Allegory VS Interpretation

[Ryujin]

I would want to temper this one. It is a bit extreme to me. Or perhaps I have perceived some of the extreme forms of this idea. Can you be free to express something when there are consequences? I mean some reputation loss is ok I guess, but where do we draw the line? Losing a deal or a job? Losing the capacity to ever earn an honest wage? Losing your family? Losing all of your safety net? Losing your freedom? Losing your live? All of them can be consequences, but some of these don't exactly make for freedom of expression.

I mean this can be used to victim blame people who are silenced through violence. Perhaps in your first world countries this isn't a big deal, but mine has a long history of clandestine publishing, incarcerated writers and executed journalists. "You where free to disclose the dealigns of the local mafia, but you're not free from the consequences and the consequences are death." I know extreme example, but it seems my environment is a bit extreme too.

The statement is meant for nations that have "freedom of expression" coded into their very being. Elsewhere it's a struggle. Had I a Sensitive Reader, that might have come out in another manner

 

[Janx]

The statement is meant for nations that have "freedom of expression" coded into their very being. Elsewhere it's a struggle. Had I a Sensitive Reader, that might have come out in another manner

True but in France, they are mourning the loss of a teacher who was covering the Charlie Hebdo cartoons and killed for it.

I think we can all agree that extreme consequences like that are extreme, illegal and covered by laws in most countries.

So let's stick to the Twitter Mob level of consequence. for sake of level-capping hyperbole.

I've seen a lot of great responses expanding on the stuff I said. Thanks. I was in a hurry, and this topic is important to me on a professional level.

I will add to one point, the concern over muting expression. Here's the thing, if my book is about the importance of eating vegetables, I don't want aspects I wrote in it to damage that theme. If I put in a joke about a chocolate pie hitting somebody in the fact and it's black facing, holey cow, I'm gonna offend people over something that has nothing to do with the importance of eating veggies. I'm OK with not being astute enough to sense that when I write it, but I don't want that in the final version. And I might not see it during any number of edits.

As someone stated earlier, a writer is supposed to have some skill with choosing their words carefully. Content that offends, that isn't supporting the theme or plot of the story is noise that detracts from the signal you are trying to send. Fixing that isn't censorship. Fixing that is what editors and beta readers and sensitivity readers are supposed to help with, because it turns out, like movie scripts, books are not actually a one-man production.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

As someone that spend 10 years caring for a dementia patient, the idea of putting leash on them, strikes me as appalling. Also, counter productive as it would most like make them distressed and violent, followed by distress on the part of the person on the other end of the leash as they receive a crack in the jaw.
I am also pretty sure it would be illegal

 

[MoonSong]

True but in France, they are mourning the loss of a teacher who was covering the Charlie Hebdo cartoons and killed for it.

I think we can all agree that extreme consequences like that are extreme, illegal and covered by laws in most countries.

So let's stick to the Twitter Mob level of consequence. for sake of level-capping hyperbole.

"I'm not going to kill you, I'm just going to ruin your live so hard that nobody will ever hire you or do business with you, your family and friends will shun, you'll lose your home and any ability to make a living, and you have no recourse but to slowly perish on the streets at the margin of society and at the mercy of the elements and criminals, while everybody can righteously deny you any aid, help or even human touch. In fact, by then if a lowlife takes you out of your misery, we will hail them as a hero."

Edit: "And we will use you as an example to make sure nobody ever thinks like you, disagrees with us, or even dares to not be 100% on our side."

 

[Umbran]

"I'm not going to kill you, I'm just going to ruin your live so hard that nobody will ever hire you or do business with you....

Ryujin is talking about consequences within the law. What you're suggesting here would be harrassment, and thus illegal.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I think this topic ignores the fact that, especially in the US, a large group of people have been historically censored, controlled, and threatened with violence, and that is anyone not white or male. Going back to Frederick Douglas, he had to first break the law to learn how to read and write, escape from slavery, and convince abolitionists to hear his story before he could get published. Then he had to change the names of important people in his life story to prevent them from being killed. Women had to publish under male pseudonyms. For generations, anyone who did not fit into the established dominant culture in America was simply not published. Or they were targeted by white supremacist terrorists. Look at how many Civil Rights leaders were assassinated because they refused to be censored.

When we equate Sensitivity Readers with censorship, we are missing a whole lot of context.

The focus on cultural and racial identity of authors, and their ability to write from other perspectives, can be really upsetting and difficult. It's a tough conversation. But I think if we see it in a historical context, we can recognize that this is part of a conversation that has been happening for centuries.

And just the fact that we can have a conversation about honoring the voices of people who are not just white and male is a victory in itself!

Rather than seeing Sensitivity Readers, or a caution when writing about other cultural and racial perspectives, as a threat, see it as part of this difficult and sometimes painful transition to a world in which we have more perspectives published than ever before! The process is never going to be perfect, but we have literally seen the alternative for hundreds of years.

 

[Bawylie]

Ryujin is talking about consequences within the law. What you're suggesting here would be harrassment, and thus illegal.

Yes. And we operate in a world in which things that are illegal happen with sufficient frequency that they warrant some consideration.

 

[Zardnaar]

Leashes are for animals, as a way for a human to exert control on them. Putting any person on a leash would seem to me to be pretty demeaning. The symbolism is pretty plain there, and I'm dubious about claims that the author didn't see this.




In part, this is what sensitivity readers are, for specific topics. And, even normal editors fill this role to a great degree.

Beyond that, though, there's no assurance about interpretation. Authors and artists should generally be aware that in any work, there are at least three things: What the artist intended, what they actually did, and what the audience got out of it. While the artist wants these things to be similar, you don't get to control the world.



No. Art is an attempt to communicate. If you are not considering your audience, thinking about who you are trying to communicate your ideas to and what they are going to think, you're going to do a poor job of communicating. If you need help to think about your audience, then you ought to get it.



So, there's a major point you seem to be forgetting - absolute tons of stuff is getting published all the time. The, "twitter mob," as it has been called, has not seemed to be a real block to things getting written and published.

Either, you are being a bit paranoid, and such steps aren't usually needed, or they are needed, and for the most part common editing and the occasional engagement of readers to help smooth rough spots is doing the job without much issue.

Depends on the context. Some people like stuff like 50 Shades of Grey.

I haven't read the work in question but depending on how it's written I'm fine with it.

Some (generally) middle and upper class people like things like leashes. Doesn't do much for me but yeah.

I've known people buying toys like that and not all of them were white.

Equality to me means you're going to see more variety in things like villains and flawed characters as well.

Instead of a stereo typical gangbanger why not a non white Blofield type or S&M tendencies?

Really not my thing but not up to me to judge.

For me the litmus test is this. Is the character this way because if what they are or who they are?

Alot of romance novels let's face it are soft core porn for bored housewives yes?

 

[WayneLigon]

Sensitivity readers are there for a reason: the constant background hum of systemic racism and privilege. Most of us do not have a diversity of experience, even if we have long-term friends who are black, gay, trans, etc etc, but we think we do, which can lead to making some pretty awful gaffs regarding race, culture, etc.

A more woke culture isn't a straitjacket - your white suburban writer can absolutely produce novels about Native Americans or Harlem musicians of the 1920's - but it does mean you can no longer be lazy and not do your research when producing content. For example, you absolutely cannot rely on your memory or TV or what Aunt Judy said about the practices of her Jewish neighbors when writing about a Jewish family.

 

[Umbran]

Yes. And we operate in a world in which things that are illegal happen with sufficient frequency that they warrant some consideration.

You may have missed the point here. The complaint is that we shouldn't allow certain behaviors online. Fine. But, the behaviors in question are already illegal. They are already not allowed!

What more protection do you expect than that?