was representing? And it pissed you off a bit? Funny how that happens even with the best of intentions (and I wasn't trying to piss anyone off). Cultural appropriation and misrepresentation is quite subjective isn't it? It always seems more egregious when it's one's own culture being misrepresented. 



> Thirdly, all of this is a matter of opinion, with nothing more than the "majority"  to corroborate it, which we also do not have here.
> 
> So, all we have is speculation and both your and my opinion and bias.
> 
> So what? hardly enough to form a consensus, is it?



I'm not really interested in coming to a consensus. I don't care if anyone uses a sensitivity reader or not. My entire point has been that I can see why some authors would choose to do so, and that in searching for cultural accuracy, one could be of use.



> A person who's qualifications would come from having studied ALL of that culture, in the case of someone studying it in it's entirety ( as in a technical adviser who specializes in that particular culture. ), not just a very specific portion of it, which is what you actually get from someone who lived through some portion of it.



That seems to be a pretty good definition of what a sensitivity reader would be... for you. As I said, the determination resides with the author.




> So... what's your real interest? Telling a story, telling a factual story, that has no more mistruths in it than absolutely necessary, or making money?
> 
> That will determine which way a person wants to go, and the actual value of a 'Sensitivity Reader'.



At least we agree that some people can find value in running a book past a sensitivity reader.



> 30 or 40 years ago, I probably would have agreed with you.
> Today though, I'm not so sure I can, or am willing to risk.
> I'm quite sure these 'Sensitivity Readers' have an entire other purpose. One that wasn't needed a while back, nor should be needed today, if people were... less sensitive... to things that don't really matter, or have any actual impact on their lives, past giving them some imaginary importance, or sense of actually mattering, in the grand scheme of things. Whatever the hell THAT might be.
> 
> The fact is, publishers are trying to tailor things to their best, high-dollar market, for their own gain. And if that's a person's interest, and what they choose to get involved with, then someone to guide them in a way that conforms to that is beneficial, if not an outright necessity.
> 
> However, if a person is of a mind just to tell a good story... who needs an advisor? All they need is a good story, and an ability to describe it.
> 
> So in the end, those of us just looking to learn how to tell a story don't need any "sensitivity adviser'.
> 
> And those planning on becoming rich, famous, and someone history will remember are likely just damned delusional fools, with delusions of grandeur.
> 
> Or am I wrong?
> 
> G.D.



You are a smarter man than I if you can be sure of the motivations of total strangers, but you are welcome to that opinion. Like I've said, use one or not, I don't care either way. I'd judge the book on its merits, not whether the author used any sort of advisory help of any kind.

I do know, however, that what might not matter to you (just as using a stereotype of readers of Soldier of Fortune didn't really matter to me) can matter to other people. Yes, publishers want to make money and in the current economic/political climate they know the risks of choosing poorly. Some writers would like to get their books published, even some who frequent these message boards. I don't blame them if they want to approach writing as a business and tailor their work to the constraints of their target markets. That's not a bad thing. The hobby writers among us, or those of us just trying to develop our voices and our story-telling techniques certainly don't need to run every story through any sort of filter. I never suggested otherwise.

I'm not sure what the aspirations -- realistic or not -- of members here has to do with the validity of using sensitivity readers as a resource. That's an individual choice, but I can tell you that there are many published writers on these boards. Some who make their living by writing. One of those has even responded to this thread in support of sensitivity readers.

Look, no one is trying to tell you to go out and hire a sensitivity reader for your work. No one really cares what you or I do to get our books written.


----------



## Kevin

Anyone here can easilly look up Twain and his 'sensitivity'. Maybe some kids are too unsophisticated or are just not developed enough but the anti-racism and poignant portrait of how things were for minorities- the utter unfairness of it - was and is obvious to many. Others ( adults) on the other hand, just don't get it, and think he is (was) somehow in support of bigotry, racism, injustice. Someone should explain it to them.


----------



## luckyscars

Guard Dog said:


> Hey, Luckyscars... would you believe that I've not only been through several of the State of Tennessee's "Sensitivity Training" classes, but was also one of the instructor's ( a woman ) favorite attendees?
> 
> ( Yes, she and I both believe(d) the classes are a load of crap, and serve no real purpose other than the political. )
> 
> I've never been accused or suspected of sexual harassment, or racial insensitivity, despite having worked in a variety of environments and having ended up with 3 wives I first met in the workplace. And I've NEVER conducted myself in any manner that isn't "me", and the same as you'll see in evidence around these forums.
> 
> So yeah, I will stand by the statement that "sensitivity classes" are a load of bullshit, and that anyone with even the slightest amount of good sense does not need them. And also, that they are of absolutely no use, or of any good, where those who are actually the problem are concerned. ( Usually the people who are the highest up the "ladder", and can 'bury' anything they don't want discovered or known. )
> 
> 
> 
> G.D.



Ah yes, the “I am not sexist/racist because women/minorities like me” argument, as beloved by...well never mind...

Look lad, my comment was not targeted at you okay? As I mentioned I had not read the steaming pile of vitriol that has I am sure (still not reading it) been spewed in this post to know where you or anybody else stands. I don’t care. I was addressing the OP.

I gave my reasons and my point of view and I stand by it. I don’t care to debate the character of people I do not know. The fact you are apparently worked up about something that has, you claim, not impacted you one jot says more than any length of internet argument could. 

Let’s leave it there. Peace.


----------



## Guard Dog

Hey Terry, first off, I'm most certainly not even remotely pissed off. In fact, I all but grinned and rubbed my hands together when I saw what you'd posted, with the thought, "This is gonna be fun".

Secondly, it's near my bedtime, so I'm not gonna try tackling your current post. I'd do a lousy job of it, and not manage to say what I think, given my present condition. ( Been awake for 24 hours straight now. I need a nap. )

And lastly, you do bring up a lot of good points which i think deserve to be addressed and discussed, so that people can make up their own minds.

So rest assured, I'm not mad or attacking you, despite who it may look in 'writing'. ( i doubt anyone on the internet truly has the ability to 'piss me off'. )
If this conversation were in person, I'm betting it would strike you much differently than it does here, despite my many years of having these sorts of conversations this way; without ALL the available tools to convey  the thoughts in my head.

Regards and good night, for now.

G.D.


----------



## Guard Dog

luckyscars said:


> Ah yes, the “I am not sexist/racist because women/minorities like me” argument, as beloved by...well never mind...
> 
> Look lad, my comment was not targeted at you okay? As I mentioned I had not read the steaming pile of vitriol that has I am sure (still not reading it) been spewed in this post to know where you or anybody else stands. I don’t care. I was addressing the OP.
> 
> I gave my reasons and my point of view and I stand by it. I don’t care to debate the character of people I do not know. The fact you are apparently worked up about something that has, you claim, not impacted you one jot says more than any length of internet argument could.
> 
> Let’s leave it there. Peace.



See my comment to Terry D, please. And don't waste your effort with that 'Lad' crap. It really does just makes me grin, and probably doesn't convey the image of yourself that you'd rather have people see . :wink:
( Seriously... I'm 55 years old, with a very high I.Q. Do you really think you've got that much, if anything, on me? )

( You're no college professor, or 'authority', 'scars, no more than anyone else here is, so it'd probably be best if you tried talkin' TO people, rather than AT 'em. :encouragement: )

Anyway, good night for now. I'll be back after my nap, Spectrum Cable willin'.




G.D.


----------



## Squalid Glass

MzSnowleopard said:


> I read this term for the first time today in WD's Writer's Yearbook 2019. The blurb is at the bottom of page 7. _The #MeToo Reckoning._
> 
> Apparently it's spurred on by racism and insensitivity in YA and Romance novels, the blurb called them 'hot buttons'.
> 
> I'd like to hear more about this, greater detail.



Going back to the OP for a moment, I do remember last year there being a big snafu on YA Twitter about YA novelists being called out because the synopses of their forthcoming novels contained sexual abuse/assault as plot devices, or something like that. And there was one where the book was boycotted because, in early reviews of the book, one of the characters was revealed to be a racist. 

While I agree with the #MeToo Movement and the general idea of increased awareness/sensitivity in culture, I think there is certainly an uncomfortable trend of people being outraged about work that so much as contains characters/plots/etc. that might be of the triggering nature. A sensitivity reader would certainly be a good idea for books dealing with controversial subject matters, but I think a big problem for any author wading into controversial territory is the danger of the social media outrage machine. I think there were quite a few YA authors last year whose sales and reputations suffered as a result.

On the flip side, thinking there is no need for sensitivity training and education is a very ignorant position. To assume that people just instinctively know or that all people were taught what is acceptable is quite the assumption. In the end, sensitivity training and cultural awareness training are just forms of social education, which is definitely a skill that is lacking in American education. As a teacher who has taught middle school all the way to college, I see this on a daily basis.


----------



## sigmadog

luckyscars said:


> Ah yes, the old "people from two centuries ago didn't need it so why do I?" argument, as beloved by mental health critics, racial dog-whistlers, and anti-vaccination mothers worldwide.



Thanks for bringing the conversation to peak stupid.

Edit to Add: Oh, and congratulations for belittling a point of view via ad hominem arguments. You might wish to hire a sensitivity reader when posting to WF. -- and, please, KMA.


----------



## Dluuni

Guard Dog said:


> ... if people were... less sensitive... to things that don't really matter, or have any actual impact on their lives, past giving them some imaginary importance, or sense of actually mattering, in the grand scheme of things..


When I see this and other things like this posted by other people, what I read is: "I, who exist in a bubble so tight that I can have police called if I so much as feel less than completely in charge and control of every situation let alone actually offended, feel that I have the absolute right to be wilfully careless with the lives and sensibilities of people with less reflective skin, or who worship at places less common in my area, and who might be wired differently than I. Indeed, I am going to frame my thoughtlessness and disrespectful disregard as a virtue." 

I once used an analogy of somebody picking up a loaded gun and pointing it at you and juggling the damn thing and your reaction was to declare that such behavior would 'not be allowed' next to you. Me 'not allowing' certain things that endanger people resembles trying to enforce certain standards of behavior in ways you speak against. You 'don't want' people to juggle loaded firearms in front of you, I 'don't want' people to act incredibly careless with my safety in other ways. Why does your selfish desire not to have obviously untrained people committing horrible breaches of firearm safety in your presence beat my desire to retain safety precautions when dealing with people who might want to hurt me? 



> However, if a person is of a mind just to tell a good story... who needs an advisor? All they need is a good story, and an ability to describe it.
> 
> So in the end, those of us just looking to learn how to tell a story don't need any "sensitivity adviser'.


So you really won't mind if people publish a bunch of popular books and movies that make it clear that American gun owners are dangerous terrorists who all have weird fetishes, handle guns unsafely, and who regularly take potshots at schools full of children accompanied by a laugh track, the thesis of which is that all guns should be forcefully taken away and their owners put in psychiatric care? I couldn't write a story that conflates the words "clip" versus "magazine" or uses "assault" instead of "armalite" without a veritable army of people pouring out of the woodwork to loudly complain and demand I fix it. I don't know why anyone would think it's okay to dribble horrible stereotypes about other groups of people out on a page without being called on it, but I have to get help fact checking my terminology if anybody on the page picks up a gun. 

If I slip up on the names of guns , nobody dies. We literally have an international holiday that is just one colossal memorial service dedicated to remembering people in the community who were murdered in the last year, and what is known of their deaths. The number varies wildly and visibly tracks with things like how much media slipped into the public eye that contains certain offensive and wrong stereotypes that year. 

Every time someone releases a film or whatever with some male actor playing a woman in a dress, we curse and wonder how many people we are going to have to light candles for and recite names of this year that we wouldn't have if the writers did some damn research and hired someone in the know, instead of deciding they had a "good story". 

I'm used to people carelessly writing stories that portray me as dangerously insane because of falsehoods and ridiculous stereotypes all the time. I'm also used to seeing death counts rise in years such narratives sell well in. I'm kind of tired of being portrayed like that, it's based on falsehoods and assumptions that people who didn't know and never cared to learn have passed down, and one day one of those stereotypes might literally kill me.


----------



## Megan Pearson

Ooo… so much to comment on…

For starters, I hate sensitivity training. It is a form of politically correct cultural manipulation that certain industries have bought into in order to increase either their profit margin or to increase their reputation on paper. It does nothing to help real people or to solve real problems. Instead, talking a problem out, like you all here have been doing, solves problems. Kudos to everyone who has participated in this conversation.

In trying to pick the most useful way in which to jump in, I am reminded of an article I read about Arthur Golden and his writing of Memoirs of a Geisha. While it has now been many years since I read it, several of the points in the article-as-I-remember-it seem relevant to this discussion.

First, Mr. Golden was not a woman, yet he wrote from the point-of-view of his female protagonist. Personally, I think he did a masterful job at it.

Second, part of the above discussion here asks, which is more important, experience or research? Don’t we need first-hand experience to guide our writing? Well, taking Mr. Golden’s example, I am pretty sure he had no first-hand experience of what it was like to be an orphaned Chinese girl (read: minority gender) who became a respected figure in his fictional Japanese society. Because of this, I’m willing to err more on research than experience in the genre of literary fiction. 

Third, does a sensitivity reader really help? Again turning to Mr. Golden’s example, here he misstepped the boundaries of his source’s request for anonymity (the very person, we might say, was his sensitivty advisor!) when he published her name in the acknowledgements—for which he was sued. So here we have a phenomenally well-researched story by a man sympathetic to his subject matter who—ironically—offends the very person he has relied upon for their experience. So, no; all of his thoughtful preparation didn’t stop him from making a final faux pas. 

Dang, you guys all type too fast for me; I see at least three more posts have gathered since inspiration suggested I join in. For what it’s worth, I hope some of you find these thoughts useful.


----------



## Megan Pearson

Squalid Glass said:


> While I agree with the #MeToo Movement and the general idea of increased awareness/sensitivity in culture, I think there is certainly an uncomfortable trend of people being outraged about work that so much as contains characters/plots/etc. that might be of the triggering nature. A sensitivity reader would certainly be a good idea for books dealing with controversial subject matters, but I think a big problem for any author wading into controversial territory is the danger of the social media outrage machine. I think there were quite a few YA authors last year whose sales and reputations suffered as a result.



Hi Squalid Glass, I think you bring out a very good point about remembering who our readers are and the context in which we are writing. As a teenager, I read an interview with my then favorite author. In it, she confessed to regretting writing a rape scene where she had glorified the act instead of condemning it. In the 20 or 30 years since writing that scene, she had received numerous letters from young girls who had been raped thanking her for giving them a new perspective on what had happened to them. She was so disgusted with herself, wanted to vomit. She couldn't take back what she had written. While in her later works she became much more socially active in condemning heinous acts, this interview impressed upon me at an early age that what we write can be used for good or for evil, no matter the label of 'fiction' we place on it.

However, while I'll agree that a second (and third, and fourth...) set of eyes is needed to help me see how a reader may take what I think I am saying, I am far from being convinced that sensitivity readers are a cultural 'good'. I have a suspicion they may stir up more trouble and confusion for society in the long run. Placing 'truth' within the context of human nature is not likely to yield permanent, consistent results. 



Squalid Glass said:


> On the flip side, thinking there is no need for sensitivity training and education is a very ignorant position. To assume that people just instinctively know or that all people were taught what is acceptable is quite the assumption. In the end, sensitivity training and cultural awareness training are just forms of social education, which is definitely a skill that is lacking in American education. As a teacher who has taught middle school all the way to college, I see this on a daily basis.



At my workplace, "sensitivity training" was synonymous with "anti-Christianity." That particular program vocally countered core Christian doctrine and beliefs. Basically, it became an "if you believe there is a God, then you are an evil person" ad hominem campaign. It was very distressing to many who went through the program to realize that, because they held certain beliefs about truth, honesty, justice, goodness, and equal rights for all people, that they were being not only discriminated against but that they were being visibly targetted by upper management to leave. While I was not part of the so-called "sensitivity training" class, I was one of those people targetted. Did I leave? (Are you kidding? And miss something interesting to write about???) No; not only did I not leave (much to my employer's chagrin) but I went back to school to learn how to better handle these kinds of arguments.

Getting back to your comments, what we have now is a clash of philosophies whose legitimate, logical arguments are so high above the average person's exposure to argumentation it is not funny--yet they are being played out by us, the average person. It really is quite a fascinating discussion. However, as you and others have so poignantly identified, as this discussion plays itself out in our culture, our culture is experiencing some very serious and disturbing consequences. And as I learned at an early age, we as writers do have a social responsibility toward our readers in what we write. While we may not be able to change the world, we may be able to make a positive difference in some of our readers beyond just supplying them with a couple hours' good read.


----------



## Dluuni

"Talking it out" is unrealistic. 

A major headache is that "talking things out" inevitably turns into "wasting several hours because the cishet WASP (who constantly snarks that minorities are too sensitive and easily offended) started crying at the suggestion that they might have accidentally picked up some bad habits and threw a tantrum until everybody stopped everything to make them feel better". 

Fragility makes conversation difficult. There's already topics that I am tiptoeing around to avoid hurting anybody's feelings here. From experience, if the C/H WASP starts crying, I'm the one who gets accused of being overly sensitive. Because "thought control censorship agenda" or something like that. And so people just clam up to spare the trouble.


----------



## Megan Pearson

Dluuni said:


> "Talking it out" is unrealistic.
> 
> A major headache is that "talking things out" inevitably turns into "wasting several hours because the cishet WASP (who constantly snarks that minorities are too sensitive and easily offended) started crying at the suggestion that they might have accidentally picked up some bad habits and threw a tantrum until everybody stopped everything to make them feel better".
> 
> Fragility makes conversation difficult. There's already topics that I am tiptoeing around to avoid hurting anybody's feelings here. From experience, if the C/H WASP starts crying, I'm the one who gets accused of being overly sensitive. Because "thought control censorship agenda" or something like that. And so people just clam up to spare the trouble.



Hmm. It seems to me that you're talking it out just fine. I've enjoyed your posts here as much as the other posts.

Returning to the OP, Dluuni's comment brings up a thought I think may best be stated as a question. What if someone _is_ writing about a potentially sensitive topic, one in which they know they will be broaching some social issues head-on? Let's even go so far as to say that this supposed, hypothetical story is _meant_ to challenge a facet of culture?

Would you (i.e., anyone here) think either a sensitivity reader (or a technical advisor) would or would not be beneficial in this instance, and why? 
And then consider also if that work is meant to be semi-autobiographical, or if the work is meant to address a social injustice. Would any of those considerations change your response? 



As for myself, I am wondering if there is a conflict of interest with the semi-autobiographical writer or the writer wanting to call out social injustice and the emerging role of the sensitivity reader. While I can see it (the sensitivity reader) as being useful in certain genres, their purposes just seem too much at odds to me to be useful in true literary social criticism.


----------



## Squalid Glass

Megan Pearson said:


> Hi Squalid Glass, I think you bring out a very good point about remembering who our readers are and the context in which we are writing. As a teenager, I read an interview with my then favorite author. In it, she confessed to regretting writing a rape scene where she had glorified the act instead of condemning it. In the 20 or 30 years since writing that scene, she had received numerous letters from young girls who had been raped thanking her for giving them a new perspective on what had happened to them. She was so disgusted with herself, wanted to vomit. She couldn't take back what she had written. While in her later works she became much more socially active in condemning heinous acts, this interview impressed upon me at an early age that what we write can be used for good or for evil, no matter the label of 'fiction' we place on it.
> 
> However, while I'll agree that a second (and third, and fourth...) set of eyes is needed to help me see how a reader may take what I think I am saying, I am far from being convinced that sensitivity readers are a cultural 'good'. I have a suspicion they may stir up more trouble and confusion for society in the long run. Placing 'truth' within the context of human nature is not likely to yield permanent, consistent results.
> 
> 
> 
> At my workplace, "sensitivity training" was synonymous with "anti-Christianity." That particular program vocally countered core Christian doctrine and beliefs. Basically, it became an "if you believe there is a God, then you are an evil person" ad hominem campaign. It was very distressing to many who went through the program to realize that, because they held certain beliefs about truth, honesty, justice, goodness, and equal rights for all people, that they were being not only discriminated against but that they were being visibly targetted by upper management to leave. While I was not part of the so-called "sensitivity training" class, I was one of those people targetted. Did I leave? (Are you kidding? And miss something interesting to write about???) No; not only did I not leave (much to my employer's chagrin) but I went back to school to learn how to better handle these kinds of arguments.
> 
> Getting back to your comments, what we have now is a clash of philosophies whose legitimate, logical arguments are so high above the average person's exposure to argumentation it is not funny--yet they are being played out by us, the average person. It really is quite a fascinating discussion. However, as you and others have so poignantly identified, as this discussion plays itself out in our culture, our culture is experiencing some very serious and disturbing consequences. And as I learned at an early age, we as writers do have a social responsibility toward our readers in what we write. While we may not be able to change the world, we may be able to make a positive difference in some of our readers beyond just supplying them with a couple hours' good read.



It’s hard to comment on the experience you’re discussing because I wasn’t there. All I know is I was a Christian when I was in college, and when we did sensitivity training, I thought it was anti-Christian as well. I’ve come to realize that’s usually not the case, but again, I don’t know you and I don’t know the experience you’re discussing, so I can’t speak to your experience.

I do like that you acknowledge the importance a writer’s words have, and I agree.


----------



## Dluuni

Megan Pearson said:


> What if someone _is_ writing about a potentially sensitive topic, one in which they know they will be broaching some social issues head-on? Let's even go so far as to say that this supposed, hypothetical story is _meant_ to challenge a facet of culture?


From experience from me and a lot of people I deal with from minority communities? 
Say you want to write about history from a minority perspective. You will need to add an absurd amount of hedging language to coddle readers and reassure them that they're not part of society. Even then, you will need to be ready for lots of reviews declaring that you have an obvious anti-Christian agenda and that you are trying to convince readers that everybody who believes in God is evil and that you are a racist who hates white people, because that's what my friends who teach history or sociology or anything that covers minorities get painted on all their reviews and shouted in their faces multiple times every semester and what I get told when I mention the Boarding Schools that traumatized a lot of my living relatives. 

You might want a more experienced editor to work through the sheer quantities of coddling language you will need to include. 



> And then consider also if that work is meant to be semi-autobiographical, or if the work is meant to address a social injustice. Would any of those considerations change your response?


No. It takes a lot of special skills to confront injustice without being blasted on _every_ conservative talk show as an anti-Christian racist for weeks. With lots of care and experience, you might get some people who aren't minorities to read it first.


----------



## Bayview

Megan Pearson said:


> Hmm. It seems to me that you're talking it out just fine. I've enjoyed your posts here as much as the other posts.
> 
> Returning to the OP, Dluuni's comment brings up a thought I think may best be stated as a question. What if someone _is_ writing about a potentially sensitive topic, one in which they know they will be broaching some social issues head-on? Let's even go so far as to say that this supposed, hypothetical story is _meant_ to challenge a facet of culture?
> 
> Would you (i.e., anyone here) think either a sensitivity reader (or a technical advisor) would or would not be beneficial in this instance, and why?
> And then consider also if that work is meant to be semi-autobiographical, or if the work is meant to address a social injustice. Would any of those considerations change your response?
> 
> 
> 
> As for myself, I am wondering if there is a conflict of interest with the semi-autobiographical writer or the writer wanting to call out social injustice and the emerging role of the sensitivity reader. While I can see it (the sensitivity reader) as being useful in certain genres, their purposes just seem too much at odds to me to be useful in true literary social criticism.



I think a sensitivity reader would absolutely be useful in that context. They're not censors, they're not in control of what you write... they're just another perspective. The more controversial my topic is, the more I want to be sure my position is defensible. And the closer a story is to my own life, the more I want an outside perspective to help me see the experience from another direction.

I found myself writing "perspective" over and over again as I drafted that paragraph, and I think that's because it's exactly what sensitivity readers provide, to my way of thinking. They give a different perspective on the work. I can't think of a time that wouldn't be valuable.


----------



## Smith

As long as it doesn't become a mandated step and yet another gatekeeper in the publishing process, I don't care if people spend their own money on it. If they're happy with the results then more power to them.

They couldn't have picked a worse title for their job though. How insensitive to the political landscape of our time do you have to be to use the job title "sensitivity reader" and then get flustered at the mixed, confused reactions? Ironic.

I'm also curious as to how this is supposed to work. Obviously they're only going to be able to give you useful feedback on what is or isn't true. As in, "Your character has autism but x has nothing to do with autism scientifically" or "y isn't possible for somebody with autism". Something *factual*.

I'm not going to need a self-appointed representative telling me "well axtually not all black people eat fried chicken". I mean seriously. I don't care what "most black people" do, or how "most black people" act, as if those also aren't implicitly stereotypes or pre-judgements. There's a black person eating fried chicken in my story because I wanted there to be. Not for some malevolent purposes that you've imagined I hold.

What's next? An asian person doesn't have to be smart? How profound. I mean, at least the underlying assumption here would be one of ignorance rather than one of malevolence, I guess. There's always a silver-lining.

And honestly, unless they're an expert in some sort of field or have studied a culture and have the work and experience to show for it (like an anthropologist), I'd rather just find several black individuals or asian individuals than pay a significant amount for the... super opinion?... of one person to speak on the behalf of their racial monolith.

If you have this become a mandatory stepping-stone in the publishing process, and it's anything BUT "the facts ma'am", you're going to have serious problems. That's not my opinion. That's a promise based on a logical conclusion, just like 2+2=4.


----------



## Kyle R

There are a lot of articles about the topic, a quick Google search away—many of which address the arguments in this thread.

Here's one—an inside glance at what a sensitivity reader actually does (hint: it's mostly just pointing out racial/cultural inaccuracies that have gone unnoticed by the author).

https://www.vulture.com/2018/01/sensitivity-readers-what-the-job-is-really-like.html :encouragement:


----------



## Squalid Glass

Kyle R said:


> There are a lot of articles about the topic, a quick Google search away—many of which address the arguments in this thread.
> 
> Here's one—an inside glance at what a sensitivity reader actually does (hint: it's mostly just pointing out racial/cultural inaccuracies that have gone unnoticed by the author).
> 
> https://www.vulture.com/2018/01/sensitivity-readers-what-the-job-is-really-like.html :encouragement:



After reading that, I’m more convinced than ever that being upset about sensitivity readers is the literary equivalent of the old man on the porch yelling at the kids on the street.


----------



## Megan Pearson

Kyle R said:


> There are a lot of articles about the topic, a quick Google search away—many of which address the arguments in this thread.
> 
> Here's one—an inside glance at what a sensitivity reader actually does (hint: it's mostly just pointing out racial/cultural inaccuracies that have gone unnoticed by the author).
> 
> https://www.vulture.com/2018/01/sensitivity-readers-what-the-job-is-really-like.html :encouragement:



Excellent article, Kyle R, thanks for sharing it. What really stood out to me was that she had studied children's literature and found it wanting, which is why she decided to take action. A fine example of someone with the necessary expertise doing something about social injustice. Plus, it brings a concrete example of application to this conversation.


----------



## Smith

"There was her realization in fifth grade that all the black and brown characters in Middle Earth and Narnia were evil."

This is patently untrue. Not a good look for a sensitivity reader to go out of her way to contrive racial prejudice that isn't there. And then she goes on to complain about how a Times article didn't correctly portray her line of work. Which, admittedly, they may have.

This sets the tone for the article, which to me, reads with a typical leftist slant. "White" is a problem, marginalized groups (collectivist terminology in common parlance since the emergence of communist philosophy in Europe toward the end of the 1800s), diversity, encouraging of identifying by one's race or sex rather than the merits of a character and the deeper meaning of what it means to be human.

"The systematic erasure and blockage of people of color from the publishing industry."

Source, Clayton?

And what the Hell... her manuscript gets declined because they've already taken on one that's similar to hers (if I read this right) and the detail she's upset over is that the author was a white woman? The emphasis on the white?

*Let’s take **The Black Witch** and **American Heart** – two controversial books that each tell the story of a prejudiced white character becoming woke. **Is there a way to do a story line like that well? *Of course. Even I could have told you this. The answer was right where it says "becoming woke". If they don't "go broke, get woke" in the end, I would wager the answer is a resounding no.

A sincere, non-snarky thank-you for sharing; it would seem my suspicions are confirmed. It all comes back to leftist talking points about race, diversity, and muh bad white people (and occasionally a patronizing comment about "the well meaning white-folk"). The same thing has been ruining the gaming industry since GamerGate and has been ruining comics for longer, and is starting to sink its poisonous teeth into anime.

---

"but the way that Rutkoski does it is that she takes away the white girl’s power"

*"two controversial books that each tell the story of a prejudiced white character becoming woke"

*The specific use of "white" here is not an accident.

"found out that the author was, indeed, a white woman who’d written a story with a black girl in it"


The problem here, according to Clayton, is that it's a white woman.

The trend isn't hard to spot, honestly. And the fact that she went out of her way to make Lord of the Rings and Narnia something it's not really let the cat out of the bag.


----------



## Squalid Glass

Smith said:


> "There was her realization in fifth grade that all the black and brown characters in Middle Earth and Narnia were evil."
> 
> This is patently untrue. Not a good look for a sensitivity reader to go out of her way to contrive racial prejudice that isn't there. And then she goes on to complain about how a Times article didn't correctly portray her line of work. Which, admittedly, they may have.
> 
> This sets the tone for the article, which to me, reads with a typical leftist slant. "White" is a problem, marginalized groups (collectivist philosophy), diversity, encouraging of identifying by one's race or sex rather than the merits of a character and the deeper meaning of what it means to be human.
> 
> The systematic erasure and blockage of people of color from the publishing industry.
> 
> Source, Clayton?
> 
> And what the Hell... her manuscript gets declined because they've already taken on one that's similar to hers (if I read this right) and the detail she's upset over is that the author was a white woman? The emphasis on the white?
> 
> *Let’s take **The Black Witch** and **American Heart** – two controversial books that each tell the story of a prejudiced white character becoming woke.
> 
> *Of course. Even I could have told you this. The answer was right where it says "becoming woke".
> 
> I couldn't finish reading the article. Sorry. But thank-you for sharing; this is exactly what my educated-guesswork thought it would be, and I'm glad to have my suspicions confirmed. It all comes back to leftist talking points about race, diversity, and muh bad white people (and occasionally a patronizing comment about "the well meaning white-folk").



...or, possibly, she had a different experience from you where she felt excluded and marginalized, and now she wants to make sure it doesn’t happen to other people.


----------



## Megan Pearson

Dluuni said:


> No. It takes a lot of special skills to confront injustice without being blasted on _every_ conservative talk show as an anti-Christian racist for weeks. With lots of care and experience, you might get some people who aren't minorities to read it first.



Thanks for that, Dluuni. I can see you've worked very hard to overcome the biases of your audience. I find that trying to see things from another's viewpoint is perhaps the most important component for finding the common ground necessary from which to hold a productive conversation about...just about anything. For one, it's respectful, and for another, it shows we are willing to investigate and to listen to that which we disagree. At the very least, it can lead to a fruitful conversation based on respect, even should we still choose to disagree.


----------



## luckyscars

Bayview touched on it but the reason it's so silly to whimper about this stuff is...it's voluntary!

Sensitivity readers are not required to be "a writer".

Sensitivity workshops (never even heard of those to be honest) are not required to be a citizen.

Learning the "correct" terminology and etiquette for getting by in life is not tantamount to being required to use it.

It is all there to help you and help others. 

Seems to me the goal with this stuff is pretty much to avoid misunderstanding. If you don't need it, fine, but how can you be sure? How do you know your writing isn't turning potential readers ($'s!) off because of how you handled something that did not seem important to you but is to them? What kind of astounding genius doesn't screw up once in awhile?

So the goal is to achieve a kind of universal understanding concerning certain terms and language and characterizations and understand how it all fits together and how to, hopefully, write in a way that appeals beyond whatever small demographic group you would otherwise appeal to. That seems pretty harmless. Could even make you a better writer...

For the most part the concept of political correctness does not exist. What exists are social mores and changes in culture, mostly none of which if you are in any western, liberal democracy are mandatory. If something is not mandatory, it doesn't really make sense to object to its existence. 

Therefore being in passionate disagreement with such things is, at best, a pointless piece of hand-wringing and, at worst, about something more sinister. Whatever it is, it is not rational.


----------



## Smith

By... going after white people? If the problem with racism is that race doesn't actually matter (which is a can of worms when you get into the realm of medicine), shouldn't we encourage this crazy thing where something deeper than the melatonin matters, and that's what readers bond over? Not spreading some leftist ideological bullshit about race and power (the latter of which also featured in that article) that isn't any better than it's alt-right counter-part because it makes THE SAME FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE?

Let me tell you. I didn't give a damn that the main character was a black guy in the Nazi zombie movie 'Overlord', because there were no political messages that had to make me care. That's just how it was. And the movie was clearly not meant to perfectly represent the United States Airborne or even WWII for that matter, because, you know, it had zombies in it. I also didn't give a damn that Will Smith was black in ANY movie he was ever in, and the same goes for Denzel Washington.

And judging from her poor reading of Lord of the Rings and Narnia, it either sounds like she wants to be a victim and is manufacturing ways of being one, or she deluded herself by accident.

How do you even excuse missing the White Witch when it's in the title lol?

By the way, simply saying "I picked up fast that in most of the books I wanted to read... the brown people were all coded as evil. The people who looked like me were always the villains." doesn't make it true. Incantations don't work. Sources and evidence do. And so far her track record would apparently be forgetting Saruman, not knowing Sauron was called the Dark Lord because of LIGHT VERSUS DARKNESS, not because he's black (he actually used to be an elf), and thinking that the orcs were black people, just to name a few.

I must say that the resemblance between her and Peter Jackson's orcs is striking. They're almost indistinguishable. Pfft.

She's ridiculous, but fortunately still a perfect demonstration of what I've been saying for a long time. It's leftist ideology moving into other areas of entertainment. Not benign "social mores and changes in culture" just randomly coming out of the ether. I've seen this same pattern, the same arguments, the same disguised, racist word-vomit in video game journalism, the video game industry, the comic book industry, and anime. This isn't any different. It's the racism of political correctness, and if you say otherwise you're a malignant peddler of dishonesty, because you literally need to look no further than a Google search and compare the thousands of articles you'll find with this, and Ctrl+f for key words and phrases.

1. Race will feature prominently, and white people will be a problem. They will make race not matter by making it matter.

2. Black people are victims.

3. Collectivist philosophy. (groups will be seen and treated as monoliths)

4. Mysterious, unsourced, unsubstantiated claims about a systemic boogeyman. (patriarchy, racism in the publishing industry)

5. Power. (the only thing that's real in the post-modernist world view)


----------



## luckyscars

sigmadog said:


> Thanks for bringing the conversation to peak stupid.
> 
> Edit to Add: Oh, and congratulations for belittling a point of view via ad hominem arguments. You might wish to hire a sensitivity reader when posting to WF. -- and, please, KMA.



Nothing _ad hominem_ in the least: I am saying your argument is stupid, not that you are. 

ICYMI: I was merely pointing out comparing the values of 2018 to the values of bygone eras for the purposes of dismissing modern day issues is a well-trodden and thoroughly discredited argument by reference to those who use it. If you need me to explain why it's discredited I sure can, but I wouldn't want you to feel belittled.

_Ad hominem_ would be something personal, like, I dunno...ending a post with "kiss my ass".

I will leave your cutting-edge points of view soundly unblemished moving forward.


----------



## Squalid Glass

Smith said:


> By... going after white people? If the problem with racism is that race doesn't actually matter (which is a can of worms when you get into the realm of medicine), shouldn't we encourage this crazy thing where something deeper than the melatonin matters, and that's what readers bond over? Not spreading some leftist ideological bullshit that isn't any better than it's alt-right counter-part because it makes THE SAME FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE?
> 
> Let me tell you. I didn't give a damn that the main character was a black guy in the Nazi zombie movie 'Overlord', because there were no political messages that had to make me care. That's just how it was. And the movie was clearly not meant to perfectly represent the United States Airborne or even WWII for that matter, because, you know, it had zombies in it. I also didn't give a damn that Will Smith was black in ANY movie he was ever in, and the same goes for Denzel Washington.
> 
> And judging from her poor reading of Lord of the Rings and Narnia, it either sounds like she wants to be a victim and is manufacturing ways of being one, or she deluded herself by accident.
> 
> By the way, simply saying "I picked up fast that in most of the books I wanted to read... the brown people were all coded as evil. The people who looked like me were always the villains." doesn't make it true. Incantations don't work. Sources and evidence do. And so far her track record would apparently be forgetting Saruman and thinking that the orcs were black people, just to name a few.
> 
> I must say that the resemblance between her and Peter Jackson's orcs is striking. They're almost indistinguishable.
> 
> She's ridiculous, but fortunately still a perfect demonstration of what I've been saying for a long time. It's leftist ideology moving into other areas of entertainment. Not benign "social mores and changes in culture" just randomly coming out of the ether.



It’s been awhile since I read LoTR, and I’m no expert on the mythology, but it seems these are the only people of color in the novels, and they are aligned with Sauron: http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Haradrim


----------



## luckyscars

Squalid Glass said:


> It’s been awhile since I read LoTR, and I’m no expert on the mythology, but it seems these are the only people of color in the novels, and they are aligned with Sauron: http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Haradrim



In Narnia the Calormens are Persians/Arabs in all but name: Turbans, weaponry, skin-color, language. Oh and they are evil as shit, naturally.

Victorian perspective, so no big deal, but the thought that anybody whose name is not Ann Coulter would be writing that crap today is ridiculous.


----------



## Squalid Glass

Gotcha. I hadn’t read Narnia since I was a child, so I was clueless about that one.


----------



## Smith

So what?

The only brown people (Persians) in 300 were the bad guys because it was written from the perspective of the Spartans. Is that a problem?

I just *love* the way we're assuming the motivations and intent and bias of Tolkien.


----------



## Squalid Glass

That's where you are missing the point, Smith. We're not assuming Tolkien or anyone else's intent. Tolkien, from what I remember, was against racism and bigotry. So was Twain. The point is that even a well-meaning person can overlook things that aren't concerns of theirs but that are concerns of others. It seems like a sensitivity writer would be a good tool for helping the writer see their blind spots. I don't see how that can hurt.

Also, these examples kind of disprove your very passionate argument that the writer in question misread those books. Clearly she was aware of some things you missed. It was important to her, so she noticed it. It wasn't important to you, so you didn't. That kind of proves the point.

Oh, also: 



Smith said:


> 5. Power. (the only thing that's real in the post-modernist world view)



Is that you, Jordan Peterson?


----------



## Smith

Squalid Glass said:


> That's where you are missing the point, Smith. We're not assuming Tolkien or anyone else's intent. Tolkien, from what I remember, was against racism and bigotry. So was Twain. The point is that even a well-meaning person can overlook things that aren't concerns of theirs but that are concerns of others. It seems like a sensitivity writer would be a good tool for helping the writer see their blind spots. I don't see how that can hurt.



Then I don't see what the point of this conversation is. I care about intent and motivation. If I didn't, I'd get salty whenever a white person is the bad guy, because it's all about ME and how I *feel* about it.

It doesn't sound like Clayton's intention here is to help anybody see their blind spots, unless by "blind spots" you mean not sharing her political worldview. She's just obsessed and possessed by race, and I've said that this is one of the fundamental problems I take with her ideology.

This had nothing to do with factual accuracy. Just like I'd figured. There are already technical advisers for anything and everything under the sun. It wouldn't have made sense to create an entire new job with a new name that literally does the exact same thing, and only somebody absolutely ignorant of the current political landscape would use the word "sensitivity" in the title of the job.

As we can see, Clayton is the poster-child of what this is all really about.



> Is that you, Jordan Peterson?



Is that supposed to be a criticism?


----------



## Squalid Glass

Smith said:


> Then I don't see what the point of this conversation is.
> 
> It doesn't sound like Clayton's intention here is to help anybody see their blind spots, unless by "blind spots" you mean not sharing her political worldview. She's just obsessed and possessed by race, and I've said that this is one of the fundamental problems I take with her ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that supposed to be a criticism?



Don't you think you're kind of being a bit obtuse here? You are assuming that she's obsessed and possessed when everything she has said points to her having experienced pain and now she is trying to help others not experience it. Were she "possessed and obsessed" with pushing an ideology on the world, I would think her strategy would be a bit more combative than being a volunteer beta reader with a specialty in seeing racial oversights. 

And no, I'm genuinely curious if you are Jordan Peterson because you're talking just like him.


----------



## Smith

Squalid Glass said:


> Don't you think you're kind of being a bit obtuse here? You are assuming that she's obsessed and possessed when everything she has said points to her having experienced pain and now she is trying to help others not experience it. Were she "possessed and obsessed" with pushing an ideology on the world, I would think her strategy would be a bit more combative than being a volunteer beta reader with a specialty in seeing racial oversights.



That isn't what I took away from this at all. Frustrating, but also interesting how we apparently read the same article.

Maybe I am assuming, but I've quoted directly from the article, provided my arguments, and it's the same exact rhetoric and terminology that's pushed by the Left that I've watched destroy my hobbies for the past few years. I'm feeling confident.

I don't want politics in the publishing industry. I'm not interested in paying for it or by any means approving of anybody who does. People are free to do what they want of course, but now I'm counting down the days until this becomes a mandatory stepping stone in the publishing industry. This is how these things start. With an advocacy group like this one.

She'd be more combative if you expect political activists to have the light-touch equivalent to a sledgehammer.


----------



## Squalid Glass

And therefore it is a post-modernist, gamergate, Q-led, deep state, PC, Orwellian coup of the freedom of man, naturally.

... OR ... it's just people trying to help other people feel like they belong in the world. Maybe.

You know, I used to think the same stuff you're espousing here. And then I met my wife. She's Mexican. I never really realized this stuff matters, until she started pointing it out in movies we watched or until I noticed the way people looked at her when she spoke Spanish in public or when she walked into a Sephora and half the employees' eyes went right to her until she left. It's easy to dismiss this stuff as reverse racism because we white people don't get the same consideration, but I don't think that's a realistic view. At least, I don't think that anymore because I have seen this stuff in action, today, in America. 

I don't think I fully understood the magnitude of proper representation until my wife and I watched _Coco_. She cried. She never thought she'd see a Disney movie get it so right. But seeing it done right mattered to her more than it could ever matter to me because there are plenty of mainstream stories about people who look like me. That was something real. Not some post-modernist liberal scheme. I have learned, because of her, that when I try to know what it's like to be her more than she knows what it's like to be her, I am just being an arrogant ass.

EDIT: I just looked up some comments from the writers of _Coco_. In making the film, they made it a point to utilize people from the culture in order to get it right. They did their research AND they teamed with Mexican people AND they utilized an all-Mexican cast to really make sure the story clicked. THAT is good process and good writing and good thought. If you don't want to utilize these resources that are now at all of our disposals, then you are just being a lazy writer for the sake of a political belief.


----------



## luckyscars

Smith said:


> it's the same exact rhetoric and terminology that's pushed by the Left.



Is that supposed to be a criticism?

No, but seriously I think this is the crux of the conflict in this post. It's not actually about writing being good or bad, is it? It's about ideology and how it triggers us (on both sides) to be for or against things on principle. It usually comes down to that when people get this aggressive. 'Tis the world in which we live.

It's the word "sensitivity" that riles people up. Just that word and all its connotations. People on the right (or at least not on "the Left") will frequently find anything involving "sensitivity" or "safe space" or "diversity" or [insert cliche snowflake-ism here] objectionable regardless of what it actually involves, for reasons those who don't share the world view probably can't understand. Que sera sera. 

Substitute the term "sensitivity reader" for something neutral like "commercial viability auditor" and I'm guessing people would feel much less aggrieved by the idea. This post would have probably got like, three comments. 

All very interesting, maybe. The main thing is none of it has anything to do with making _writing_ better.


----------



## Smith

Squalid Glass said:


> And therefore it is a post-modernist, gamergate, Q-led, deep state, PC, Orwellian coup of the freedom of man, naturally.
> 
> ... OR ... it's just people trying to help other people feel like they belong in the world. Maybe.
> 
> You know, I used to think the same stuff you're espousing here. And then I met my wife. She's Mexican. I never really realized this stuff matters, until she started pointing it out in movies we watched or until I noticed the way people looked at her when she spoke Spanish in public or when she walked into a Sephora and half the employees' eyes went right to her until she left. It's easy to dismiss this stuff as reverse racism because we white people don't get the same consideration, but I don't think that's a realistic view. At least, I don't think that anymore because I have seen this stuff in action, today, in America.
> 
> I don't think I fully understood the magnitude of proper representation until my wife and I watched _Coco_. She cried. She never thought she'd see a Disney movie get it so right. But seeing it done right mattered to her more than it could ever matter to me because there are plenty of mainstream stories about people who look like me. That was something real. Not some post-modernist liberal scheme. I have learned, because of her, that when I try to know what it's like to be her more than she knows what it's like to be her, I am just being an arrogant ass.



It sounds like you're imagining those things, or assuming an intent or motivation behind those things that can't be falsified here. And I can't say I'm surprised your opinion would change when your *wife* has that worldview.

When I say "imagine", I'm not trying to gaslight you. I'm not saying you're literally hallucinating. I'm saying that you find what you seek. If, for example, you always look to be a victim, you will self-fulfill that prophecy.

No, obviously not everything is part of a diabolical post-modernist liberal scheme. I have my reservations and opinions about Disney, but I haven't seen Coco so I can't comment on that.

But this is.


----------



## Smith

luckyscars said:


> Is that supposed to be a criticism?
> 
> No, but seriously I think this is the crux of the conflict in this post. It's not actually about writing being good or bad, is it? It's about ideology and how it triggers us (on both sides) to be for or against things on principle. It usually comes down to that when people get this aggressive. 'Tis the world in which we live.
> 
> It's the word "sensitivity" that riles people up. Just that word and all its connotations. People on the right (or at least not on "the Left") will frequently find anything involving "sensitivity" or "safe space" or "diversity" or [insert cliche snowflake-ism here] objectionable regardless of what it actually involves, for reasons those who don't share the world view probably can't understand. Que sera sera.
> 
> Substitute the term "sensitivity reader" for something neutral like "commercial viability auditor" and I'm guessing people would feel much less aggrieved by the idea. This post would have probably got like, three comments.
> 
> All very interesting, maybe. The main thing is none of it has anything to do with making _writing_ better.



I'm past the incredibly poorly worded title. I was talking about the article that somebody linked to, which I read, quoted from, and made arguments based on what I read.

And my conclusion is no. This has nothing to do with writing better. It has to do with writing "the right thing" according to leftist politics.

And I promise you this *will* take over the publishing industry. She belongs to an advocacy group, WNDB. She's a leftist political activist, and I'm not interested.


----------



## Megan Pearson

Smith said:


> Not a good look for a sensitivity reader to go out  of her way to contrive racial prejudice that isn't there.



Hey Smith! I had something odd happen to me last month you might appreciate. Talking about contriving racial prejudice that isn't there... We went out to breakfast with my son & daughter-in-law (and really, this will come back to the OP in a moment). I have been trying to form a friendship with D.I.L. for a long time. I can ask her how her day went: fine. How's her mother? She's good. However, should she say something to me, it's generally abrupt and mildly accusative. Fine. I'm a big girl and can take the attitude. 

So at breakfast, she starts talking to me about what it was like growing up as a minority in another ethnic minority's neighborhood, from country XYZ. As I once had some very distant relatives living in country XYZ, I suggested that she might have misinterpreted some of the things that happened in neighborhood XYZ and provided a suggestion inline with what my very distant relatives would have believed about the situation in question. "No," she snapped, "you don't understand!" Well, maybe I didn't, I replied, and just listened. (My being step-mother-in-law carries very weight with her, so I try very hard to extend a lot of grace and use a lot of wisdom.) She began talking about what it's like being a minority in this country and how the problems she has to face are because of prejudiced people like _me_--people who are _XYZ-Americans_.

Well, I've never been to country XYZ. And I am not an XYZ-American. I am just an American. Besides romanticizing some of my family's historical adventures in fiction, I have no cultural ties to any country other than America. (Although, I have developed quite a fondness and appreciation for the ethnic family I married into, of which ethnic minority D.I.L. is a part.) A true Heinz 57, I am at best only a 12.5% descendent of accused country XYZ. Dismayed by her by her evaluation, I refrained from mentioning my temperment is more along the lines of relatives descended from elsewhere, and the irony that, despite my almost blond hair, I also have Indian and Middle Eastern ancestry. My really interesting family history (read, possibly really cool political intrigue in fiction, which was probably really scary in real life), I realized she probably will never allow my granddaughter hearing it because to her I am prejudiced just because I am an _XYZ-American_--to say the least of the child not truly being my descendent. 

My first point in this is, some people just have their minds made up. No amount of sensitivity training or adjustment or even just good plain ol' empathy on my part is going to change her mind that I am not part of the group of people she holds responsible for making her life miserable. (Sigh.) I try to be compassionate toward her and ask for nothing in return.



Smith said:


> "The systematic erasure and blockage of people of color from the publishing industry." Source, Clayton?



My second point is that there are different levels of society which we talking about in any given point in this conversation on whether or not sensitivity readers are or are not needed. Mostly I see these issues in philosophical argument and hardly ever see it play out in conversations with real people. (Making my above example all the more unusual.) "Blockage and erasure" are emotionally charged claims which need support for their defense. While I appreciate that the article writer saw an injustice and pursued it, you have also brought to mind that maybe this situation has been forced out of something that was not there to begin with. Good observations, Smith.


----------



## Megan Pearson

Smith said:


> 5. Power. (the only thing that's real in the post-modernist world view)



Bingo!


----------



## Smith

Megan Pearson said:


> Hey Smith! I had something odd happen to me last month you might appreciate. Talking about contriving racial prejudice that isn't there... We went out to breakfast with my son & daughter-in-law (and really, this will come back to the OP in a moment). I have been trying to form a friendship with D.I.L. for a long time. I can ask her how her day went: fine. How's her mother? She's good. However, should she say something to me, it's generally abrupt and mildly accusative. Fine. I'm a big girl and can take the attitude.
> 
> So at breakfast, she starts talking to me about what it was like growing up as a minority in another ethnic minority's neighborhood, from country XYZ. As I once had some very distant relatives living in country XYZ, I suggested that she might have misinterpreted some of the things that happened in neighborhood XYZ and provided a suggestion inline with what my very distant relatives would have believed about the situation in question. "No," she snapped, "you don't understand!" Well, maybe I didn't, I replied, and just listened. (My being step-mother-in-law carries very weight with her, so I try very hard to extend a lot of grace and use a lot of wisdom.) She began talking about what it's like being a minority in this country and how the problems she has to face are because of prejudiced people like _me_--people who are _XYZ-Americans_.
> 
> Well, I've never been to country XYZ. And I am not an XYZ-American. I am just an American. Besides romanticizing some of my family's historical adventures in fiction, I have no cultural ties to any country other than America. (Although, I have developed quite a fondness and appreciation for the ethnic family I married into, of which ethnic minority D.I.L. is a part.) A true Heinz 57, I am at best only a 12.5% descendent of accused country XYZ. Dismayed by her by her evaluation, I refrained from mentioning my temperment is more along the lines of relatives descended from elsewhere, and the irony that, despite my almost blond hair, I also have Indian and Middle Eastern ancestry. My really interesting family history (read, possibly really cool political intrigue in fiction, which was probably really scary in real life), I realized she probably will never allow my granddaughter hearing it because to her I am prejudiced just because I am an _XYZ-American_--to say the least of the child not truly being my descendent.
> 
> My first point in this is, some people just have their minds made up. No amount of sensitivity training or adjustment or even just good plain ol' empathy on my part is going to change her mind that I am not part of the group of people she holds responsible for making her life miserable. (Sigh.) I try to be compassionate toward her and ask for nothing in return.
> 
> 
> 
> My second point is that there are different levels of society which we talking about in any given point in this conversation on whether or not sensitivity readers are or are not needed. Mostly I see these issues in philosophical argument and hardly ever see it play out in conversations with real people. (Making my above example all the more unusual.) "Blockage and erasure" are emotionally charged claims which need support for their defense. While I appreciate that the article writer saw an injustice and pursued it, you have also brought to mind that maybe this situation has been forced out of something that was not there to begin with. Good observations, Smith.



Thanks for sharing your personal experience. I'm sorry to hear that your relationship with your daughter in law is a bit rough, and that she's had bad experiences. Even if I were to acknowledge that her feelings are mistaken, it doesn't mean her feelings aren't real, and this is an important distinction to remember.

Your story I think also makes a good point that it's relative. You can be part of a majority in a country but you can also be a minority in the neighborhood of another minority, as you say. You can also be a minority in one way (language) but not a minority in another way (race). You can also be a minority here in the United States, but not in Japan.

I agree with you that the argument is a political one that reaches the philosophical very quickly. That's why we don't often see the debate going on in common public discourse. The usual conversations you'll hear about are economic or something. But this is very ideological, slippery, cerebral.

I'm not saying that doing justice to a culture isn't important. Coco is a good example which was brought up earlier. I didn't see the film but I know enough about it from news or seeing the trailer to get a general idea of what it's about. I can understand why somebody who is Mexican would be very moved by that film, as was mentioned.

Personally, race is lower down on the the list of things that move me in a good piece of art. I wasn't moved by Dunkirk because all of the characters were white. Sure, I did feel a sense of connectedness in terms of feeling like I'm descended from that, but that was so far in the back of my mind compared to the suspense, the heroic actions of the citizens to come rescue their boys, the stress that turns friends against one another, and the sacrifice made by the pilot. You don't have to be white to appreciate any of those things.


----------



## Squalid Glass

Megan Pearson said:


> Mostly I see these issues in philosophical argument and hardly ever see it play out in conversations with real people.



Megan, doesn't this kind of explain it though? Some people do see this play out in reality because it directly affects them. They are therefore more qualified to speak to it than someone who doesn't experience it. 

The counter to this, naturally, would be Smith's idea that people see what they want, suggesting that those who see these things just have a victim mentality, which is a pretty insulting generalization that discredits a person's entire experience.


----------



## Squalid Glass

Smith said:


> Thanks for sharing your personal experience.
> 
> Your story I think also makes a good point that it's relative. You can be a minority in a country but you can also be a minority in the neighborhood of another minority, as you say. You can also be a minority in one way (language) but not a minority in another way (race). You can also be a minority here in the United States, but not in Japan.
> 
> I agree with you that the argument is a political one that reaches the philosophical very quickly. That's why we don't often see the debate going on in common public discourse. The usual conversations you'll hear about are economic or something. But this is very ideological.
> 
> I'm not saying that doing justice to a culture isn't important. Coco is a good example which was brought up earlier. I didn't see the film but I know enough about it from news or seeing the trailer to get a general idea of what it's about. I can understand why somebody who is Mexican would be very moved by that film.
> 
> Personally, race is lower down on the the list of things that move me in a good piece of art.



Smith, don't you think you're reaction to this personal story completely contradicts your reaction to my personal story? Here, you are receptive and accepting of the story, and you completely take the person at their word. With my story, I am just imagining things and am being completely manipulated by my wife's "worldview" while adapting a victim mentality to see what I want to see. The selective psychoanalysis is unfair, is it not?

Also:

"Personally, race is lower down on the the list of things that move me in a good piece of art."

?!?!?!?!?! This is literally the issue here. For you, it's not high on the list. For a lot of people, it is. For a lot of people, it's high on the list because it's real for them. Because it makes up a distinct part of who they are. If there is something in your life that makes up who you are, wouldn't you want it portrayed with fidelity in the books you read and the media you consume?


----------



## Smith

Squalid Glass said:


> Smith, don't you think you're reaction to this personal story completely contradicts your reaction to my personal story? Here, you are receptive and accepting of the story, and you completely take the person at their word. With my story, I am just imagining things and am being completely manipulated by my wife's "worldview" while adapting a victim mentality to see what I want to see. The selective psychoanalysis is unfair, is it not?



The story was about her daughter in law, and if I understood the story correctly, Megan explained that she had suggested to her daughter in law that her feelings may be mistaken, and that she may have misinterpreted some of the things. Not ALL of the things. She was trying to get her to see a new perspective, probably because she wasn't fully convinced by her daughter in law's reasoning.

And it sounds like her daughter in law reacted the same way you reacted to me.

Here, I'll make a concession (or a clarification), because I've dealt with narcissists and I know what it feels like to have someone gaslight you, which I can't stress enough I was not trying to do.

I'm not saying I know for a fact that you're imagining things. I'm saying that you did not provide enough evidence to me to show that you know why all those people were looking at you, or that you didn't just happen to look at people and they looked at you and _they_ weren't wondering "what the fuck is he looking at me for?" I don't know why those people were looking at you, and generally speaking with perhaps some exceptions, you don't know beyond a doubt either.

And you also told me that your wife is Mexican. When you love somebody and spend a lot of time with them and learn about their past experiences and so forth, I suspect that will begin to change your perspective, for better or for worse.

So again, I want to be clear that I'm not saying I know for a fact that you imagined things. And when I say imagine I don't mean hallucinate. Maybe **mis-interpret** would be a better word than either of the previous two, so I apologize for my poor word choice. Sometimes a cigar, is just a cigar.


----------



## Smith

Squalid Glass said:


> "Personally, race is lower down on the the list of things that move me in a good piece of art."
> 
> ?!?!?!?!?! This is literally the issue here. For you, it's not high on the list. For a lot of people, it is. For a lot of people, it's high on the list because it's real for them. Because it makes up a distinct part of who they are. If there is something in your life that makes up who you are, wouldn't you want it portrayed with fidelity in the books you read and the media you consume?



Yes, and I'm against going out of one's way to make race important, and being racist. So naturally I do not support the woman in the article, or her politics, or her advocacy group and their politics which are part of progressive politics that I disagree with for a whole host of reasons.

And I'm biased from personal experience because I've watched / continue to watch the same rhetoric, these same kinds of people, corrupt the other hobbies that I love and were largely apolitical until they came along.


----------



## Squalid Glass

Smith said:


> The story was about her daughter in law, and if I understood the story correctly, Megan explained that she had suggested to her daughter in law that her feelings may be mistaken, and that she may have misinterpreted some of the things. Not ALL of the things.
> 
> And it sounds like her daughter in law reacted the same way you reacted to me.
> 
> Here, I'll make a concession (or a clarification), because I've dealt with narcissists and I know what it feels like to have someone gaslight you.
> 
> I'm not saying I know for a fact that you're imagining things. I'm saying that you did not provide enough evidence to me to show that you know why all those people were looking at you, or that you didn't just happen to look at people and they looked at you and they weren't wondering "what the fuck is he looking at me for?" I don't know why those people were looking at you, and generally speaking with perhaps some exceptions, you don't know beyond a doubt either.
> 
> And you also told me that your wife is Mexican. When you love somebody and spend a lot of time with them and learn about their past experiences and so forth, I suspect that will begin to change your perspective, for better or for worse.
> 
> So again, I want to be clear that I'm not saying I know for a fact that you imagined things. And when I say imagine I don't mean hallucinate. But sometimes a cigar, is just a cigar.



I'd be happy to give you a concrete example if that is what you are lacking.

A few months ago, my wife and I met up with her parents and little brother (he is 7) for his birthday party at Chuk E Cheese. They were already at the restaurant when we got there, so we sat next to them and waited for her cousins, aunts, and uncles to show up. When I'm with her immediate family, they speak English because my Spanish is not very good, so we all started talking and laughing and whatever. When the rest of her family arrived, they sat next to us and started speaking in Spanish because most of them don't speak very good English. It was only when the Spanish started that the family in the table to our left, who had been sitting there the entire time, literally put up their menus to form a wall between us and them. 

Now there are two explanations here: 1. They didn't like the extra noise that the rest of my wife's family brought. -or- 2. They didn't want to listen to all the Spanish. I find explanation 1 laking considering Chuck E Cheese is a loud restaurant with music and kids running around screaming all the time. I find it a bit too convenient that their "wall" went up as soon as the Spanish started.

Or another example. My wife and I have been trying to get in shape, so when we eat out, we have stopped going to Taco Bell and Wendy's, and instead we're going to Subway (still not that healthy, but better!). We were there on Saturday, and my wife's mom called her as we were sitting in a booth eating. When on the phone with her mom, my wife always speaks Spanish. There was a lady in line just in front of our booth. When my wife pulled the phone out and started speaking Spanish, the lady in line turned to my wife and rolled her eyes. She was with what I presume was her husband, who was a big dude. They did that thing that couples do when they are sharing an inside joke or an inside insult (is that a thing?), and both shook their heads. For the next few moments while they were in line, the man would periodically turn his head to look in our direction, then turn back to the sandwhich line and shake his head. I wondered if he might turn and get upset at my wife for speaking Spanish. I pulled out my phone ready to record him just in case because, as I'm sure you know, that kind of thing goes viral and usually results in the person getting called out for their racism.

Or another example. I teach for a living. This semester I'm teaching creative writing. One of my students (who is black) brought in a poem the other day that was pretty depressing. When we started workshopping the poem and discussing its genesis, she told us she wrote it because, just the other day, a white kid in the hall told her, "Move out of the way, slave."

Do you want more concrete examples?

The point is that people experience these things every day. People also experience this kind of thing when it comes to media and art. The example in the article was the use of the N word when reading Twain in class. I have taught _Huck Finn _multiple times. I've always taken the lead of my high school teacher, who taught us a lesson about the N word's history before we started the novel, and then told us we would read it as it was written without censoring ourselves. That's how I have taught it, and I can appreciate that approach. But I can also appreciate the approach of one of my best friends (we played college football together) who is black and who has given me the exact same example as the article gives. He too was the only black student in his class when they read Twain, and he said that continually hearing the word spoken by white people was rough for him. He told me he'd rather students read the book with the N word not being said. I can appreciate that too, and honestly, in the future, I'm not really sure how I should teach the book. I think I need to hear more opinions from more people about it to really get a better sense of the impact of it. And that's kind of the point. I'm not going to sit here and assume that everything I have experienced is exactly what everyone else has experienced. I am going to listen to people who have had other experiences, and I am going to trust that what they feel is real and not something they make up in their head because they have a victim mentality.


----------



## Squalid Glass

Smith said:


> And I'm biased from personal experience because I've watched / continue to watch the same rhetoric, these same kinds of people, corrupt the other hobbies that I love and were largely apolitical until they came along.



I'm sorry, but in the grand scheme of things, your hobbies mean nothing next to people's lives and dignity and human rights.


----------



## Megan Pearson

Smith said:


> Thanks for sharing your personal experience. I'm sorry to hear that your relationship with your daughter in law is a bit rough, and that she's had bad experiences. Even if I were to acknowledge that her feelings are mistaken, it doesn't mean her feelings aren't real, and this is an important distinction to remember.



Yes! My thoughts exactly! I wonder if that's sometimes the case when someone, let's say a writer, is accused of misportraying a person in a potentially culturally sensitive situation. The feelings of the offended person are very real, even if the situation in print does not truly support the offense. (And here I've purposefully skewed the cause-and-effect to be one of an honest mistake on the reader's part, as it's in parallel with my personal example. But, as Luckscars pointed out, we do want to do what we can to not purposefully perpetuate such a response. Philosophy aside, real people have real feelings. )



Smith said:


> I agree with you that the argument is a political one that reaches the philosophical very quickly. That's why we don't often see the debate going on in common public discourse. The usual conversations you'll hear about are economic or something. But this is very ideological, slippery, cerebral.



And why a lot of the discussion here often reads like 'this person' is talking past 'that person'. I just let it slide. I could start taking it apart and try to give it a deeper analysis, but I think it would bore people to death. And besides, I don't really think it's necessary. But I am glad you developed this thought better and not me. :wink:  Besides, I've been learning that there can be a disconnect between that which is debated theoretically and that which is out there on the street. I have a great interest in this yet recognize that too much academic commentary down here just won't help solve this problem today or tomorrow. I'm afraid we're in it for the long haul.



Smith said:


> I'm not saying that doing justice to a culture isn't important. Coco is a good example which was brought up earlier. I didn't see the film but I know enough about it from news or seeing the trailer to get a general idea of what it's about. I can understand why somebody who is Mexican would be very moved by that film, as was mentioned.



Loved Coco! (Think I cried!) An Indian friend recommended it to me because it very endearingly promotes the importance of honoring/remembering family, something that is important to me.



Smith said:


> Personally, race is lower down on the the list of things that move me in a good piece of art. I wasn't moved by Dunkirk because all of the characters were white. Sure, I did feel a sense of connectedness in terms of feeling like I'm descended from that, but that was so far in the back of my mind compared to the suspense, the heroic actions of the citizens to come rescue their boys, the stress that turns friends against one another, and the sacrifice made by the pilot. You don't have to be white to appreciate any of those things.



Missed seeing Dunkirk. But I think I can add that there was also the historical aspect, too, albeit one from Hollywood's perspective. It was an event that made world history. Even if there were no living representatives today, I think the well-researched writer can capture the essence of any historically real event for today's audiences without referring to first-hand experience. But that's the crux, isn't it? Some of us want to sell what we write, and that means knowing and being sensitive to the needs/tastes of a potentially fickle audience. I think Shakespearean actors had something to say about this...but the quote is just beyond arm's reach.


----------



## Kyle R

Sidestepping a lot of the personal arguments here, I'd like to point out that race isn't the only thing sensitivity readers deal with.

LGBT representation is a big one, too.


----------



## Smith

Yeah, I acknowledge that there are racist people, people that hold prejudice.

I get annoyed when people don't speak English, whether it's Mexicans, Slavs, you name it. Do I *do* anything about it? No. And it has nothing to do with your race.

Could those two people in line have been racist? Quite possibly. But I wasn't there. Was your wife talking loudly? Were they just annoyed at not hearing English, and didn't care about the skin color of the person it was coming from? I've noticed the exact same reaction you got with people from Spain who often look "white" but speak Spanish.

I don't know why those people put up their menus in Chuck E Cheese. The Spanish is certainly a possibility, it could've been the added noise that was much closer proximity, but nobody knows and life goes on.

There have been many times where race was made important to me by other people. I didn't get a job at a restaurant owned by Chaldeans, and it was the same restaurant that my friends and I always felt we were tolerated at, rather than welcomed. Now, I could've had a hissy fit about it, but life goes on. It's ultimately up to me whether to get all wrapped up and bent out of shape about race, especially when I have no evidence that I was even the victim of racism. Just an assumption.

I've also played soccer with Mexicans. I can tell you I feel exactly the same way. Tolerated, not welcomed, in spite of never treating a Mexican or any non-white that way, ever.

Albanians around here close themselves off in gated communities on their own volition. That's their choice. Nobody's out to get them, and if anything segregating themselves has done them more harm than good.

In any case, my question is still so what? I don't support progressive politics, I don't support racism or arbitrarily inflating the importance of race, and sensitivity reading has so far proved to be nothing about accuracy and everything about advocating ideology. I don't want their sinister bullshit imposed on me or the hobbies I am a part of. They're hobbies to me, but they're actual jobs and careers and artistic mediums for millions of people, and I don't want their sinister bullshit imposed on them, either.

EDIT: And respectfully I'll wager the LGBTQ+ sensitivity readers will be no different.


----------



## Squalid Glass

I don't know where you are from, but race plays a bigger role in America because race (and racism) has been a central aspect of what America is all about. Race is a huge part of our Constitution. We fought a war about race. We had revolutions around race in the 20th century. And now, the racial divide in our culture is an undeniable fact, as poverty, incarceration, housing segregation, and other things clearly show. 

The problem with claiming that "even white people experience exclusion in some form" is that, in America, white culture is the dominant culture. Feeling excluded from a minority group when you are the majority is not a traumatic experience because, regardless of how many minority groups exclude you, you still belong to the dominant culture. For a person in the majority, it is no problem to just shrug and move on. But for someone in the minority, there is always the underlying issue that they are not part of the majority, and there is always the stress of not belonging. It is a constant.

You said one other thing I found interesting: "It's ultimately up to me whether to get all wrapped up and bent out of shape about race." This isn't what is happening with sensitivity readers and with people who talk about these things. Instead, what these people are looking for is equal footing. That is an important thing for people who are not provided it. If you already have it, then how can you appreciate what it is like to not have it?

And Kyle is 100% correct.


----------



## Squalid Glass

Smith said:


> In any case, my question is still so what? I don't support progressive politics, I don't support racism or arbitrarily inflating the importance of race, and sensitivity reading has so far proved to be nothing about accuracy and everything about advocating ideology



The only ideology at play is that it is important to represent people and groups correctly instead of turning them into caricatures.


----------



## luckyscars

Kyle R said:


> Sidestepping a lot of the personal arguments here, I'd like to point out that race isn't the only thing sensitivity readers deal with.
> 
> LGBT representation is a big one, too.



I agree obviously, however in the interest of broadening the field further I actually don't think LGBTQ issues are nearly as problematic these days as disability issues. 

I don't mean to say proper representation of LGBTQ characters aren't still a major minefield and that there's a way to go to achieve equal standing...but speaking from personal experience I think disability still gets screwed up the most. At this point most mainstream fiction has moved away from the prominent gay stereotypes and while there is still a problem with how people talk about sexuality (especially trans issues) I see it as improving hugely year-on-year. I'm old enough to remember how that used to be and I feel comfortable with the progress that has been made and the overall trend - acknowledging others may not be, of course.

Disability is a real gray area for me because most of what I write concerns some form of mental disorder, whether one that is identifiable or not. Worst still is I don't really know how to improve that without screwing with the fundamentals. I mean how do you write psychological thriller fiction concerning warped views of reality while being respectful to those who actually do suffer from schizophrenia, psychosis, etc?


----------



## Squalid Glass

luckyscars said:


> I agree obviously, however in the interest of broadening the field further I actually don't think LGBTQ issues are nearly as problematic these days as disability issues.
> 
> I don't mean to say proper representation of LGBTQ characters aren't still a major minefield and that there's a way to go to achieve equal standing...but speaking from personal experience I think disability still gets screwed up the most. At this point most mainstream fiction has moved away from the prominent gay stereotypes and while there is still a problem with how people talk about sexuality (especially trans issues) I see it as improving hugely year-on-year. I'm old enough to remember how that used to be and I feel comfortable with the progress that has been made and the overall trend - acknowledging others may not be, of course.
> 
> Disability is a real gray area for me because most of what I write concerns some form of mental disorder, whether one that is identifiable or not. Worst still is I don't really know how to improve that without screwing with the fundamentals. I mean how do you write psychological thriller fiction concerning warped views of reality while being respectful to those who actually do suffer from schizophrenia, psychosis, etc?



A friend of mine is a neurologist. The recent release of the film _Glass _has really pissed her off, as she primarily works with issues of mental disabilities. It's just another example of something that could have used a different voice to avoid the stereotyped portrayal.


----------



## Smith

Megan Pearson said:


> Yes! My thoughts exactly! I wonder if that's sometimes the case when someone, let's say a writer, is accused of misportraying a person in a potentially culturally sensitive situation. The feelings of the offended person are very real, even if the situation in print does not truly support the offense. (And here I've purposefully skewed the cause-and-effect to be one of an honest mistake on the reader's part, as it's in parallel with my personal example. But, as Luckscars pointed out, we do want to do what we can to not purposefully perpetuate such a response. Philosophy aside, real people have real feelings. )



Here you and I might disagree slightly because I support the right to offend. That doesn't include making threats or advocating violence.

It's like comedy. There's always the butt of the joke. Problems arise when you start making a list of people who can't be the butt of the joke. And comedy is gutted when there's no more butts.



> And why a lot of the discussion here often reads like 'this person' is talking past 'that person'. I just let it slide. I could start taking it apart and try to give it a deeper analysis, but I think it would bore people to death. And besides, I don't really think it's necessary. But I am glad you developed this thought better and not me. :wink:  Besides, I've been learning that there can be a disconnect between that which is debated theoretically and that which is out there on the street. I have a great interest in this yet recognize that too much academic commentary down here just won't help solve this problem today or tomorrow. I'm afraid we're in it for the long haul.



Yeah, I'm just about done here because I need to go to bed and I've made my case as thoroughly as I can. Trying not to talk past one another can be a challenge, especially with complex and touchy subject matter like this.

Part of the issue here is that while I acknowledge racism and prejudice happen "out there on the street", the right question to ask is "So what?" I don't mean that dismissively. I mean, "So what... are you going to do about it?"

And I simply do not agree with the actions that progressives take, their politics, their philosophy or their ideology.

In other words we (with some exception) agree on the problem, but have two very, very different solutions. To put it perhaps too simply, one teaches the man to fish, and the other just fishes for the man for a lifetime. But the fundamental problem is still the same: the man must be fed.



> Loved Coco! (Think I cried!) An Indian friend recommended it to me because it very endearingly promotes the importance of honoring/remembering family, something that is important to me.



A perfect example of how you didn't need to be a part of that culture or race to appreciate the film. I can say the same for anime.



> Missed seeing Dunkirk. But I think I can add that there was also the historical aspect, too, albeit one from Hollywood's perspective. It was an event that made world history. Even if there were no living representatives today, I think the well-researched writer can capture the essence of any historically real event for today's audiences without referring to first-hand experience. But that's the crux, isn't it? Some of us want to sell what we write, and that means knowing and being sensitive to the needs/tastes of a potentially fickle audience. I think Shakespearean actors had something to say about this...but the quote is just beyond arm's reach.



You've perhaps inadvertently hit on why it's so easy to talk past one another, and it's because we all operate from surprisingly different fundamental presuppositions or beliefs / values.

I can't say I don't care about money. I would like to make a career at doing what I'm passionate about, writing. But I would never sacrifice saying what I want to say because somebody might get offended. I'll even go as far as deliberately offending on purpose, if I think it's necessary, or if I just don't care enough.

Being authentic, and artistic integrity, are far more important to me than obeying some disturbing political garbage. And I think all of these sensitivity readers, who ARE NOT technical advisers as some have knowingly misled, are fucking fools that can go shove it.

Many of the people in this thread will be a part of the group that ends up making this a mandatory step and practice in the publishing industry. Another gatekeeper. And so "it's just optional" will become yet another lie regarding this, and because of the excruciatingly obvious political litmus test, censorship will result. But it doesn't matter to these people, because in order to be a part of this group you need to be okay with coercion, and be okay with making victims of others at the expense of other victims, because at least if everybody is a victim, we can all be equal.


----------



## Smith

I've been in plenty enough discussions like this to know that I am never, ever going to change your opinion, and that's really all I'm interested in. I think social justice and progressive politics are an absolute cancer, a scourge, a blight on the planet that's only allowed to fester and spread because it claims to be fighting an even worse evil, but it's all smoke and mirrors and will accomplish nothing.

The views on "Glass", a Shyamalan "The Happening" film, leaves no need for further proof. I'm not going to sit around and entertain the thoughts of offended dendrologists next, or wonder if chiropterologists were upset by A Quiet Place.

Have a good one.


----------



## Squalid Glass

Smith said:


> I've been in plenty enough discussions like this to know that I am never, ever going to change your opinion.
> 
> Have a good one.



Same here.


----------



## luckyscars

Squalid Glass said:


> A friend of mine is a neurologist. The recent release of the film _Glass _has really pissed her off, as she primarily works with issues of mental disabilities. It's just another example of something that could have used a different voice to avoid the stereotyped portrayal.



Yes but how? 

I mean take a book/movie like _Psycho. _Norman Bates is clearly mentally ill. The meaning of the story is not based on how evil he is but on how damaged he is by his dead mother's influence. In many ways it's as problematic with regard to its treatment of mentally ill people as some old racist cartoon making demons out of brown people...but it gets a pass.

And here's the thing, I want to give it a pass. So do most people. Because it's a really good story and extremely effective. Never mind part of the effect is to make people scared as hell of a type of person who in real life would deserve our help and recognition as a human being. Much, if not most, horror and a lot of thriller fiction uses some sort of mental/physical handicap even (especially?) today. I do too.

Now of course when I write about schizophrenia or paranoia or sociopathy or kleptomania I am not doing so with the idea of denigrating real human beings or being callous or anything else. Neither, I suspect, are the authors of most apparently "racist" or "sexist" or "homophobic" work. The reality is we only have the real world to work with and much of the real world that is frightening or funny or interesting involves dipping into these "real world" intrigues, be it a strange tribe or strange religion or alternative sexual bent or whatever else. 

Why is it not okay to misrepresent gay people but totally okay to misrepresent people who take sexual pleasure from car crashes? Is it simply because there are more gay people than people with X fetish? If sexuality as a whole is something to be thoughtful about then don't we need to also think about how we represent swingers or those in the BDSM lifestyle? I'm not arguing that, understand, it's just something I don't really have a firm answer for. 

One can scoff and say that gay people should not be compared to swingers because one is a choice and the other is not, but who are we to assume that swinging is a choice and not a compulsion...or even if it is that something should be less respected simply _because _it is a choice? Why does _choice _leave the door open to denigration or ridicule? At what point does it become okay to put aside respect and concern for real people's feelings for the sake of achieving a literary hit?


----------



## Squalid Glass

That's a tough question I don't think I have an answer too. It's easy to see the problem of misrepresenting LGBTQ+ people because we have seen plenty of examples of how those people are marginalized and affected in real life. You don't often see swingers being killed in the street or denied rights because of their lifestyles. I'm guessing that's part of it.

In the case of _Glass_ or even _Psycho, _my friend would probably say the problem is the stereotype that mentally ill people are violent. That is a pretty popular trope in media, and the more popular a trope becomes, the more effects it may have in real life. 

So how do you solve a problematic character like Norman Bates? I'm not sure. But there has to be story workarounds that don't rely on an established stereotype to justify a character's behavior. It might be a ridiculous example, but wouldn't Bruce Wayne fit the bill here? He obviously experiences some serious PTSD and maybe some other kinds of psychological trauma, but his PTSD doesn't drive him insane and make him evil. It gives him purpose. 

Perhaps the key to portraying an antagonist with mental issues would be to not name whatever he/she is suffering from? I'm not really sure though.


EDIT: For someone like Bates, his trauma is the root of his evil actions. His trauma is induced by his mother. His actions as a result of the trauma are understandable. So there is a logical progression. He is not evil because he has a mental disorder; instead, his character reacts to his trauma in a believable way. Maybe that's the way to do it? Don't center your antagonist's misdeeds around a health condition; center their misdeeds around a reasonable goal or around a response to something that has happened to them. I.e., they do evil things because they can't control their jealousy (Iago) or because they have become possessed by an idea or a demon or something. Or they do evil things because they have bought into an evil ideology. All of those would be justifiable character arcs without indicting actual marginalized groups, right?


----------



## Megan Pearson

Hey, Squalid Glass! By now I see how fast you all type...and I am falling asleep at the keyboard. So even though there is, like, some half-dozen posts following this, let me first try to reply to you before calling it a night. 

The quote you responded to of mine was: "Mostly I see these issues in philosophical argument and hardly ever see it play out in conversations with real people." To which you replied:



Squalid Glass said:


> Megan, doesn't this kind of explain it though? Some people do see this play out in reality because it directly affects them. They are therefore more qualified to speak to it than someone who doesn't experience it.



David Hume would agree with you 100%. Aristotle would not. (Ahem...I'm appealing to his view as interpreted as a non-trope theory, if I understand this correctly--I am still learning this stuff myself!) The problem can be restated thus: Where does one put truth? There are three basic views:

1. The Correspondence Theory says, the truth of an object corresponds with the object. Epistemologically, on this view, the mind is up to the task of relating to objects as they achieve in reality... i.e., there is a real reality out there, we have access to it, and we are part of it. 
2. I'm sorry--I just drew a blank on defining The Coherence Theory of Truth.
3. But The Idea Theory of Truth places truth inside the mind of the person doing the interpreting. Thus, epistemologically, there is a barrier between the mind and reality. In this view, everything becomes interpretation. 

The Idea Theory of Truth is a postmodern theory of truth, which Smith referred to (whether knowingly or unknowingly--she can say which) in her point #5 (above) that postmodernism supports power theory philosophies. This theory also locks the viewer inside either his mind (?) or within his language community. Wittgenstein said truth comes from the shared speech of a similar linguistic community (a theory continued by Quine's holism and MacIntyre's traditions). Austin said happiness is gained by the individual only by completing the speech-act event. (The Idea Theory of Truth may be a derivative from these two turns in the philosophy of language, but I'm still a little green on this and can't speak authoritatively yet. Anyway, I digress.) What these philosophers deny is that there can be an objective reality to which we have direct access. This is the blunt of popular claim today that the person who experiences an event is, as you said, "therefore more qualified to speak to it than someone who doesn't experience it." (Does how we got here make sense?) One problem with this kind of view is that it leads to the superiority of the individual over his reality--whether justified or not--in my opinion instituting egalitarianism and ultimately breaking down into a power struggle where the loudest voice/most force wins. 

However, the greater problem with this view is that it eventually breaks down into nominalism. Nominalism says we can't know anything. Since we can't have knowledge of anything on this view, there really is no reality out there to have knowledge of. I hope the problems such a conclusion reaches are evident, but in case they are not, try using being a nominalist as an excuse for not paying one's taxes come April 15th. The IRS will not be amused. In other words, it is not functionally practical in the long run. 

Now, what's being debated here is not to that extreme. But, *the underlying issue, whether or not we can have knowledge without direct experience is very relevant to the topic of whether or not we should use sensitivity readers.* Sorry for shouting. That looks very bold but I don't want the point missed for all this text. One's worldview, i.e., how one approaches daily life, will say a lot about what one takes away from this discussion thread (as everything else in life). 

For those who believe there can be no objective knowledge, then they will see experience as primary in how one interprets the world, or even relying more on the experience of one's social or linguistic group and will be skeptical of knowledge from outside one's self, one's social group, or one's community. 

However, for those who believe there can be objective knowledge, then people who come from that worldview will be more likely to dismiss experience and question if there is not a greater truth to be found than just what one's social group or community finds. They may be more motivated to do the research they need themselves.

BTW, The belief in question here is belief based upon facts we can know about the world; it does not mean what someone chooses to accept by blind faith. 

The person who chooses to use a sensivity reader chooses to _believe_ there will be some value gained that will lend credence to what they've written. I still favor Guard Dog's technical advisor over sensitivity reader myself, mainly because of the negative connotation the latter provokes, but I think the point in general may simply be stated as 'someone having culturally specialized knowledge'. That sounds believably useful to me.

Squalid Glass, yours is an excellent question. Thank you for asking it. (& I hope I haven't bored you to death!)


***


Squalid Glass said:


> The counter to this, naturally, would be Smith's idea that people see what they want, suggesting that those who see these things just have a victim mentality, which is a pretty insulting generalization that discredits a person's entire experience.



Well, no, for said philosophical positions above. I remember reading it but can't find Smith's exact post. So, erring on going by your summation, I'll err on agreeing with the premise that people see things best according to their worldview, although I disagree with the strawman fallacy that this creates a victim mentality. I think it's much more complicated than that--something I suspect Smith sees but was using it as rhetoric to set up for her next point. What directly affects someone and what they choose to make of it is strongly influenced by their idea of reality, their concept of where truth lies, and whether or not we can access reality and truth with our minds--all of which (I am learning) is waaay more complicated than it at first looks! Honestly, I don't think most people care to think much about it. 

***
Was it Harry Turtledove who wrote about the displaced legion of Romans who ended up in an alternate timeline due to some magical anomaly? The author, I believe a history professor by profession, clearly has no way of going back in time to ask any Roman what being a Roman was like. But his portrayals of what life was like back then I found interesting because--and magic aside--he brought the displaced legion to life on paper as an entertaining story. He couldn't have done this had he believed experience was the only way knowledge could be obtained.


----------



## epimetheus

Smith said:


> If the problem with racism is that race doesn't actually matter (which is a can of worms when you get into the realm of medicine),



Race isn't a biological construct, but a social one. It is still useful in medicine because it is a poor proxy marker for genetic risk. Poor because it conflates genetic risks for cultural norms (are Indians more likely to get type 2 diabetes because of their genetics or diet?) and it only gives an estimate of genotype (sub-saharan Africans are more likely to be suffer from sickle cell, except for the Africans who aren't and the non-Africans who are - clinical decisions cannot be made on such shifting sands). Once we can directly measure people's genes (soon hopefully), race will no longer be used in medicine.


----------



## Megan Pearson

Smith said:


> Here you and I might disagree slightly because I support the right to offend. That doesn't include making threats or advocating violence.



That's cool. We can agree to disagree. I like disagreeing so long as the conversation can sustain it--or my husband gives me his 'knock-it-off' look. (I'm quite a bit more rowdy in person...) Since what I have to say is offensive enough, I'd rather build a healthy conversation over time and win the right to broach fundamentally difficult, offensive ideas where respect forms the basis for both sides. I've seen this done to marvelous effect in professional debates, it's a useful skill in business negotiation, and suitable to the courtroom, too. Besides, in fiction, the more accurately an opposing view is be represented (getting back to our sensitivity reader topic), I think the more seriously and believable our own views will be taken. 



Smith said:


> Trying not to talk past one another can be a challenge, especially with complex and touchy subject matter like this.



I think the art of the conversation is a dying art. It is good to see it put to use here. We can all lean from listening to and trying to answer divergent points of view.



Smith said:


> ... the right question to ask is "So what?" I don't mean that dismissively. I mean, "So what... are you going to do about it?"



Yep, I believe you meant that as hyperbole, but it deserves an answer: I am going to write about it. 



Smith said:


> You've perhaps inadvertently hit on why it's so easy to talk past one another, and it's because we all operate from surprisingly different fundamental presuppositions or beliefs / values.



No; not inadvertent. I've been pussy-footing around it. (A little to the left, dat-dat-da! A little to the right, dat-da!) 



Smith said:


> I can't say I don't care about money. I would like to make a career at doing what I'm passionate about, writing. But I would never sacrifice saying what I want to say because somebody might get offended. I'll even go as far as deliberately offending on purpose, if I think it's necessary, or if I just don't care enough.



Ever think of becoming a journalist? Political commentator/essayist/speech writer? Marketing campaign advisor? These can all pay well for good persuasive writers.



Smith said:


> Many of the people in this thread will be a part of the group that ends up making this a mandatory step and practice in the publishing industry. Another gatekeeper. And so "it's just optional" will become yet another lie regarding this, and because of the excruciatingly obvious political litmus test, censorship will result. But it doesn't matter to these people, because in order to be a part of this group you need to be okay with coercion, and be okay with making victims of others at the expense of other victims, because at least if everybody is a victim, we can all be equal.



Let's not slide down that slippery slope, k? Besides, no one here has the influence to be able to do what you suggest. Instead,  I have found some very respectful conversationalists here, like yourself, exercising their freedom of expression in their concerns and thoughts about what to do with this new thing. Sure, some hidden fears have bee addressed; likewise, I think this conversation has exposed some truths about it as well. Everyone here has had the opportunity to think a little more deeply about what a sensitivity reader is, what it is not, and how they can be useful even if not well liked. Philosophically speaking, I think I can see your concern about control and wy this could be become a problem--especially since you've seen it with anime. And certainly there are unvoiced concerns here as well--I have some myself. 

But I've also seen fads come and go; there is no real solution offered by the sensitivity reader approach that ultimately betters society. Better research and greater compassion/empathy is needed. As to why I don't see this as catching on among authors is because of the financial burden it creates. Among publishers, from what I know about publishing from a friend who used to be a lawyer in the industry, all books from the major publishers are vetted for their audiences. Content they don't think will sell will either be rewritten by the author or sent to a writer on staff to be rewritten. I hope this helps add a reality check to the idea that this will blossom into something that will keep anyone from exercising free speech. 

If it still bothers you in a few days, then I would encourage you to research it, write, and publish on it should it truly seem to you to be growing into something  more. Writers, after all, are known for their visionary talents.


----------



## Ultraroel

PC culture is backwards. Adapting to it is backwards.. Enough said.

Anyone who pushes PC culture should think of themselves why.

PC culture is making people victims of others opinion, where their own perception and accountability doesn't matter.

You have the right to be offended, just as I have the right to offend. As soon as we smother anything that could be offensive, we are applying censorship.

Censorship is not a good thing.


----------



## Bayview

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Multi-quote isn't working. Sorry.

But Foxx said: "[/FONT]And I'm biased from personal experience because I've watched / continue to watch the same rhetoric, these same kinds of people, corrupt the other hobbies that I love and were largely apolitical until they came along."

And I'd like to question whether the hobbies actually _were_ apolitical or just seemed that way because they were maintaining the status quo that he was comfortable with. Video games that were traditionally dominated by straight white males, when straight white males are a significant minority of the Western population, seems like a pretty political situation. But, again, it's difficult for someone inside that culture to _see_ this because that person doesn't have the other perspective. Which brings us back to the importance of getting other perspectives!

And Lucky Scars talked about _Psycho_ and said: "And here's the thing, I want to give it a pass. So do most people. Because it's a really good story and extremely effective. Never mind part of the effect is to make people scared as hell of a type of person who in real life would deserve our help and recognition as a human being. Much, if not most, horror and a lot of thriller fiction uses some sort of mental/physical handicap even (especially?) today. I do too."

And to that I'd suggest that one of the really good ways to give yourself a "pass" for representing a character from a certain group in a negative way is to make sure you're representing other characters from that group in a positive way. If you only have one character in your book who's mentally ill and that character happens to be a horrible murderer, why not include another couple mentally ill characters who are benign or positive? I think the potential for drama with a mentally ill protagonist is huge, because the mental illness introduces the possibility of other characters patronizing her or not believing her, and the even more dramatic possibility that she questions _herself_.

If I read a book with only one female character and she's a stereotypical shopping-obsessed bimbo, I roll my eyes and may stop reading. But if I read a book with _several_ female characters and one's a super-serious astrophysicist and one's a hard-working farm girl and one's a teenager shooting for the Olympics in track-and-field, I'm not going to worry too much about the one stereotypical character. Yes, shopping-obsessed bimbos exist, and I don't object to them being represented in novels as long as they're not _all _that's represented in novels.

In general, I think the solution to worrying about negative portrayals of diverse characters is to include more diverse characters.


----------



## Squalid Glass

Megan Pearson said:


> Hey, Squalid Glass! By now I see how fast you all type...and I am falling asleep at the keyboard. So even though there is, like, some half-dozen posts following this, let me first try to reply to you before calling it a night.
> 
> The quote you responded to of mine was: "Mostly I see these issues in philosophical argument and hardly ever see it play out in conversations with real people." To which you replied:
> 
> 
> 
> David Hume would agree with you 100%. Aristotle would not. (Ahem...I'm appealing to his view as interpreted as a non-trope theory, if I understand this correctly--I am still learning this stuff myself!) The problem can be restated thus: Where does one put truth? There are three basic views:
> 
> 1. The Correspondence Theory says, the truth of an object corresponds with the object. Epistemologically, on this view, the mind is up to the task of relating to objects as they achieve in reality... i.e., there is a real reality out there, we have access to it, and we are part of it.
> 2. I'm sorry--I just drew a blank on defining The Coherence Theory of Truth.
> 3. But The Idea Theory of Truth places truth inside the mind of the person doing the interpreting. Thus, epistemologically, there is a barrier between the mind and reality. In this view, everything becomes interpretation.
> 
> The Idea Theory of Truth is a postmodern theory of truth, which Smith referred to (whether knowingly or unknowingly--she can say which) in her point #5 (above) that postmodernism supports power theory philosophies. This theory also locks the viewer inside either his mind (?) or within his language community. Wittgenstein said truth comes from the shared speech of a similar linguistic community (a theory continued by Quine's holism and MacIntyre's traditions). Austin said happiness is gained by the individual only by completing the speech-act event. (The Idea Theory of Truth may be a derivative from these two turns in the philosophy of language, but I'm still a little green on this and can't speak authoritatively yet. Anyway, I digress.) What these philosophers deny is that there can be an objective reality to which we have direct access. This is the blunt of popular claim today that the person who experiences an event is, as you said, "therefore more qualified to speak to it than someone who doesn't experience it." (Does how we got here make sense?) One problem with this kind of view is that it leads to the superiority of the individual over his reality--whether justified or not--in my opinion instituting egalitarianism and ultimately breaking down into a power struggle where the loudest voice/most force wins.
> 
> However, the greater problem with this view is that it eventually breaks down into nominalism. Nominalism says we can't know anything. Since we can't have knowledge of anything on this view, there really is no reality out there to have knowledge of. I hope the problems such a conclusion reaches are evident, but in case they are not, try using being a nominalist as an excuse for not paying one's taxes come April 15th. The IRS will not be amused. In other words, it is not functionally practical in the long run.
> 
> Now, what's being debated here is not to that extreme. But, *the underlying issue, whether or not we can have knowledge without direct experience is very relevant to the topic of whether or not we should use sensitivity readers.* Sorry for shouting. That looks very bold but I don't want the point missed for all this text. One's worldview, i.e., how one approaches daily life, will say a lot about what one takes away from this discussion thread (as everything else in life).
> 
> For those who believe there can be no objective knowledge, then they will see experience as primary in how one interprets the world, or even relying more on the experience of one's social or linguistic group and will be skeptical of knowledge from outside one's self, one's social group, or one's community.
> 
> However, for those who believe there can be objective knowledge, then people who come from that worldview will be more likely to dismiss experience and question if there is not a greater truth to be found than just what one's social group or community finds. They may be more motivated to do the research they need themselves.
> 
> BTW, The belief in question here is belief based upon facts we can know about the world; it does not mean what someone chooses to accept by blind faith.
> 
> The person who chooses to use a sensivity reader chooses to _believe_ there will be some value gained that will lend credence to what they've written. I still favor Guard Dog's technical advisor over sensitivity reader myself, mainly because of the negative connotation the latter provokes, but I think the point in general may simply be stated as 'someone having culturally specialized knowledge'. That sounds believably useful to me.
> 
> Squalid Glass, yours is an excellent question. Thank you for asking it. (& I hope I haven't bored you to death!)
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no, for said philosophical positions above. I remember reading it but can't find Smith's exact post. So, erring on going by your summation, I'll err on agreeing with the premise that people see things best according to their worldview, although I disagree with the strawman fallacy that this creates a victim mentality. I think it's much more complicated than that--something I suspect Smith sees but was using it as rhetoric to set up for her next point. What directly affects someone and what they choose to make of it is strongly influenced by their idea of reality, their concept of where truth lies, and whether or not we can access reality and truth with our minds--all of which (I am learning) is waaay more complicated than it at first looks! Honestly, I don't think most people care to think much about it.
> 
> ***
> Was it Harry Turtledove who wrote about the displaced legion of Romans who ended up in an alternate timeline due to some magical anomaly? The author, I believe a history professor by profession, clearly has no way of going back in time to ask any Roman what being a Roman was like. But his portrayals of what life was like back then I found interesting because--and magic aside--he brought the displaced legion to life on paper as an entertaining story. He couldn't have done this had he believed experience was the only way knowledge could be obtained.



I do believe in objective reality and do believe that people can create art about things they are not a part of. I also believe that people who experience things are better equipped to speak about those things than people who don’t. For example, we can learn a lot about Ancient Rome based on research, but we will still never know what it was like to be an ancient Roman more than an ancient Roman would. 

I think the disconnect here might stem from what we consider objective. I consider it objective that there are systems in place on an individual and societal level that create inequality and perpetuate racism, sexism, etc. To me, it is objective reality when my wife or friends or any other person tells me about their experiences of being marginalized because their experience is real. It is objective reality when Steve King defends white supremacy and is rewarded with support and power. And it is objective reality to me that people who don’t believe the experiences or marginalized people do so because, for the most part, they have not experienced them. I say this as someone who used to be on the right with all of these issues, so I understand the mindset.

And if changing the name to avoid the trigger word “sensitivity” helps you, then we’re simply arguing semantics instead of disagreeing on the function of the person and the practice.


----------



## Kevin

Mm. According to what I read in that example/ interview with the sensitivity reader the best answer is don't write it.: " ..,And they’re not realizing that them writing a story about a black kid prevents me from writing one, because when I show up with my manuscript, the publisher tells me that the position is filled."


----------



## Kevin

She was talking about "well-meaning" white people, that took up the call because there was "a lack of representation".

I'm reminded of something somewhere, here I think,on these forums,  where there was a discussion about a poem, written by a person not of color, as a person of color. When I mentioned that the poem's mere published existence was complained about because of this reason, this occupying a space in the published world idea , and how that blocks someone of color from occupying that same space, I was told that was not a real thing; no one said that. And yet here it is again. 

This by the way, is the basis of affirmative action. 

Hmm. There is bias out there. Which is unfair. There is the old fashioned traditional white-above-others bias. But there's also the reverse bias, the two-wrongs make a right type.  The idea is that to combat an existing bias, one must institute a new bias. So then you have two. Right?  Or did I miss something?


----------



## Guard Dog

Wow... I was gonna reply to the two posts I left behind last night, but those are more than a half-dozen pages back "up stream" now, and would be pretty out of place this far down.
( Y'all have been pickin' 'em up an' puttin' em down while I was gone, 'cause I know I wasn't out _that_ long. )

Honestly, to me, it seems that everything that can be said has been said now, and this thread's just chasin' it's own tail, and has far more to do with politics and political opinion than writing.

...and it's already been pretty clearly established that nobody is gonna change anybody else's mind.

Anyway, I've alreay spoke my mind, and stand by everything I've said, so... there's little point in  :deadhorse:.

( By the way, I've written something like 10,000 or 15,000 words while this tread's been goin' on. So it's a good thing writing isn't a race, or y'all'd be losin. :lol: )
( I also didn't need a 'Sensitivity Reader', OR a 'Technical Adviser', past the internet. :icon_cheesygrin: )
Anyway, Terry D, Luckyscars or anybody else that wants to discuss anything I've said here, PM me... But otherwise, I think I'm done with this writhing ball'a snakes. 
( Hard to make heads or tails outta anything at this point. And I'm not gonna just grab something and pull. :hororr: )

I have to say though, I'm curious to see what kind of 'legs' this thread has, and how long it runs.


G.D.


----------



## Bayview

Kevin said:


> She was talking about "well-meaning" white people, that took up the call because there was "a lack of representation".
> 
> I'm reminded of something somewhere, here I think,on these forums,  where there was a discussion about a poem, written by a person not of color, as a person of color. When I mentioned that the poem's mere published existence was complained about because of this reason, this occupying a space in the published world idea , and how that blocks someone of color from occupying that same space, I was told that was not a real thing; no one said that. And yet here it is again.
> 
> This by the way, is the basis of affirmative action.
> 
> Hmm. There is bias out there. Which is unfair. There is the old fashioned traditional white-above-others bias. But there's also the reverse bias, the two-wrongs make a right type.  The idea is that to combat bias, one must institute a new bias. So then you have two. Right?  Or did I miss something?



We're probably straying beyond the scope of the thread, but...

I think there's a false equivalency in the "reverse bias" idea. I think treatment that may sometimes seem "unfair" seems that way because we assume an equality of starting conditions, but I don't think that's a safe assumption to make.

Like, if I have two kids, and one is short-sighted and one isn't, there's nothing unfair about providing glasses to the short-sighted kid and not providing glasses to the other kid. They're not starting from the same place, so it doesn't make sense to treat them identically in the name of "fairness". Similarly, if a group has been traditionally excluded from publishing and I have reason to believe there are still substantial obstacles facing them that are not faced by other writers, there's nothing "unfair" about taking steps to address the unequal starting conditions.

Or, to turn it around (and bring it back to the thread) if two writers are trying to portray a certain experience, and one of them has lived the experience and therefore has a clear view of it and the other writer hasn't lived the experience and might therefore be a bit short-sighted, I don't think there's anything wrong with offering glasses to the writer who may be short-sighted. Maybe they aren't necessary, but if they are, why shouldn't they be available?


----------



## Squalid Glass

I don’t think I could have put it any better than that.


----------



## Kevin

You you know I really question the both of your commitments.  Here you are occupying positions of privilege. Everything in your life, everything you've achieved has been helped, aided by it. Your lack of melanin, your paleness... have you no shame?  You've had 400 years of domination in the New World, over 2000 in the old. It's time you handed it over –  just like South Africa, give it up. Resign your position-  no literally, you should resign, quit your jobs. You don't deserve them. You need to get to the back of the bus, go to the back of the meeting, sit down and shut up. Zip it. And I don't want to hear that you're Jewish, or  you're this, or you're that-  you're still pale as fuck and in that position of privilege. Show your commitment and give that position to someone else -  someone of color, someone that's been oppressed – Resign your job, and give away all your ill- gotten goods - They are the spoils of repression. You know it. I know it- everyone knows it. Give it up.


----------



## Bayview

Kevin said:


> You you know I really question the both of your commitments.  Here you are occupying positions of privilege. Everything in your life, everything you've achieved has been helped, aided by it. Your lack of melanin, your paleness... have you no shame?  You've had 400 years of domination in the New World, over 2000 in the old. It's time you handed it over –  just like South Africa, give it up. Resign your position-  no literally, you should resign, quit your jobs. You don't deserve them. You need to get to the back of the bus, go to the back of the meeting, sit down and shut up. Zip it. And I don't want to hear that you're Jewish, or  you're this, or you're that-  you're still pale as fuck and in that position of privilege. Show your commitment and give that position to someone else -  someone of color, someone that's been oppressed – Resign your job, and give away all your ill- gotten goods - They are the spoils of repression. You know it. I know it- everyone knows it. Give it up.



Was it this sort of over-statement that people objected to in the other thread? I can see why...


----------



## Guard Dog

Wait a minute Kevin... I look like snowbank during the winter, when I don't get out in the sun, but have been asked if were Mexican during the summer, when I'm _much_ darker.

Does that mean I can keep my 'position of privilege' part time, maybe? :-|



G.D.


----------



## luckyscars

Bayview said:


> And Lucky Scars talked about _Psycho_ and said: "And here's the thing, I want to give it a pass. So do most people. Because it's a really good story and extremely effective. Never mind part of the effect is to make people scared as hell of a type of person who in real life would deserve our help and recognition as a human being. Much, if not most, horror and a lot of thriller fiction uses some sort of mental/physical handicap even (especially?) today. I do too."
> 
> And to that I'd suggest that one of the really good ways to give yourself a "pass" for representing a character from a certain group in a negative way is to make sure you're representing other characters from that group in a positive way. If you only have one character in your book who's mentally ill and that character happens to be a horrible murderer, why not include another couple mentally ill characters who are benign or positive? I think the potential for drama with a mentally ill protagonist is huge, because the mental illness introduces the possibility of other characters patronizing her or not believing her, and the even more dramatic possibility that she questions _herself_.
> 
> If I read a book with only one female character and she's a stereotypical shopping-obsessed bimbo, I roll my eyes and may stop reading. But if I read a book with _several_ female characters and one's a super-serious astrophysicist and one's a hard-working farm girl and one's a teenager shooting for the Olympics in track-and-field, I'm not going to worry too much about the one stereotypical character. Yes, shopping-obsessed bimbos exist, and I don't object to them being represented in novels as long as they're not _all _that's represented in novels.
> 
> In general, I think the solution to worrying about negative portrayals of diverse characters is to include more diverse characters.



It's a good idea. The problem is we are now venturing into the realm of potentially modifying the core of some stories.

No big deal when it's simply about language and how it is being applied to the character. I mean, I can easily change the word "transsexual" to "transgender" and (despite what some on here would claim) it would make no difference whatsoever. I am fine with sacrificing the "n-word". I am fine too with offering sympathetic, non-cliched portrayals of mentally ill characters. I actually think Psycho does that quite well.

But what you're suggesting here, if I am reading it correctly, could potentially involve introducing whole new characters or at the very least highlighting different things in existing ones to fit the brief? Fine if there is the room for it but I'd be interested to know how you think this could work in something like Psycho in which the condition hinges on Norman Bates's isolation and loneliness, a story where there simply isn't the room for ancillary characters or putting his condition into a wider social context without essentially changing the entire plot and its effect. A lot of these kinds of books only work because of the "uniqueness" of the condition and how they make that person behave, in contrast to their surroundings. 

American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis offers the notion of psychopathy (or whatever you want to call it) in a very different, far more social context, but we can plainly see how even there the story only works because of the positioning of a "crazy" person in a world indifferent to craziness. So it becomes similar in that aspect: Patrick Bateman is only effective because he is the only "diverse" person in his world.

It's not just about mental disability either. Physical disability, while less fertile, is still something that gets used often to instill fear. It's an oldie but a goodie: In Treasure Island the two main antagonists are a one-legged man and a blind man, and it is those disabilities that assist in creating the audiences sense of revulsion toward the characters whether we want to admit it or not. The idea of a feeble blind man who somehow "sees" his victims is creepy. Yet it is, of course, also potentially problematic because we are directly associating the condition with "badness".

So what would the recommendation of the sensitivity reader be there? Would it be to avoid such a story or characterization (which may be one and the same) entirely as demonizing of a protected class? If so, that's a massive chunk of a massively popular (and massively _interesting_) genre/sub-genre out the window. Suddenly writers who generally support the ethos of diversity/inclusion and don't wish to tar ALL disabled people with the brush are alienated because we are told either directly or implicitly that our work has the potential to do that.


----------



## Squalid Glass

Kevin said:


> She was talking about "well-meaning" white people, that took up the call because there was "a lack of representation".
> 
> I'm reminded of something somewhere, here I think,on these forums,  where there was a discussion about a poem, written by a person not of color, as a person of color. When I mentioned that the poem's mere published existence was complained about because of this reason, this occupying a space in the published world idea , and how that blocks someone of color from occupying that same space, I was told that was not a real thing; no one said that. And yet here it is again.
> 
> This by the way, is the basis of affirmative action.
> 
> Hmm. There is bias out there. Which is unfair. There is the old fashioned traditional white-above-others bias. But there's also the reverse bias, the two-wrongs make a right type.  The idea is that to combat an existing bias, one must institute a new bias. So then you have two. Right?  Or did I miss something?



You did miss something. The solution is not to replace one bias with another. The solution is to open the conversation to more voices so that everyone can be heard instead of just listening to those who have always dominated the conversation. 

I won’t respond to your second post because of the obvious inflammatory tone and exaggerated reasoning.


----------



## Kyle R

There are a lot of stories that don't need sensitivity readers, so it's understandable why some authors would bristle at the concept. At worst, it sounds to some like _censorship_. To others, it sounds simply unnecessary.

But there are also some stories that practically demand sensitive readers.

If you're a white male writing from the POV of a transgender female, for example—you should definitely consider getting a few sensitivity readers (at the very least). Otherwise, you're almost certain to get things wrong—and quite possibly offend along the way.

The way I see it, it's less about being politically correct, and more about striving for authentic and accurate portrayals.

The opposite extreme, of course, would be to just make up random bullshit about how your POC/LGBT characters think and act, and then claim "creative license!" whenever you're called on it. :grief:


----------



## Bayview

luckyscars said:


> It's a good idea. The problem is we are now venturing into the realm of potentially modifying the core of some stories.



I hear what you're saying and don't have an easy solution. I mean, I think there _are_ times when, for me at least, social responsibility trumps "artistic freedom"... that is, there are stories that I might not write because I feel as if they'd be damaging to people who've suffered enough damage already. But everyone has to draw their own lines on that, I'd say.

And, really, this is one of the reasons I love seeing more diverse voices coming up in fiction, because I don't think it always has to be a question of _an individual book_ providing multiple representations of a group: it cal also be a question of an entire genre providing multiple representations. Like, It's a problem when the mentally ill are consistently represented in a negative light in book after book after book in a specific genre (or work after work after work in a larger culture) but if we had lots of positive or neutral representations of mentally ill people it wouldn't be that big a deal if an individual work had negative portrayal. As a white person, I wouldn't worry too much if all the villains in a given work were white, because I've seen lots of other representations of my skin tone that are much more positive.


----------



## luckyscars

Kyle R said:


> There are a lot of stories that don't need sensitivity readers, so it's understandable why some authors would bristle at the concept. At worst, it sounds to some like _censorship_. At best, it sounds simply unnecessary.
> 
> But there are also some stories that practically demand sensitive readers.
> 
> If you're a white male writing from the POV of a transgender female, for example—you should definitely consider getting a few sensitivity readers (at the very least). Otherwise, you're almost certain to get things wrong—and quite possibly offend along the way.
> 
> The way I see it, it's less about being politically correct, and more about striving for authentic and accurate portrayals.
> 
> The opposite extreme, of course, would be to just make up random bullshit about how your POC/LGBT characters think and act, and then claim "creative license!" whenever you're called on it. :grief:



Maybe a good middle way is to simply make characters as individual as possible: To not mention their race or sexuality or whatever unless absolutely necessary for the story and, when mentioned, find a way to make it clear it's not supposed to be a viewpoint on others who share that trait.

So a way out might be to write Psycho how it is but maybe not call it "psycho" which has a defined medical term? And certainly not bring medical or pseudo-medical "facts" into the story to make it seem like it's how "real psychos" are...

Gut reaction is to not totally comfortable with this level of tinkering or "censorship", but I would be willing to entertain that may not be a rational reaction, but rather one born of the same privilege displayed by certain folks in this thread. Those people who think there should be an open door to "being offensive so long as it is not threatening" and yet could not explain where offensiveness ends and abuse/incitement begins.


----------



## luckyscars

Bayview said:


> I hear what you're saying and don't have an easy solution. I mean, I think there _are_ times when, for me at least, social responsibility trumps "artistic freedom"... that is, there are stories that I might not write because I feel as if they'd be damaging to people who've suffered enough damage already. But everyone has to draw their own lines on that, I'd say.
> 
> And, really, this is one of the reasons I love seeing more diverse voices coming up in fiction, because I don't think it always has to be a question of _an individual book_ providing multiple representations of a group: it cal also be a question of an entire genre providing multiple representations. Like, It's a problem when the mentally ill are consistently represented in a negative light in book after book after book in a specific genre (or work after work after work in a larger culture) but if we had lots of positive or neutral representations of mentally ill people it wouldn't be that big a deal if an individual work had negative portrayal. As a white person, I wouldn't worry too much if all the villains in a given work were white, because I've seen lots of other representations of my skin tone that are much more positive.



I'm not sure many people really think of genres as having a certain treatment towards groups do they? I could be wrong. I personally don't think of any entire genre as being homogeneous like that. I mean, maybe if we're talking the real obvious examples - I have certainly heard it said that epic fantasy is often misogynistic and that there still isn't enough LGBTQ-friendly romance... So yeah, I guess writing in a genre that has a better reputation for how it treats the group might help mitigate the impact of potentially controversial characters in a single story, but I'm not sure it's possible for an empirically demonstrable judgement to be made genre-wide. Or maybe it's just less helpful because there isn't a whole lot a single writer can realistically do to impact an entire genre unless they are a Stephen King or whatever.

I find it helpful instead to focus on diversity on an author-by-author basis. I tend to view books in the context of their authors anyway - different windows into the writer's brain, etc. So for me personally, as a male, it really helped having a few stories published in anthologies early on which contained strong female characters portrayed in non-sexually subordinate fashion. Not because anybody much read them or gave a crap, but because in a more recent story when it came to write a scene involving a sexual violation of a woman I felt that I could justify it entirely on story grounds and not risk being accused of misogyny or writing torture porn because I have these other stories in which none of that is remotely a thing.

Some might call that a kind of tacit censorship. I think that's bullshit. I mean, if its censorship the only price of it was having to write more to "earn the right" to offend. Sounds like a pretty good deal eh.


----------



## Terry D

With all this terrific discussion about sensitivity readers I wonder how many publishers already have instructed their acquisition folks, and their editors to be on the look-out for the same sensitivity issues? In other words, I expect any writing you submit is already being vetted for sensitivity transgressions. I can see why some authors are interested in understanding how their work could be interpreted by members of the culture they are writing about. It can be viewed as a sort of market research.


----------



## Bayview

luckyscars said:


> Maybe a good middle way is to simply make characters as individual as possible: To not mention their race or sexuality or whatever unless absolutely necessary for the story and, when mentioned, find a way to make it clear it's not supposed to be a viewpoint on others who share that trait.
> 
> So a way out might be to write Psycho how it is but maybe not call it "psycho" which has a defined medical term? And certainly not bring medical or pseudo-medical "facts" into the story to make it seem like it's how "real psychos" are...




I like the concrete example you gave, but I'm not sure about not explicitly mentioning diversity in other contexts. I feel like there's a tendency to "default to white" or "default to straight" or whatever, and I worry that by not mentioning areas of diversity, we're largely erasing them. It also seems like a lost opportunity for characterization, at least if writing in a modern setting.

No simple answers!

ETA: Interesting article, "White Until Proven Black" at https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/white-until-proven-black-imagining-race-in-hunger-games


----------



## Guard Dog

Here's a thought for ya...

Since most writers wanna get paid for their work, what's the likelihood of someone discovering that some minority or other group finds their work offensive, but another group of equal or larger size _liking_ what the writer produces and buying it _because _of the things the others don't like, and that writer deciding to change things out of some sense of 'moral responsibility'?

Or of a publisher deciding they don't want to touch it without the writer making changes, even though there has been a demonstrated interest in something of the same sort from this writer previously?

Another potential side of this is how many people may buy a book simply because it is controversial, that wouldn't ordinarily?

Did folks pick up  Salman Rushdie's _Satanic Verses_, just to see what all the fuss was about, that might not ordinarily  have?

I just can't help but think that from a financial perspective, it could come down to what's the bigger objective, keeping the complainers happy, or making money off of the publicity their attention brings?

( Granted, the stereotype is that 'skin heads', bigots, misogynists, etc. are illiterate and therefore don't buy books in the first place... but what if they did? What if it came down to their money versus a few people boycotting a book they might not have bought in the first place? )

Just pointing out that there could/might be something to consider that some people are too distracted to even see, or that some just don't want to.

Also, I can't help but notice the irony in the fact that one of the first things I was told when I developed an interest in writing was that having a 'thick skin' - being insensitive to what people said about what I produced - was one of the best traits that I could have, and yet this conversation being basically the exact opposite side of the coin, and saying maybe I need to potentially be MORE sensitive to what some small group or the other says/thinks about it.

( It makes me damn glad what I like to write is sci-fi/fantasy, that's for sure. )


G.D.


----------



## H.Brown

GD there is a difference between having a 'thick skin' when it comes to responses to your writing and being out right offensive if you don't need to be. 

I'm sure that the decision of whether to use a sensitivity reader is one of the authors. There are plenty of authors that will chose not to use them and plenty that chose to use them for their own reasons. I suppose one of the reasons to use one would be for authenticity but another may be to capture the right feeling that you want to within your writing I suppose. Just my opinion.


----------



## Guard Dog

H.Brown said:


> GD there is a difference between having a 'thick skin' when it comes to responses to your writing and being out right offensive if you don't need to be.



Ah, but who gets to decide "need"? That's the actual question I asked in my previous post.

The bit about the thick skin was just an observation.


G.D.


----------



## Squalid Glass

Bayview said:


> I like the concrete example you gave, but I'm not sure about not explicitly mentioning diversity in other contexts. I feel like there's a tendency to "default to white" or "default to straight" or whatever, and I worry that by not mentioning areas of diversity, we're largely erasing them. It also seems like a lost opportunity for characterization, at least if writing in a modern setting.
> 
> No simple answers!
> 
> ETA: Interesting article, "White Until Proven Black" at https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/white-until-proven-black-imagining-race-in-hunger-games



Thanks for posting that article. I think it speaks to the heart of this problem: there is a status quo that is not working for everyone, and some people would like to change it while others who benefit from it fail to see the problem.


----------



## Squalid Glass

Guard Dog said:


> Ah, but who gets to decide "need"? That's the actual question I asked in my previous post.
> 
> The bit about the thick skin was just an observation.
> 
> 
> G.D.



Context matters, as do the effects of your decision to be offensive. Satirists are great at using offense because they do it to prove larger points. But I think most people fail at using it in the right context because they don’t consider the effect of what they say.

And who decides? Well, the audience does. And culture. That’s how all art works. Once it leaves your mouth or pen or brush or whatever, it’s not yours anymore. It’s everyone’s.


----------



## H.Brown

Squalid Glass said:


> And who decides? Well, the audience does. And culture. That’s how all art works. Once it leaves your mouth or pen or brush or whatever, it’s not yours anymore. It’s everyone’s.



In my eyes the author also has descision in this to me it all depends on what you wish to acheive with your writing and as an author (someone with the ability to shape others thoughts with words) we should consider what our words say to others. But I would agree that the majority of this descision is made by the audience as much as the writer.


----------



## luckyscars

Guard Dog said:


> Here's a thought for ya...
> 
> Since most writers wanna get paid for their work, what's the likelihood of someone discovering that some minority or other group finds their work offensive, but another group of equal or larger size _liking_ what the writer produces and buying it _because _of the things the others don't like, and that writer deciding to change things out of some sense of 'moral responsibility'?
> 
> Or of a publisher deciding they don't want to touch it without the writer making changes, even though there has been a demonstrated interest in something of the same sort from this writer previously?
> 
> Another potential side of this is how many people may buy a book simply because it is controversial, that wouldn't ordinarily?
> 
> Did folks pick up  Salman Rushdie's _Satanic Verses_, just to see what all the fuss was about, that might not ordinarily  have?
> 
> I just can't help but think that from a financial perspective, it could come down to what's the bigger objective, keeping the complainers happy, or making money off of the publicity their attention brings?
> 
> ( Granted, the stereotype is that 'skin heads', bigots, misogynists, etc. are illiterate and therefore don't buy books in the first place... but what if they did? What if it came down to their money versus a few people boycotting a book they might not have bought in the first place? )
> 
> Just pointing out that there could/might be something to consider that some people are too distracted to even see, or that some just don't want to.
> 
> Also, I can't help but notice the irony in the fact that one of the first things I was told when I developed an interest in writing was that having a 'thick skin' - being insensitive to what people said about what I produced - was one of the best traits that I could have, and yet this conversation being basically the exact opposite side of the coin, and saying maybe I need to potentially be MORE sensitive to what some small group or the other says/thinks about it.
> 
> ( It makes me damn glad what I like to write is sci-fi/fantasy, that's for sure. )
> 
> 
> G.D.



Rushdie clearly did not write the Satanic Verses to achieve the reaction it got.  It's simply silly to hold that up as an example of lack of sensitivity resulting in success when the man had to live in hiding for years. 

You can also make a compelling argument it wasn't even a good move commercially because in offending the central belief of the second largest religion in the world he almost certainly as many potential readers as he might have gained by being controversial. I doubt many people in Indonesia or Egypt are reading Salman Rushdie...

Anyway yeah, there is money to be made in controversial material, sure. They still make Human Centipede movies. Mein Kampf and The Turner Diaries are still generating royalties, etc. I think you have the ghost of a point in that sometimes holding back on controversial material for fear of offence sometimes leads to being lost in a no man's land: People who like morally-challenging material won't read something diluted and people who find such material objectionable won't read a book of a genre where it is expected, as it is in a lot of modern speculative fiction.

 I think the point of a sensitivity reader is not to clamp down on controversial material where it is obviously central to the story. That won't work. As mentioned, stories like that don't usually need one. Nobody is sensitivity reading A Child Called It or books by Jack Ketchum or Edward Lee.

The point is to look for where it might be incidental or inadvertent or avoidable and hurt sales among the target readership - a lazy description, stereotypical dialogue, etc. Again, I just don't see how that could be a bad thing...

I also think regarding whoever told you that you needed to have a thick skin to be a writer you have entirely misunderstood/misrepresented their advice. Having a thick skin in writing has nothing to do with lack of sensitivity. You HAVE to have sensitivity to write well.  A thick skin is about not taking criticism personally or allowing emotions to cloud your approach to the craft. There's some very good examples of that all over this thread.


----------



## Smith

Bayview said:


> Multi-quote isn't working. Sorry.
> 
> But Foxx said: "And I'm biased from personal experience because I've watched / continue to watch the same rhetoric, these same kinds of people, corrupt the other hobbies that I love and were largely apolitical until they came along."
> 
> And I'd like to question whether the hobbies actually _were_ apolitical or just seemed that way because they were maintaining the status quo that he was comfortable with. Video games that were traditionally dominated by straight white males, when straight white males are a significant minority of the Western population, seems like a pretty political situation. But, again, it's difficult for someone inside that culture to _see_ this because that person doesn't have the other perspective. Which brings us back to the importance of getting other perspectives!



Here it is again. This obsession with race, with white people as the problem. This shit writes itself.

Do you even understand how many Asians play League of Legends, for example? Korea literally dominates the game in spite of how popular it is everywhere else in the world, including Europe and North America. I don't mean "dominates the game demographically", because I don't care how many of a certain skin color play a game, unlike yourself. I mean that they dominate the game in terms of skill, and how many times they've won the world championships (I think almost every time in over 10 years).

I didn't care, Bayview, about the skin color of people who I play with or the skin color of the developers. Progressives felt the need to come in and go out of their way to cause a problem that didn't exist before, or to be more generous, to multiply an existing problem a hundred times over and totally blow it out of proportion. They wanted to use video games as a platform for their ideology, and that's what they're trying to do. So in other words, progressives go into a place where race didn't matter, and they make it matter. Because they're racist. It's really that simple, and that's why I'm tired of it.

Any ideology in history does this. Look at what happened to art in Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia (and before). You see it in the statues, paintings, film, and literature. It = status quo. I've studied this, and the progressive ideology is doing exactly the same thing. Just like the Nazis blamed everything on the scapegoat of communism and the Jews. All that's changed is the scapegoat, the unfalsifiable boogeyman. Nazis looked for Jews and Bolsheviks and commies to blame at every turn, and here we are, looking for white people and the patriarchy at every turn. The political activists have just gotten smarter and targeted a majority rather than a minority, because they're using a twisted power dynamic.

If you subscribe to the idea that "The Personal is Political", this may well prove painfully impossible for you: Just make a good game and stop injecting progressive politics into the games. That's all I asked. The reason why this is failing is because the progressive movement isn't about making *good* games. They're about making the "right" game, in terms of ideology. And the progressive developers get their jobs on the grounds of affirmative action, not merit, and naturally their games suffer.

I have hope though. People are waking up and not buying this mediocre political propaganda, and voting with their wallets.

Get woke, go broke.


----------



## Guard Dog

luckyscars said:


> Rushdie clearly did not write the Satanic Verses to achieve the reaction it got.  It's simply silly to hold that up as an example of lack of sensitivity resulting in success when the man had to live in hiding for years.



It was NOT used as an example of 'Sensitivity' it was used as an example of a book that caused controversy and that people MIGHT have picked up out of curiosity, since it and Rushdie were all over the TV for quite a while.

...A book that many people MAY NOT have even heard of, much less bought and read, if not for the publicity it got from the news media, and Muslims wanting the author DEAD. 

Work on your reading comprehension already, will ya, professor? Sheesh...



G.D.


----------



## luckyscars

Guard Dog said:


> It was NOT used as an example of 'Sensitivity' it was used as an example of a book that caused controversy and that people MIGHT have picked up out of curiosity, since it and Rushdie were all over the TV for quite a while.
> 
> ...A book that many people MAY NOT have even heard of, much less bought and read, if not for the publicity it got from the news media, and Muslims wanting the author DEAD.
> 
> Work on your reading comprehension already, will ya, professor? Sheesh...
> 
> 
> 
> G.D.



The thread is about sensitivity. Are you aware of that?


----------



## Kevin

Bayview said:


> Was it this sort of over-statement that people objected to in the other thread? I can see why...


It was meant to be overstatement. And no , that's not what they objected to. What they said was no one is looking to take anyone's spot. Anyway, I put the referenced quote in there. I notice nobody addresses that. Because you can't. She said it, period. It's a common idea and now I'm just repeating myself.


----------



## Bayview

Smith said:


> Here it is again. This obsession with race, with white people as the problem. This shit writes itself.



Can you give an example of the way video games have been ruined for you?


----------



## Smith

Bayview said:


> Can you give an example of the way video games have been ruined for you?



Battlefield V is a textbook example.

The developers and their publisher became more concerned about pushing an ideology, going as far as to make statements attacking and disrespecting fans, rather than focus on creating an excellent game in the Battlefield franchise.

The shift from Battlefield 4 to Battlefield V is remarkable. But I'm forgetting Battlefield 1 (their numbering, not mine), which actually came in between them. The revisionism and overt politics can be seen taking root in Battlefield 1. Did you know every other German sniper was a black guy in WWI?

And just to show I'm trying to be fair here, the revisionism argument for Battlefield V doesn't fully work because the game is obviously an alternative history of WWII. So again, it's like comparing the movie "Der Untergang" to the movie "Overlord". Having a black guy as the main character in Overlord is not revisionism.


----------



## Guard Dog

luckyscars said:


> The thread is about sensitivity. Are you aware of that?



It's actually about "Sensitivity Readers", and if they are needed or not.

Are you aware of THAT?

The post of mine you quoted you apparently didn't bother to actually READ, since I said *I HAD ANOTHER THOUGHT ON THE SUBJECT.*

One that was related to a side of what has been discussed, but may not have been considered in all that has been presented here, both ON and OFF topic.

Got it now? 



G.D.


----------



## Kevin

Bayview said:


> We're probably straying beyond the scope of the thread, but...
> 
> I think there's a false equivalency in the "reverse bias" idea. I think treatment that may sometimes seem "unfair" seems that way because we assume an equality of starting conditions, but I don't think that's a safe assumption to make.
> 
> Like, if I have two kids, and one is short-sighted and one isn't, there's nothing unfair about providing glasses to the short-sighted kid and not providing glasses to the other kid. They're not starting from the same place, so it doesn't make sense to treat them identically in the name of "fairness". Similarly, if a group has been traditionally excluded from publishing and I have reason to believe there are still substantial obstacles facing them that are not faced by other writers, there's nothing "unfair" about taking steps to address the unequal starting conditions.
> 
> Or, to turn it around (and bring it back to the thread) if two writers are trying to portray a certain experience, and one of them has lived the experience and therefore has a clear view of it and the other writer hasn't lived the experience and might therefore be a bit short-sighted, I don't think there's anything wrong with offering glasses to the writer who may be short-sighted. Maybe they aren't necessary, but if they are, why shouldn't they be available?


 in practice it is discrimination based on race. No one is exactly equal to anyone else. You can study faster than me, or you can read faster that me, or, you're smarter than me, so what? No one is going to say "Well, give that guy extra points on his entry score cause he's dumber than her."


----------



## H.Brown

What I would wonder is how common are Sensitivity Readers actually used by writers? As the demand for such readers would answer if they are indeed needed, I would have thought.


----------



## Bayview

Smith said:


> Battlefield V is a textbook example.
> 
> The developers and their publisher became more concerned about pushing an ideology, going as far as to make statements attacking and disrespecting fans, rather than focus on creating an excellent game in the Battlefield franchise.
> 
> The shift from Battlefield 4 to Battlefield V is remarkable. But I'm forgetting Battlefield 1 (their numbering, not mine), which actually came in between them. The revisionism and overt politics can be seen taking root in Battlefield 1. Did you know every other German sniper was a black guy in WWI?
> 
> And just to show I'm trying to be fair here, the revisionism argument for Battlefield V doesn't fully work because the game is obviously an alternative history of WWII. So again, it's like comparing the movie "Der Untergang" to the movie "Overlord". Having a black guy as the main character in Overlord is not revisionism.



But how do these things wreck the game for you? You don't really care about race, so it's not a big deal to you if characters are black or white, so it doesn't matter if they're black. Right?

And surely you could just ignore the commentary from the game developers? Like, if you're offended by what someone says, you don't have to be a snowflake and cry for a safe space... you can just ignore it and go about your business.

I just finished a playthrough of the Mass Effect games from Bioware, a games company that has been criticized by some for pushing "progressive" agendas in their game. My character (this time through) was a straight white woman, and there were no aspects of the game that were closed to me because I wasn't playing a character of colour or a gay character. I've also played their Dragon Age series a couple times, and when I played a straight white male character there were no issues. It didn't affect my game play at all to know that other people might be playing as non-white characters or gay characters (or as other species, in the Dragon Age example...).

I'm really not seeing how your hobby is being "corrupted".


----------



## Bayview

Kevin said:


> in practice it is discrimination based on race. No one is exactly equal to anyone else. You can study faster than me, or you can read faster that me, or, you're smarter than me, so what? No one is going to say "Well, give that guy extra points on his entry score cause he's dumber than her."



I think the distinction is that some differences are inherent, while others are societal. If you're dumber than me, that's unfortunate, but it's inherent to you and it probably means you wouldn't be as good at some jobs as I am, so it would make sense that people hiring for those jobs (or choosing people for education) would choose me over you. I have an inherent quality that makes me better suited for the position than you do. if there were "brain-glasses" or some other tool that would allow you to behave in a more intelligent way, I'd say you should have access to them and not be penalized for using them, but as there are no brain-glasses? We're kind of out of luck.

But skin colour or gender or sexual orientation or whatever? They aren't inherent, and they don't make people better or worse for most jobs or educational opportunities. And there have been countless studies that show there are irrational societal prejudices against members of certain groups. So taking steps to counteract those prejudices seems like a reasonable approach, to me.


----------



## Smith

Bayview said:


> But how do these things wreck the game for you? You don't really care about race, so it's not a big deal to you if characters are black or white, so it doesn't matter if they're black. Right?
> 
> And surely you could just ignore the commentary from the game developers? Like, if you're offended by what someone says, you don't have to be a snowflake and cry for a safe space... you can just ignore it and go about your business.



Because I don't agree with the motivations and intent behind these decisions. They aren't happening for some benign or benevolent reason, and they certainly aren't just occurring by some "happy accident".

And because I'm not giving my money to a company who says their fans are "uneducated", gives them a poor product because they were too busy being political activists, and because I'd rather give my money to a company who cares about their fans and bringing them a good, fun gaming experience (such as CD Project Red). It has nothing to do with being offended. They can call me or their fans whatever they want, but that isn't good customer service, and I won't give money to a company that behaves that way.

They weren't just off-hand comments by an employee either. These were comments by the now ex-CEO of EA.



> I just finished a playthrough of the Mass Effect games from Bioware, a games company that has been criticized by some for pushing "progressive" agendas in their game. My character (this time through) was a straight white woman, and there were no aspects of the game that were closed to me because I wasn't playing a character of colour or a gay character. I've also played their Dragon Age series a couple times, and when I played a straight white male character there were no issues. It didn't affect my game play at all to know that other people might be playing as non-white characters or gay characters (or as other species, in the Dragon Age example...).
> 
> I'm really not seeing how your hobby is being "corrupted".



Of course you wouldn't see my hobby as being corrupted. Because you enjoy seeing politics you agree with being injected into what used to be art, and an escapist hobby.

When it comes to Mass Effect, the problems started with Andromeda. I don't remember much beef over the previous installments in the franchise.

Again, what most people are complaining about is the intent of the developers. This usually stems from comments made by the developers in articles or on social media.

Allowing people to play as a gay character or person of color or a woman ("straight-white" *vomits* or otherwise) because they feel it would add to the immersion of the experience, is TOTALLY different than enforcing a progressive agenda.

I have a doctor's appointment I need to go to for this sickness that seemingly won't go away. I'll leave you with this video.

[video=youtube;QPFMTb0l6Mg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPFMTb0l6Mg[/video]

You don't have to watch it. The guy with the neckbeard is one of the few commentators I watch. He's starting a site for video game journalism that has the primary goal of being apolitical. To review games on all of their other merits, and give users a score that is based on how fun the game is, how functional the game is, etc., rather than on how progressive it is.

That's at the end of the video. The rest of the video is explaining one of the reasons why Battlefield V may have "gone woke", and he sources another video that talks about the influence of games journalists, and another video about revisionism.


----------



## luckyscars

Guard Dog said:


> It's actually about "Sensitivity Readers", and if they are needed or not.
> 
> 
> Are you aware of THAT?
> 
> 
> The post of mine you quoted you apparently didn't bother to actually READ, since I said I HAD ANOTHER THOUGHT ON THE SUBJECT.
> 
> 
> One that was related to a side of what has been discussed, but may not have been considered in all that has been presented here, both ON and OFF topic.
> 
> 
> Got it now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.D.




You had another thought on the subject of sensitivity readers that had nothing to do with sensitivity readers and was simultaneously both on and off topic.

 Got it. Say no more. 






Bayview said:


> But how do these things wreck the game for you? You don't really care about race, so it's not a big deal to you if characters are black or white, so it doesn't matter if they're black. Right?
> 
> 
> And surely you could just ignore the commentary from the game developers? Like, if you're offended by what someone says, you don't have to be a snowflake and cry for a safe space... you can just ignore it and go about your business.
> 
> 
> I just finished a playthrough of the Mass Effect games from Bioware, a games company that has been criticized by some for pushing "progressive" agendas in their game. My character (this time through) was a straight white woman, and there were no aspects of the game that were closed to me because I wasn't playing a character of colour or a gay character. I've also played their Dragon Age series a couple times, and when I played a straight white male character there were no issues. It didn't affect my game play at all to know that other people might be playing as non-white characters or gay characters (or as other species, in the Dragon Age example...).
> 
> 
> I'm really not seeing how your hobby is being "corrupted".




I don't agree with him whatsoever, but I can see an argument that in a context where you want some illusion of historical authenticity employing black characters in place of white ones might be a distraction much like if you saw a plane flying through the sky in the background of Braveheart.


I think it is a real stretch (and probably B.S) to act like these things can actually ruin an experience, especially when it comes to something as arbitrary as skin color. I mean, it's a video game, it's obviously not *real* even if its portraying *real*. There are a million aspects to war-themed video games that are necessarily unrealistic - for one thing you don't actually die when somebody shoots you. Do you complain about _those _inaccuracies. Fixating on something as harmless as whether a character is black screams of selective outrage and looking for issues where there do not need to be any.

Which is ironically exactly what "the left" is accused of doing.


----------



## Smith

luckyscars said:


> I don't agree with him whatsoever, but I can see an argument that in a context where you want some illusion of historical authenticity employing black characters in place of white ones might be a distraction much like if you saw a plane flying through the sky in the background of Braveheart.
> 
> 
> I think it is a real stretch (and probably B.S) to act like these things can actually ruin an experience, especially when it comes to something as arbitrary as skin color. I mean, it's a video game, it's obviously not *real*. There are a million aspects to war-themed video games that are unrealistic - for one thing you don't actually die when somebody shoots you. Do you complain about _those _inaccuracies? No. So fixating on something as harmless as whether a character is black screams of selective outrage.
> 
> Which makes you wonder...



You're close. The negative impact on immersion leads me to the actual problem, which is that it's the result of progressive politics coercing its way into the industry.

That's what I have a problem with.

So in other words, there are plenty of games where I don't have a problem playing as a woman (Assassin's Creed, Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction, Bayonetta), or as a black man (Rust, NFL, NBA...), or as a Native American (Assassin's Creed), or as an Arab (Assassin's Creed again).

I can list many more examples later but I need to go for now, wrote this in a hurry.


----------



## Squalid Glass

Smith, for once I agree with you, but probably for different reasons than you have. Battlefield is a terrible example in this discussion because the game is doing exactly the opposite of what proper representation is supposed to do. Battlefield’s inclusionary changes scream of appeasement and tokenism, which is not the mission of progressive ideology. Luckyscars example of airplanes in Braveheart is appropriate here. Also, EA is a garbage company that has never cared about their patrons, so I’m not sure what you expected.

A game or a novel or whatever that strives for realism but then drops in social justice fan service is doing both the game and social justice a disservice. But that is different than a game or a movie or a book trying to be inclusive while also bolstering its story. 

I have heard this argument so many times that progressive sjw’s Are ruining movies and games and all forms of entertainment. I hear it all the time about the NFL, and it’s a frustrating conversation for me as I was a player and am now a coach, so football means a lot to me. The video game argument is big too because video games mean a lot to me, and in the context I just discussed, I see your criticism. The immersion can be ruined. I had that feeling with The Last Jedi. There were parts of that movie where even the biggest liberal bones in my body just felt awkward and frustrated because it was so obvious what they were doing. But that was because it was forced. Now, on the flip side, there were a lot of people screaming for a female Link or playable Zelda in Breath of the Wild. Would that have ruined the game? No. But would it have been an act of inclusion? Yes. So it comes down to execution, more than anything.

And I think that’s where a good sensitivity reader can come in and help. A sensitivity reader would know the difference between authenticity and appeasement. They would be able to help mold a character or situation into something more believable without sacrificing the story itself.


----------



## Kevin

Bayview said:


> I think the distinction is that some differences are inherent, while others are societal. If you're dumber than me, that's unfortunate, but it's inherent to you and it probably means you wouldn't be as good at some jobs as I am, so it would make sense that people hiring for those jobs (or choosing people for education) would choose me over you. I have an inherent quality that makes me better suited for the position than you do. if there were "brain-glasses" or some other tool that would allow you to behave in a more intelligent way, I'd say you should have access to them and not be penalized for using them, but as there are no brain-glasses? We're kind of out of luck.
> 
> But skin colour or gender or sexual orientation or whatever? They aren't inherent, and they don't make people better or worse for most jobs or educational opportunities. And there have been countless studies that show there are irrational societal prejudices against members of certain groups. So taking steps to counteract those prejudices seems like a reasonable approach, to me.


 You're talking about merit. Okay, meaning who is better for the job. Using certain criteria owners or whoever decide who is more suitable because they think they'll do a better job. "An inherent quality that makes me better". Still with ya. 

"... skin color,  gender, or sexual orientation...are not inherent." So you're not born that way? Those are due to environmental factors? O-kay... 
And " ..don't make people better." Hmm. So then why factor those into the hiring equation? You do realize that there is a detrimental effect towards those you are not giving extra consideration to, that has nothing to do with objective merit?

"Countless studies..."  Hmm, just for now, let's say that's true. Why would you want to blanket penalize a selective group of people because of some irrational whatever? Are you saying that all of them have this irrational prejudice? A percentage? Seems rather unfair. And I suppose that only certain groups have irrational prejudices.? Would that be... Pay-pul that tawk funny from certain southern states, or is it the whole Western World  of whities, minus Scandanavia? I swear I can almost hear a fizzling noise.

See, when you get down to it were all individuals, and some of us don't actually feel guilty for being born a certain color, while at the same time we don't particularly dislike any certain color.  That would arbitrary and silly, sort of irrational. We do however, kinda get resentful when others pre-judge us, treat us in an arbitrary manner, without our consent, and tell us it's a good thing. Hence my over-the-top post, but, I mean if you're really committed...
 Anyway about this prejudging/ discrimination thing that you're for,  it sort of rubs you wrong, I mean us wrong. Especially when you treat our kids that way lessening or denying them opportunity because of some... agenda.


----------



## Bayview

luckyscars said:


> I don't agree with him whatsoever, but I can see an argument that in a context where you want some illusion of historical authenticity employing black characters in place of white ones might be a distraction much like if you saw a plane flying through the sky in the background of Braveheart.



I can see the historical immersion argument, too, I just can't see it coming from someone who loudly proclaims that "race doesn't matter".

Like, if we accept the premise that:

*It is reasonable and good to object to a video game that does not accurately represent the races of the people involved in the event being depicted,
*
Then I think we should also accept the premise that:

*It is reasonable and good to object to other media that does not accurately represent the races of the people involved in the event being depicted.*

Right? And straight white men are a significant minority in US culture, so in the interests of accurate representation, they should be a significant minority of characters in most media.

Or, if race REALLY doesn't matter, then it shouldn't matter for this video game.


----------



## Bayview

Kevin said:


> "... skin color,  gender, or sexual orientation...are not inherent." So you're not born that way? Those are due to environmental factors? O-kay...



Yeah, I said that wrong. Sorry for any confusion.

I meant they're not inherently linked to the ability to do the job. 



> Why would you want to blanket penalize a selective group of people because of some irrational whatever?



This seems like a fundamental difference in the way we're seeing things. I don't see affirmative action as being designed to _penalize_ people. I see it as an attempt to address an inequality. And, as someone who finds John Scalzi's "lowest difficulty setting" interpretation compelling (see https://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/), I'd say that people from groups that are often discriminated against have already been fighting an uphill battle just to get to the place where they're in competition for the job or educational opportunity, so to suddenly say "we're going to hire based only on performance, starting _now_," is not a good way to determine actual inherent merit.

Like, if you're running a race against someone, you could both get into the starting blocks at the same time and maybe you'd cross the finish line a hair ahead. But if that other person already ran a marathon that day just to get to the place where your race is being held, can you really call yourself the better runner?



> See, when you get down to it were all individuals, and some of us don't actually feel guilty for being born a certain color, while at the same time we don't particularly dislike any certain color.



I don't think guilt comes into it. I guess this ties into your perception that people are being punished? If someone accepts punishment, that must mean they think they're guilty. But if the other person doesn't see it as a punishment, then the guilt element doesn't really come into play.

I am white, straight, able-bodied, intelligent, born into an upper-middle-class family in a safe and secure country, and I a_bsolutely _believe that these factors have made my life dramatically easier than the lives of most other humans. I don't feel guilty about this any more than I feel proud of it. I got lucky. That's all. But I would feel guilty, I hope, if I tried to pretend that my (relatively) easy life is somehow something that I've earned, or that is due to me. If there are programs to give other people some breaks later in their lives? As a way to at least try to make up for all the breaks they _didn't_ get earlier, when I got mine? That seems fair, to me. I'd feel guilty if I tried to object to it.


----------



## sigmadog




----------



## Smith

Squalid Glass said:


> Smith, for once I agree with you, but probably for different reasons than you have. Battlefield is a terrible example in this discussion because the game is doing exactly the opposite of what proper representation is supposed to do. Battlefield’s inclusionary changes scream of appeasement and tokenism, which is not the mission of progressive ideology. Luckyscars example of airplanes in Braveheart is appropriate here. Also, EA is a garbage company that has never cared about their patrons, so I’m not sure what you expected.
> 
> A game or a novel or whatever that strives for realism but then drops in social justice fan service is doing both the game and social justice a disservice. But that is different than a game or a movie or a book trying to be inclusive while also bolstering its story.
> 
> I have heard this argument so many times that progressive sjw’s Are ruining movies and games and all forms of entertainment. I hear it all the time about the NFL, and it’s a frustrating conversation for me as I was a player and am now a coach, so football means a lot to me. The video game argument is big too because video games mean a lot to me, and in the context I just discussed, I see your criticism. The immersion can be ruined. I had that feeling with The Last Jedi. There were parts of that movie where even the biggest liberal bones in my body just felt awkward and frustrated because it was so obvious what they were doing. But that was because it was forced. Now, on the flip side, there were a lot of people screaming for a female Link or playable Zelda in Breath of the Wild. Would that have ruined the game? No. But would it have been an act of inclusion? Yes. So it comes down to execution, more than anything.
> 
> And I think that’s where a good sensitivity reader can come in and help. A sensitivity reader would know the difference between authenticity and appeasement. They would be able to help mold a character or situation into something more believable without sacrificing the story itself.



I don't know if I'd agree with you about the female Link or playable Zelda because I'm not familiar with those games. But I can find some agreement with your general point, Squalid.

And believe me lol, I haven't expected any better out of EA for the past three years at least. I've hardly bought any games since Battlefield 4, and haven't bought sports games by them in nearly 10 years. Their recent foray into progressive politics is just one more thing to add to the list. Let's not forget loot boxes and pay-to-win and other predatory, fun ruining practices.

Here's the thing. Social justice / progressivism is what continues to make me see color, and I wouldn't see color if it went away. I'd go on treating everybody the same with no hesitation or suspicion. Once upon a time whenever there were females or blacks or gays in a movie, a video game, a book, I never worried that it was part of some grander political scheme that I detest with my entire body. Race doesn't matter to me. This is a principle that informs how I act in the world, how I view the world, my very fucking approach. Stop forcing me to care about race and let me be colorblind.

This is why I have to look at the intent and motivation on behalf of the creators. Because inclusion has otherwise been ruined for me except where I can tell it wasn't political activism. The splintered progressive agenda with their diverse array of movements all view me as the common denominator, the source of their problems. I've been put into a group and forced to identify with them unless I just want to sit back and not defend myself.

So they're coercing me to play a game that they concocted, and that I don't want to play. I fundamentally disagree with their entire worldview. I don't categorize people into monolithic collectives, I dislike people who appoint themselves as representatives of said monolithic collectives, I don't like the divide-and-conquer approach, I think affirmative action is a mistake, I think it's made a reprehensible error in fighting racism with counter-racism, it patronizes or demonizes designated majorities which isn't helpful to anybody, views minorities as inherent victims, it doesn't utilize multi-dimensional analysis-- I could go on.

Therefore, when "inclusion" is couched into all that, I am vehemently opposed.

A couple of my novels have female POV main characters. This "inclusion" has nothing to do with progressive politics. If it did, I'd sooner neck myself than ever write a story that supports something so foul.


----------



## Kevin

Bayview, I read the article( blog?) you included.  I can't say that I disagree with anything he said. 

I think perhaps I may have been projecting as far as the guilt thing. I don't feel any, except in general as a member of the human race, more bafflement and perhaps embarrassment for the actions of some of my... species.  The YouTube/podcast that I watched the other day was fresh in my mind though the attitude I have encountered many times. The intro / early part of this, her story states it pretty well:https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=8qoHlicw7aY.      


Anyway, enough of that. Thank you very much for your candor and your replies. It certainly was the highlight of an otherwise uneventful slow work day in the rain. I hope nothing I said in any way offended as that was not my intention, and again, thank you. I find it's much more interesting talking to someone you disagree with than... 'preaching to choir.' Perhaps we do agree on this?  Again, thank you. K


----------



## MzSnowleopard

Well, it took me some time to read through the comments since my last visit. As the original poster, I'm trilled to see so many take part in a subject I opened. I'm both a bit puzzled and dismayed, if not frustrated. It seems that some posters can't separate the issue from politics or social agenda. And that's disappointing. It wasn't my intention to broker a thread for reason of either.

That said- I'm going to do my best to return us to the original context. Through this thread, I can now understand and see the value of 'sensitivity readers'. As one poster said- I agree, this is most likely a bad phrase because it hit triggers with people. Perhaps 'Beta Specialist' would be a better title.

Yes, I do realize the joke on the title- literary BS'er LOL

Anyway, I'm not one for debates, which is the primary reason for my silence in the thread. That's not to say I'm intimidated, I believe that we all have our gifts in gab and debate is not one of mine.

Before I digress, let's return to the original focus on the topic- the value / uses of Sensitivity Readers. From what I've read in this thread there seems to be a consensus.

*The Point: Sensitivity readers have their value, their purpose. That is to help ensure, if not improve a writers presentation of certain aspects of society in their works.*

*What follows are examples that I've witnessed or experienced in representing the under-represented:*

Dan Brown is someone who could have used an SR when he was writing "The Da Vinci Code".

This is a well-known case of misrepresentation of a character type. In short, Dan Brown, nor apparently anyone involved in  from editing to production, did not do the proper research on albinos. The one in this book is depicted as having such good eye sight, he's able to make a profession of being an assassin. A sensitivity reader could have caught this and stopped the presses. Albinos are predisposed to bad eye sight. This is a fact known to those in the medical fields that deal in eye sight as well as Albinism.

I have know 2 people in my life with this condition, they brother and sister. Neither of them could function without severe prescription glasses.

Of course, this is a lot different than what happened with the Hunger Games. I did read the article and I can say I'm not surprised. It's not the first time this has happened either. Hollywood, and even one case of a publisher, have been known for this.

IMO- most people would be shocked at the high percentage of changes that occur between the submission of a script to actual film time. In some cases, it can be over 90 %. Even Michael Shanks has commented about this regarding the script he wrote for an episode of SG-1. He was on hand to watch the changes as they were made during production / filming.

In the case with the publisher, they made a grievous error that they didn't think was a big deal but felt the sting after publication. In this case, the book was done and approved for publication. It was the cover art that brought the controversy. The publisher chose a cover that depicted the hands of a white woman- despite the fact, and he was aware of this- the lead female character was BLACK!

Back to The Hunger Games, talent be damned, Hollywood folks are going to do what they want. Even if a white girl with blonde hair had auditioned, if they want to change the character to a black girl- they're going to do it. That's the nature of the beast, as they say.

There was similar controversy concerning Battlestar Galactica. In the original- both Starbuck and Boomer were men. Boomer was a black man. I mention this since race is a hot button.

In the revision both characters were changed. Starbuck was not only changed to a woman but a WHITE & Blonde woman. I mentioned this because these were the hot buttons for folks. And Boomer is portrayed by Grace Park who is of Korean heritage. One of the underrepresented races out of Hollywood.

The president was also portrayed by a woman, but even though it's not very common, it's becoming acceptable- in fiction roles.

The issues which spurred me when I first saw the snip in the Writer's Yearbook 2019 (bottom of page 7) are not so much political as they are personal.

I don't want to seem insensitive to the needs of others. However, it's my story, and these are just some of the issues that have been pushed onto me. Race being the first and gender choices being the second. I've been told- and these are direct quotes:

"Who's your gay character?"

"You need to change your lead character to be gay."

"Why are all of your characters white?" (they're not but that was this person's perception)

"You should make a prominent character that's bi-sexual."

"Why don't you have any serious or primary black characters?"

(I told the person "I do- perhaps you missed them because they don't behave like token characters." I feel right in this response, especially today with shows like Black Lightning. This show has very distinctly different types of blacks represented. The type that I'm familiar with- as in the Pierce family, and the type that seem to be the typical token characters- Tobias Church.)

The one that made me laugh

"The lead is female, straight, white, and popular- so stereo typical"

(My response was I'm female, straight and white- I write what I know.)

As far as the other character types go, I speak only for myself when I say "It's not that I'm not interested in portraying them, it's that I don't have enough knowledge and understanding of them to portray them.

A response to this - someone told me that I was short changing myself.

My response- Really? So tell me, where are the people who are like this in reality and why aren't THEY writing these stories?

I did a search on Amazon for these types of books. It's not that they're not represented it's that they're not MAIN STREAM. They're out there, we just don't see them promoted or stocked on the shelves along the likes of Brown, Clancy, Clark, Collins, Roth, & Rowling.

So my thoughts on this are - maybe, just maybe, instead of pushing on writers to change their concepts, publishers should be more accepting, more willing to give equal opportunity of publication to the under-represented.

After all, wouldn't it be better to read about M/M or F/F from a writer who actually is gay or a lesbian vs. one written by a writer who was pushed into changing her characters? IMO, it would be more realistic in this way.

And it would seem that my examples went back into the politics and social pressures of the times. 

This makes me wonder if there is  no way to separate the beasts.


----------



## Smith

If I comment on the above then this thread is going to go in circles, because I'd have to make the same objections for a third time.

I did agree with some of what was said, though.

Unless directly addressed, I'm out. I've made my case. This is about political ideology, not technical advisory.


----------



## Bayview

MzSnowleopard said:


> Back to The Hunger Games, talent be damned, Hollywood folks are going to do what they want. Even if a white girl with blonde hair had auditioned, if they want to change the character to a black girl- they're going to do it. That's the nature of the beast, as they say.



Point of clarification: Rue is described in the book as having "dark brown skin and eyes". She's never labelled as "black" or "African-American", as I assume those terms wouldn't make a lot of sense in the _Hunger Games _world, but she's pretty clearly black. The pushback was absurd, but a pretty good indication of how willing people are to read characters as white (and then to bitch extensively when other people read more accurately).


----------



## luckyscars

MzSnowleopard said:


> After all, wouldn't it be better to read about M/M or F/F from a writer who actually is gay or a lesbian vs. one written by a writer who was pushed into changing her characters? IMO, it would be more realistic in this way.



I think it would be better to read books by more capable writers than books by less capable writers.

While I agree a gay black woman will undoubtedly offer a better insight into the lived experience of being a gay black woman than a straight white man, it is a mistake to assume (as you apparently have here, whether consciously or not) that it would result in her producing better _writing._

It seems pretty obvious the way to do it is to make sure that alternative voices are frequently aired (which is not the same as green-lighting an author just because they are from a minority), history and sexuality is taught better, and that all people, including white people, are able to achieve a clear and accurate understanding of the experiences of protected classes. The end-goal being that any writer can articulately and accurately comprehend the life of any demographic, if not entirely then at least enough to write a story that seems authentic. 

The potential dilemma (and I guarantee the reason for 99.99% of the whining in this thread) is this weird, Fox News-led zeitgeist that there are a ton of less talented minority writers receiving preferential treatment over more talented white/straight counterparts. That's obviously not what equality is. It's also not reality. But that doesn't matter, because we white/straight folks can sure _imagine_ such a problem...and in 2019 imagining a problem is all you need.


----------



## Bayview

Smith said:


> Stop forcing me to care about race and let me be colorblind.



It's hard not to read this as "Stop challenging the status quo, even though the status quo is brutal and unfair to a lot of people. It works fine for _me_, so stop bugging me about it."

I hope that's not how you mean it, but it's really hard for me to see a different interpretation.


----------



## Smith

Bayview said:


> It's hard not to read this as "Stop challenging the status quo, even though the status quo is brutal and unfair to a lot of people. It works fine for _me_, so stop bugging me about it."
> 
> I hope that's not how you mean it, but it's really hard for me to see a different interpretation.



No. That's not how I mean it.

The most succinct way I can describe it is that we both see racism as a problem, but that's about where the similarities stop.

---

As an aside (or I guess "more on topic" considering I'm referring to the OP), I think Snow was talking about Katniss. I could be wrong, but she said "the main character was black", and Katniss is the main character... right?

I long since forgot about it, but I've been reminded of a debate that was raging about whether Katniss was supposed to be black or white. The descriptions Collins uses lean toward Caucasian but she never makes it nearly explicit enough to rule out that she was black or some other race.

*EDIT: Nevermind, I did misread her post.*


----------



## Bayview

Smith said:


> No. That's not how I mean it.
> 
> The most succinct way I can describe it is that we both see racism as a problem, but that's about where the similarities stop.



So you see the ideal solution to racism to be for _everyone_ to stop seeing colour? Is that where this is coming from?

I think that might be fine - I mean, there would be subtleties to it... I wouldn't want to lose the cultural diversity that comes from people celebrating their various backgrounds, but i certainly think it would be lovely if we could all stop worrying about it and fighting about it and seeing people suffer and kill over it.

But I don't think the way to reach that Utopia is to just close our eyes and pretend really hard that we're already there. Does that make sense? Like, it would be great if there were no racists--if that were the case, we could absolutely stop talking about racism, except in history class. But if racists still exist, and non-racists stop talking about them, then we're not addressing the issue.

If person A is racist and is persecuting person B, and person B says, holy shit, guys, I need some help dealing with this, and person C says, oh, sorry, buddy, I don't see race, I can't even tell if you guys _are _different races, let's not talk about this anymore... that's not really helping the situation. Person A is still racist and person B is still being persecuted.

So, I, too, would love to stop talking about racism and sexism and homophobia and all the rest of it. I think we're all pretty damn tired of it all. But...?


----------



## MzSnowleopard

Post # 169




luckyscars said:


> I think it would be better to read books by more capable writers than books by less capable writers.
> 
> While I agree a gay black woman will undoubtedly offer a better insight into the lived experience of being a gay black woman than a straight white man, it is a mistake to assume (as you apparently have here, whether consciously or not) that it would result in her producing better _writing._


 
I agree with your comment about reading books from better writers however…

You follow that with a major assumption on your part. I think it's a mistake to assume that the gay black woman is not capable of writing her story and the male writer is. 

Don't underestimate anyone because you think someone else- this male writer you mentioned would be better at writing the story. For all you know, that gay black woman is a batter writer than the man.


----------



## luckyscars

MzSnowleopard said:


> Post # 169
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with your comment about reading books from better writers however…
> 
> You follow that with a major assumption on your part. I think it's a mistake to assume that the gay black woman is not capable of writing her story and the male writer is.
> 
> Don't underestimate anyone because you think someone else- this male writer you mentioned would be better at writing the story. For all you know, that gay black woman is a batter writer than the man.



Um, you're going to have to point that out to me because I don't believe I did. Suggesting a possibility is not making an assumption, it is the opposite.

You were the one who stated your belief that gay people are better equipped to write stories about gay people. My only response was that _may not _be true in many cases. 

I recently read one of Bayviews stories about some gay dudes. Lots of gay love and gay sex. While I am sure some gay dude writers could write better gay-dude love stories than she did, I think her depiction of gay dudeness was pretty convincing & I bet lots of gay dudes would agree. So that's one example right there of a writer infiltrating a world outside their demographic and doing so well/better than some actual gay dudes might be able to. Because writing is a _craft._

Similarly I write a lot of stories from the point of view of a woman despite being a man. I enjoy it, it's challenging. I guess a lot of women could "write women" better than me. But I also bet I can "write women" better than a lot of women. Doesn't mean I really know what it is like to be a woman, obviously...

I mean, _some_ lesbians are going to be terrible writers, regardless of whether they are writing about dildos, dodos or dingoes, right? So assuming writing ability (or lack of) on the basis of genetic identity alone is obviously silly, isn't it?


----------



## Dluuni

I recall a discussion once by a nonbinary author who wrote a book with a nonbinary major character in it who was picked up by a publisher - the editor proceeded to refuse to allow them use "They/them/themself" pronouns for their character because insert standard Christian transphobic rant here.

That was the day I stopped even considering how to pitch books to publishers and focused on ebook marketing. I have already had to fight with employers over idiocy before, and I don't want to have to worry about a publisher holding me hostage because their church doesn't like me, which is a normal thing. The chilling effect of this kind of thing is incredibly strong.


----------



## Phil Istine

I'm in the fortunate position of having friends from a wide variety of backgrounds who would be happy to read through a story of mine and offer comments for me to take on board (or not) and all they would want is a free copy of the finished article (I would give that anyway).
I'm not a great one for labels so would probably think of them as beta readers who were paying particular attention to specific aspects.

During my life I have been in several subcultures who are often wrongly portrayed in media, and it's refreshing when I read something that's spot on.  Even if that wasn't my exact experience, I know when it smells real because I've lived it.  However, none of those subcultures were about accidents of birth.

For instance, how many people who've never slept rough could write about hearing water dripping from the gutters in the dead of night and mistaking them for footsteps due to the mind being addled by fitful sleep?  If I were to read something like that, I could be pretty sure that the writer had lived it or at least discussed it in detail with someone who had.

Or who could write about that brief erection that occurs for a few seconds after a fix of methadone or heroin?  It's not something I've ever read, but that was my experience.  I don't know if female users have an equivalent experience.

Or how about my transgender friend who eventually had surgery to make her genitalia female?  She behaved appallingly for quite a while.  It was the hormone treatment messing with her reactions and although she felt liberated at her genitalia change, she absolutely hated those awful mood swings until they started settling down.  

To me it's not just about sensitivity, it can also be about fleshing out those little details that bring the writing to life and make it real.


----------



## Smith

Bayview said:


> So you see the ideal solution to racism to be for _everyone_ to stop seeing colour? Is that where this is coming from?
> 
> I think that might be fine - I mean, there would be subtleties to it... I wouldn't want to lose the cultural diversity that comes from people celebrating their various backgrounds, but i certainly think it would be lovely if we could all stop worrying about it and fighting about it and seeing people suffer and kill over it.
> 
> But I don't think the way to reach that Utopia is to just close our eyes and pretend really hard that we're already there. Does that make sense? Like, it would be great if there were no racists--if that were the case, we could absolutely stop talking about racism, except in history class. But if racists still exist, and non-racists stop talking about them, then we're not addressing the issue.
> 
> If person A is racist and is persecuting person B, and person B says, holy shit, guys, I need some help dealing with this, and person C says, oh, sorry, buddy, I don't see race, I can't even tell if you guys _are _different races, let's not talk about this anymore... that's not really helping the situation. Person A is still racist and person B is still being persecuted.
> 
> So, I, too, would love to stop talking about racism and sexism and homophobia and all the rest of it. I think we're all pretty damn tired of it all. But...?



Yes, because I see the problem of racism being between racists and non-racists, not counter-racists. I don't support counter-racists, or their Harrison Bergeron logic.

If person A is racist and is demonstrably persecuting person B, I'll help person B. That would actually be a specific and falsifiable scenario that I can lend my support to. We *already* have laws in place, which means this is an offense person A can be prosecuted for. Whether or not you and I would agree on_ how_ to help person B is a different matter, and it may be that I will disagree with your method of "helping" and *then* be caught in the middle. Which, from my understanding, is exactly the state of our long-standing disagreement.

Like I said. I don't like races and genders and sexes being co-opted by some sinister, bullshit ideology, which forces me to be skeptical of their appearances when I once did not. I also don't appreciate the narrative that these groups are a part of, because of the way they're led to view me. They approach me as some propagator of oppression and injustice and I'm arbitrarily thrown into their bizarre derogatory "WASP" category. In other words, their flawed agenda makes them antagonistic towards me for no good reason, and that forces me to play their game.

Maybe you can also start to see why I don't support people who want to see more of "x race" or "x whatever" in literature. I think they're making a fundamentally racist mistake. If you're not going to get beyond race and instead insist on fighting racism with racism, you will never, ever, get rid of racism. I can promise you.


----------



## Squalid Glass

Smith, you’re going to hate this and disagree with this and that’s fine, but the solution to your frustration is liberal policy. You hate identity politics. I get it. But identity politics were started by racists who wanted to perpetuate white supremacy. Liberal ideology is a response to the things that created inequality. Progressive ideology is so focused on race and sexuality and whatever because, for a lot of people, those things have been used to place them in a disadvantaged state. If you want to get rid of all the identity politics, then the solution is to adapt liberal policies that tear down the systems put in place that created identity politics in the first place.

You don’t have to respond to that because I know you disagree, and I’m not trying to rekindle this debate. I just find it ironic.


----------



## Smith

Squalid Glass said:


> Smith, you’re going to hate this and disagree with this and that’s fine, but the solution to your frustration is liberal policy. You hate identity politics. I get it. But identity politics were started by racists who wanted to perpetuate white supremacy. Liberal ideology is a response to the things that created inequality. Progressive ideology is so focused on race and sexuality and whatever because, for a lot of people, those things have been used to place them in a disadvantaged state. If you want to get rid of all the identity politics, then the solution is to adapt liberal policies that tear down the systems put in place that created identity politics in the first place.
> 
> You don’t have to respond to that because I know you disagree, and I’m not trying to rekindle this debate. I just find it ironic.



I'm going to briefly address - what I'll generously assume was unintentional, poor wording - tracing back the very concept of identity politics to white people, because that's false. It's literally a facet of human nature that knows no skin color, genitals, or religion. I believe it's true name is in-group/out-group preference. To say it was manufactured by white people is preposterous and self-perpetuatingly, ironically identitarian, and completely ignorant of history and human psychology.

But you are observant. Correct: I disagree because I can't get behind what I encapsulate (for sake of simplicity and brevity) as "Harrison Bergeron" problem-solving.

There's no better way to disadvantage somebody than by honeydicking them, and instilling a victim mentality. Because believe me, these benevolent politicians and political activists would be lost if they made themselves obsolete. If your source of power and money comes from the votes of your constituency whom you give hand-outs, it's in your best interest to not teach the man to fish.

Democrats haven't changed since they called themselves the Confederacy. Rural plantation or urban plantation, it's all the same. Only the methods are different.


----------



## Squalid Glass

Like I said, I knew you’d disagree. No worries though. Perhaps one day we’ll find some more common ground.


----------



## Smith

Squalid Glass said:


> Like I said, I knew you’d disagree. No worries though. Perhaps one day we’ll find some more common ground.



Probably starting with how shitty EA is.


----------



## MzSnowleopard

*Luykcyscars *

In post # 169 you said this:



> I think it would be better to read books by more capable writers than books by less capable writers.


 
This is something I think we can all agree on. No one wants to read a book by someone with substandard writing skills or lack of talent.

*Side Bar:* 1 Race, gender, and gender preference have nothing to do with a writer's skills and talents in writing.

2 Let's be clear about this, the demographics we're using are examples. we could be talking about any lifestyle: BDSM, gays, lesbians, Christians, etc.

Moving on- What's really being shared is not so much assumptions but opinions, and they're opinions that oppose each other.



> While I agree a gay black woman will undoubtedly offer a better insight into the lived experience of being a gay black woman than a straight white man, *it is a mistake to assume (as you apparently have here, whether consciously or not) that it would result in her producing better writing.*


 
This is your opinion / assumption and it's neither right nor wrong. However, I think that it is a mistake to assume that the white straight man would necessarily produce a better story than a lesbian black woman on a piece about what she identifies with.



> You were the one who stated your belief that gay people are better equipped to write stories about gay people. My only response was that _may not _be true in many cases.


 
Again, this is your opinion, to which I ask- who better to understand a lifestyle than a writer who lives it? 

The point that I'm trying to make here is - not that writers outside the demographics can't do the job- but that the writer who IS the demographics has a better understanding and wherewithal when it comes to writing the story.



> writer infiltrating a world outside their demographic and doing so well/better


 
If a writer can pull it off. I think that's great. It shows that the writer has an understanding of the lifestyle / the people. It's my perspective however, that a writer who is part of a specific lifestyle, would do a better job at depicting. 

To my point, I did not say a writer outside the lifestyle _cannot_ write about it. This is about who can do the better job. I'm of the belief that, while others have done so, it's the writer within the lifestyle or demographics that can do a better, as in a more authentic, job. 

You have your opinion, I have mine. Neither is right, neither is wrong- they are opinions and they / we disagree.


----------



## Squalid Glass

Smith said:


> Probably starting with how shitty EA is.



This might be the best post I've seen in this entire thread.


----------



## MzSnowleopard

Reference Post # 1 

I would have to say that I have indeed gotten what I wanted. Others have come to share their opinions and definitions of the term "Sensitivity Reader'. However, it's only been a few.

I think there's a consensus on what a 'sensitivity reader' is and what it isn't.

They are a beta reader with a specific intent- to help a writer be clear on aspect the writer he or she is not personally connected to.

Example- a writer who does not fit a specific demographic and wants to write a character that fits it, should consult / work with someone who does falls within that demographic.

They're task is to review a piece (novel) to ensure that what a specific demographic is accurately portrayed. 

Example- properly presenting a character that is Albino was differences in both physical appearance (hair & skin ) as well as eyes and challenges with seeing.

We all agree that the title is a trigger. I, personally like the term Beta Specialist but that's just me.

I would love for more folks to ring in on this topic.


----------



## Phil Istine

Squalid Glass said:


> This might be the best post I've seen in this entire thread.



I might agree if I knew what EA was.


----------



## Guard Dog

Phil... 'Electronic Arts', I believe. They make video games.



G.D.


----------



## Ultraroel

EA is the developer of BF5 together with Dice. BF5 got a lot of criticism that it messed with history, had women fighting in the wars etc.. Instead of addressing these concerns, the EA/Dice spokesman said:

"If you don't like it, don't buy it" Consequently lots of people didn't buy the game and it almost flopped cause they offended their own target market this way..

Kind of what you see happening all over the internet right now with the new Gilette commercial..


----------



## Guard Dog

Ultraroel said:


> Kind of what you see happening all over the internet right now with the new Gilette commercial..



Hadn't seen that one...

So, there's an attempt to go from '_Sell it with sex_' to '_Sell it with politics_'?

Hmm... Might work on some, but I suspect it won't have any effect on the ones that are the real problem, or the ones like me who don't let advertising make their choices for 'em.

Then again, given how woolly my face'll be by the time winter's over, I'll have to shave with my 100 year-old straight razor the first time I cut it all off, so...
( I call that the 'Slash and burn method', by the way. And it's not for the weak or timid. Or anyone bothered by the sight of blood. )
( Especially their own. )


G.D.


----------



## epimetheus

Guard Dog said:


> So, there's an attempt to go from '_Sell it with sex_' to '_Sell it with politics_'?



Exactly this. A lot of 'PC gone mad' stuff is actually just the free market trying to expand a market share in certain demographics. Whether it's worth it assuming they take a hit with traditional customers will be worked out to the penny. Nike's sales rose on the back of supporting Kaepernick. Whether this is good or bad probably depends on your opinion on free market capitalism. But don't think for a minute any of these companies actually give a shit about these issues.

I'm sure the big publishers are making the same calculations based on their market research. 

*****

Did someone mention Star Wars somewhere? You should all know that's my trigger word. The latest films have been criticised for being shit because they are too SJW. This misses the point entirely, the over the top SJW is just one small turd in a steaming pile of infected diarrhoea.


----------



## Squalid Glass

I mentioned Star Wars. I’ve actually enjoyed the new movies. I just think there have been things that were done for social justice as opposed to story, and I don’t think that’s the right approach.


----------



## Guard Dog

epimetheus said:


> Did someone mention Star Wars somewhere? You should all know that's my trigger word. The latest films have been criticised for being shit because they are too SJW. This misses the point entirely, the over the top SJW is just one small turd in a steaming pile of infected diarrhoea.



Disney's already feelin' the burn from that crap, in how well the last few movies _haven't_ done.

And along those lines, I'm waiting to see how, badly Guardians of the galaxy 3 tanks, if it ever gets made at all, after that whole James Gunn fiasco.

( Btw... It took me 3 or 4 tries to get through _Rogue One_, and I tried a few nights ago to watch _Solo_. Made it through about 20 minutes of that one before I gave up. And I cancelled Netflix. )



G.D.


----------



## Kevin

Gillette- The claim by the critics is that it needs a sensitivity reader , an actual male to go through it to pick out the subtle misogyny , I mean the uhm... is there even a word for it? Man hating? 

I read the critisism. "Attack on males, switch women for men and you'd see the uproar..." and then I watched it a day later. The images are only offensive if you're easily offended. I know this wouldn't fly as an answer to the other side, but on this side it does. For instance, they show a line of men watching two kids wrestling and they do nothing but say boys will be boys. There are several inferences in that that are totally sexist but for some odd reason I'm not bothered.

Before I go on I would like to say that there are many people who are easilly influenced- followers- or sheep- knee-jerkers that tend to spout off and follow the group consensus without any critical process. That bothers me. 

In my opinion the kids are not playing,as the critique claims,  but are actually fighting. Having been to many such functions ( a backyard barbque with lots of dads there) this would never happen. The dads would break them up immediately. 

So I hope no young impressionable hermits or others,  perhaps those living in a supposed all-female,  man-hating lesbian utopia  with no actual contact or knowledge of typical 'dad' behavior , would not take this commercial image as truth,  but as merely trying to get a point across, basically that men should try not to be uncaring meathead/ louts.  That's how I took it. 

It's inaccurate, that specific image , but it's meant to show an attitude that is actually not a majority-held attitude, at least not in the society in which I grew up and lived, though perhaps men are more mean and nasty now than they were back in my day. My son is 22.


----------



## Kyle R

Ultraroel said:


> This is why I refuse to think of cultural sensitivities.. cause in fact it's saying that soemthing is ONLY yours, and therefore others can't have it. Isn't that the most backwarded and childish thing ever?
> 
> That's all I'm gonna say, cause hiring a "sensitivity writer" is facilitating this backward state of mind.



That's not what a (good) Sensitivity Reader does, though.

It's not so much, "Our culture only! Hands off!", but rather: "_If_ you're going to write about this race/culture/sexual identity—at least consult us first, so you can do it properly."


----------



## Smith

Kyle R said:


> That's not what a (good) Sensitivity Reader does, though.
> 
> It's not so much, "Our culture only! Hands off!", but rather: "_If_ you're going to write about this race/culture/sexual identity—at least consult us first, so you can do it properly."



I'd like to believe you, but the trouble I'm running into is the article you linked earlier in the thread.

Aside from that, I can't see how this has anything to do with being a technical adviser and being factual, because if it did, this entire "occupation" would be redundant.


----------



## PiP

*Admin Note:

The thread has now become personal and wandered way off topic. A number of recent off topic posts will have been removed so the thread can continue. Please don't force me to close this thread. Come on ...

Please remember the OP*



MzSnowleopard said:


> I read this term for the first time today in WD's Writer's Yearbook 2019. The blurb is at the bottom of page 7. _The #MeToo Reckoning._
> 
> Apparently it's spurred on by racism and insensitivity in YA and Romance novels, the blurb called them 'hot buttons'.
> 
> I'd like to hear more about this, in greater detail.


----------



## Kyle R

Smith said:


> ... I can't see how this has anything to do with being a technical adviser and being factual, because if it did, this entire "occupation" would be redundant.



I view it more as a specialized kind of editing. Just like how copy editors and content editors fulfill different roles, but still fall under the umbrella title of "editor".

I also expect that, if the position continues to thrive, it'll evolve over the next few years to be called something closer to _Diversity Editor_ (or something along those lines). But only time will tell.


----------



## luckyscars

Let's look at it a little differently...

What if we consider that the only realistic alternative to utilizing sensitivity readers may be work simply being unpublished?

There have always been sensitivity readers. They are called "readers". They are the people who read through slush piles at agents and publishing houses and weed out stuff deemed unfitting to *their audience*. Just like sensitivity readers, they applied a set of values to work _including how it might impact the target readership's sensitivities._

They then toss the stuff that does not meet those values in the trash.

It has been said myriad times on this post that sensitivity readers are there to offer a qualified view on how work would likely be perceived by certain demographic groups. I think that's probably the only smart way to look at it, the only way that does not hinge on one's political biases. You can think of it as a liberal conspiracy if you want, but one thing we can all agree on (I think) is that it exists to ensure published work pleases its core audience.

And...that's nothing different than what a fusty old literary agent or publishing editor does or ever did. The ONLY difference is the specialization - the use of the term "sensitivity" and the notion that some people might actually do it with a particular expertise...

*So is it the concept or the execution that you object to?*

 Is it the concept, the idea of "sensitivity" being important to providing a high-quality product, or is it the way it manifests as somebody being on somebody's payroll with a responsibility for ensuring it? 

If its the concept, that's obviously plain dumb, for the reasons stated above - it already exists. It already is important. There has always been a sensitivity reader (lower case) even if there has not always been a Sensitivity Reader (upper case).

If it's the execution, of having this extra layer between you and imagined stardom, an additional set of eyes that holds qualifications (albeit ones you might not personally value...) and potentially having _that guy_ be the one to tell you your work's no good as opposed to an agent or a publisher or, heck, a reader itself if you're lucky (or unlucky) enough to see your work sneak through without being flagged...if that is what sticks in your craw I guess that's fair enough. You can be mad about it.

However to frame it as being some newfangled priority, a product of a new world order, is plain wrong. Sensitivity has _always_ been a priority. Try going back a few hundred years and see how your typical horror or sci-fi manuscript fares in a society where blasphemy and unmarried sex was still a major offence. Spoiler: Victorians were real snowflakes.


----------



## Kevin

'Sensitivity- ' ithe title smacks of appeasement. It is specifically selected to appease. It is bias formalized- the political officer. You may see at it as you wish.


----------



## luckyscars

Kevin said:


> 'Sensitivity- ' ithe title smacks of appeasement. It is specifically selected to appease. It is bias formalized- the political officer. You may see at it as you wish.



Appease - verb - "Acceding to demands"

Don't you think appeasement is sort of unavoidable in professional writing? 

I get not wanting to compromise on certain things. Some stuff is sacred. Otherwise it's no longer your story. Totally understandable. 

But most stuff isn't really that sacred, is it? Not if we are talking writing on a professional level. It can't be.

The whole "smacks of appeasement" thing sounds good as a principle in a forum discussion...but are you honestly saying that if an agent or publisher or whoever it is whose approval or support you wanted told you that you _had_ to change an aspect of your story for it to sell that you would not at least _consider_ making the changes? 

Because that's all this is about.


----------



## luckyscars

MzSnowleopard said:


> This is your opinion / assumption and it's neither right nor wrong. However, I think that it is a mistake to assume that the white straight man would necessarily produce a better story than a lesbian black woman on a piece about what she identifies with.



It's not an opinion, certainly not an assumption. It's a suggestion. Big difference.


----------



## Kevin

luckyscars said:


> Appease - verb - "Acceding to demands"
> 
> Don't you think appeasement is sort of unavoidable in professional writing?
> 
> I get not wanting to compromise on certain things. Some stuff is sacred. Otherwise it's no longer your story. Totally understandable.
> 
> But most stuff isn't really that sacred, is it? Not if we are talking writing on a professional level. It can't be.
> 
> The whole "smacks of appeasement" thing sounds good as a principle in a forum discussion...but are you honestly saying that if an agent or publisher or whoever it is whose approval or support you wanted told you that you _had_ to change an aspect of your story for it to sell that you would not at least _consider_ making the changes?
> 
> Because that's all this is about.


Okay, I'll do it- as long as I don't have to sleep with Harvey Weinstein.


----------



## Terry D

Personally, I feel blessed to be living through a time when so may minorities, ethnic, racial, LGBTQ, women, and others are finding their voices. When talking about long-held, culturally ingrained, wrong-headed attitudes and biases sometimes the only effective reaction is over-reaction. I detest labels. Labels limit people to being just one thing; a leftist, a conservative, a WASP, an African American, a white nationalist, a progressive, a reactionary, and all the other labels we give ourselves and others. The world would be far better off if we could talk about the congresswoman from Michigan rather than 'the first Muslim woman' elected to congress. Labels serve only to accentuate our differences. But that's not how we tend to think, is it? Our brain is wired to accept stereotypes, and seems especially predisposed to negative ones according to recent research. https://www.theguardian.com/science...ed-to-negative-stereotypes-new-study-suggests

Combine that sort of biology with centuries of cultural pre-programming (the dominance of white, Anglo-Saxon males) and you end up with a very strong foundation for all the 'isims,' racism, sexism, etc. And, like any solid foundation, it's not going to be broken down and rebuilt with good intentions. It takes hammers, pry-bars, and maybe a bulldozer. And it sure isn't going to change if all we do is ignore it. Everyone has their sensitivities. Some people are, apparently, sensitive about people being sensitive. 

Words lose their impact if they are over-used, they also tend to lose their meaning and become imbued with connotations they do not intrinsically have. That's happened in this thread with the phrase, 'Sensitivity Reader.' In the space of a couple days it has gone, in some people's eyes, from being the name of a tool to some sort of political movement. Sure, some people will use any tool to advance their own agenda. The link Kyle posted is a good example of that. That doesn't make the tool itself bad.


----------



## MzSnowleopard

I'm thinking that this 'title' should be re-branded. Instead of calling it 'Sensitivity Reader' which is clearly a trigger word. It makes people step back and think "SJW", censorship, PC, etc. 

I'm just making suggestions here with 'Beta Reader - Specialist" and tag it with words like content, context, y'all get the idea. 

Keep it in the spirit of the tasks involved but move away from the trigger words.


----------



## Kevin

I think they should keep it the way it is. That way if people want to know what it is they can look it up.


----------



## Jack of all trades

MzSnowleopard said:


> I'm thinking that this 'title' should be re-branded. Instead of calling it 'Sensitivity Reader' which is clearly a trigger word. It makes people step back and think "SJW", censorship, PC, etc.
> 
> I'm just making suggestions here with 'Beta Reader - Specialist" and tag it with words like content, context, y'all get the idea.
> 
> Keep it in the spirit of the tasks involved but move away from the trigger words.



It's ironic! One job of a sensitivity reader is to point out trigger words and phrases.


----------



## bdcharles

MzSnowleopard said:


> I'm thinking that this 'title' should be re-branded. Instead of calling it 'Sensitivity Reader' which is clearly a trigger word. It makes people step back and think "SJW", censorship, PC, etc.
> 
> I'm just making suggestions here with 'Beta Reader - Specialist" and tag it with words like content, context, y'all get the idea.
> 
> Keep it in the spirit of the tasks involved but move away from the trigger words.



Or we could just stop being triggered and try a little calm resolve instead. PC gone mad, I tells you. No I mean, literally, my PC has gone mad and it seems to be doing some sort of dump of MY clipboard to YOUR screens. Brexit. Trump. SJW. Privilege. Pronouns, that's right, I said pronouns, puh-ruh-onouns, you think they're safe, they're not safe. Sausages - especially sausages. Single mothers! Socialism! Left-wingers! Right-wingers! Threat to our democracy, that is. Snowflakes! Elites! Oh, my God, where will it all end?! 

You know things have to change when the word "trigger" itself becomes a trigger. You know the meta has got you when that happens. Fragility, pah! A snowflake's the single strongest organism on the planet.



Edit: sorry snow leopard this wasn’t aimed at you. It was aimed at, variously, me, the world at large, and nobody in particular...


----------



## luckyscars

MzSnowleopard said:


> I'm thinking that this 'title' should be re-branded. Instead of calling it 'Sensitivity Reader' which is clearly a trigger word. It makes people step back and think "SJW", censorship, PC, etc.
> 
> I'm just making suggestions here with 'Beta Reader - Specialist" and tag it with words like content, context, y'all get the idea.
> 
> Keep it in the spirit of the tasks involved but move away from the trigger words.



I see where you are coming from however I think as a society we have moved to a place where rebranding alone is seen, often quite rightly, as nothing more than a Trojan horse. 

If there’s one that pisses people off more than overt “political correctness” it’s covert “political correctness” - Deception is not a good thing regardless of intent, right? 

Besides which, it dodges the bigger and far more important issue of trying to figure out how a word like “sensitivity” comes to be used as a pejorative in the first place. Shouldn’t we (as society, not as a writing forum) be trying to figure that out?


----------



## MzSnowleopard

bdcharles said:


> Or we could just stop being triggered and try a little calm resolve instead. PC gone mad, I tells you. No I mean, literally, my PC has gone mad and it seems to be doing some sort of dump of MY clipboard to YOUR screens. Brexit. Trump. SJW. Privilege. Pronouns, that's right, I said pronouns, puh-ruh-onouns, you think they're safe, they're not safe. Sausages - especially sausages. Single mothers! Socialism! Left-wingers! Right-wingers! Threat to our democracy, that is. Snowflakes! Elites! Oh, my God, where will it all end?!
> 
> You know things have to change when the word "trigger" itself becomes a trigger. You know the meta has got you when that happens. Fragility, pah! A snowflake's the single strongest organism on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: sorry snow leopard this wasn’t aimed at you. It was aimed at, variously, me, the world at large, and nobody in particular...


 

I didn't take it as such. I liked it. It actually reminded me of the speech that Bill Murray's character has in Ghostbusters, well, a part of it…

"Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria!" 

Of course my perspective of this might have something to do with the positive mood I've been in this past week. Insomnia aside, I've been feeling pretty good, not on a mental up swing just plain positive thinking and feeling. It feels pretty good.




luckyscars said:


> I see where you are coming from however I think as a society we have moved to a place where rebranding alone is seen, often quite rightly, as nothing more than a Trojan horse.
> 
> If there’s one that pisses people off more than overt “political correctness” it’s covert “political correctness” - Deception is not a good thing regardless of intent, right?
> 
> Besides which, it dodges the bigger and far more important issue of trying to figure out how a word like “sensitivity” comes to be used as a pejorative in the first place. Shouldn’t we (as society, not as a writing forum) be trying to figure that out?


 
I've found myself asking "how does a word like sensitivity become a trigger word? 

The synonyms are words like: compassion, sympathy, understanding, kindliness, warmth, feeling… 

And then I see those political correctness enforcers lurking about. This answers my question.


----------



## Dluuni

MzSnowleopard said:


> I've found myself asking "how does a word like sensitivity become a trigger word?
> The synonyms are words like: compassion, sympathy, understanding, kindliness, warmth, feeling…
> And then I see those political correctness enforcers lurking about. This answers my question.


Yeah, I find it confusing why being asked to learn ways to be understanding and compassionate enrages so many people myself. "Could you please call my husband by his legal name?" should not inspire hostile and angry rants, for example - but it has before.


----------



## Phil Istine

*MOD NOTE:*  This thread has wandered off-topic a number of times and will now be locked for 24 hours as it seems to have run its course.
A number of posts have been removed, some of them quite unsavoury, and we did consider taking this step sooner.

*When this thread re-opens, maybe give consideration to its original topic if you wish it to continue.*


----------

