Allegory VS Interpretation

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

Writers blocked

It was Lionel Shriver who saw the writing on the wall. Giving a keynote speech at the Brisbane Writers Festival three years ago in which she decried the scourge of modern identity politics, Shriver observed that the dogma of ‘cultural appropriation’ —which demands no less than complete racial...

www.spectator.co.uk

Thanks to Mercurius for the link.

https://reason.com/2017/12/28/sensitivity-readers-are-the-new-thought/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/24/...ers-result-in-better-books-or-censorship.html

If you read this articles, you can understand what can happen and unfortunately happens when, instead of leaving artist free to express themselves and judge their work with your own personal sensitivity, we try to codify what must be written and what not, using a unit of measurement that it is impossible to define in exact ways.
Worst, what happens when this code of conduct is put in the hands of editors that can be easily become paranoid about a probable rush of reproach in social media.

With this post I'd like to promote a collective reflection about this issue and hope that this trying is done in an acceptable mean by forum admin and staff.

I know that the topic is sensitive, many times has happened that trying to promote this reflection in another threads I end up with a warning, so I trust in your intelligence to avoid provocations or blatant trolling.

My two cent about the whole "sensitive code" issue is that is intrinsically flawed because it aims to prevent the interpretation of writings. Unlike allegory, which is in the intentions of an author, interpretation is in the mind of the reader. Too many times people assume that their interpretation of writings is a voluntarly allegory done by the author.

Let me give you an example: Lord of The Rings in the '70 in Italy was simultaneously the manifesto of extreme right and extreme left political movement. What if an editor, worried about possible interpretation of the readers, had tryied to prevent both tendencies at the same time? He would ultimately end up with a tremendous headache, at least.

Who can onestly proclaim to be able to pose a limit or express a code of conduct about that? How to avoid drifting toward editorial paranoia?

 

[Umbran]

You're worried about this in terms of moderation of posts on EN World? Or literary critique of fiction?

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

You're worried about this in terms of moderation of posts on EN World? Or literary critique of fiction?

Is a fact that is very easy to slip into warnings talking about this. And maybe for my bad english (I have to go to online translators a lot to barely touch what I really want to say in Italian) it is extremely difficult to me to not being misunderstood. Moreover, there are cultural difference between the way we write: we are very crude and direct in respect to you english or americans.
I'm really sorry because is frustrating not to be able to put in words what one is thinking.
Given that, I'm really concerned about the whole sensitive writing issue. And more I'm concerned about the easyness by which it is taken as an obviously and desiderable thing to do with even feel the big side effects and implications.
And I feel that in the shoes of a father of two sons, voracious book reader, without any interest to pass my time trolling on internet.

 

[Ryujin]

The written word, and even films, will always be seen through the lens of the person consuming the media. Authors/writers may put many layers into their works, shadowing history or current events, or they may simply provide scenes to be viewed as they're written, with the consumer reading into them things that were never intended. Which brings to mind:

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

In relation to other topics we've discussed in the forums on the topic of 'sensitivity' and being 'censored', one thing I would like to point out is there are many ways and places to publish. If I recall correctly, Henry David Thoreau self-published back in his Walden days - and immediately tried to get as many copies back as he could. In America, it is easy (relatively) to get published. What is NOT easy is to get distribution and be a best-seller.

I apologize if this isn't helping you understand. I am trying to remember you're not a native-English speaker, and things can be lost in translation.

Let's say I want to write a book for tabletop RPGs. Let's say I don't want to use a system - I want to write just a generic world setting. I have options.

If I self-publish, with no mechanics, I can write anything I want, regardless if it's a 'sensitive topic'. The consumer gets to decide if they want to buy it.

If I am writing for a company, it depends on my contract with that company. (Not a lawyer, so I think I'm generally correct) I submit my work, and they read it and suggest any changes. If they like it, they publish it and make most of the money. If they don't like it and don't like my rewrites for any reason, they don't publish it.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

The written word, and even films, will always be seen through the lens of the person consuming the media. Authors/writers may put many layers into their works, shadowing history or current events, or they may simply provide scenes to be viewed as they're written, with the consumer reading into them things that were never intended. Which brings to mind:

Benny Hill! The best.

One of the most quoted semiotics, Umberto Eco, said that bestsellers are bestsellers because they are "ramshackable". He means that the story has many level of interpretation and all written in a proper way, those ending in embrace a very large part of the public taste and cultural levels.
He was so confident and skilled in writing structures to prove his theory writing down "The Name of the Rose". A book written exactly with this theory in mind, that can be red by all sort of people despite their cultural level and social extraction without being boring. This is a feature of all classic books and multilayer texts are the key to success.
Now, keeping on pushing to avoid (bad) interpretation, the texts risk to become flat.
Back to your video, there is a difference: benny hill seems to give more value to the Chabrol opus than what the same Chabrol admit. This is a case that make us laugh because the inversion is unharmful. At least benny will be a little disappointed but nothing more than this.
But what starts the editor wild scissors is the negative interpretation, that is as arbitrary as the good can be, or even more.
Finally, the scissors starts before the bad interpretation come out, so are predictive scissors... even more wild.
Don't you feel a subtle feel of intellectual mortification in all this? For writers, blocked. For readers, deprived by the freedom of interpretation because feeded with defused writings, without any depth.
The only visible result for me from using "sensitive advisor" in all this years is simply to have seen a lot of gay people and minorities people placed in stories "just because".
I find it more humiliating than not to be present at all.
But I have also to be honest and say that in 25 years the behaviour toward gay is changed in Italy. Not so changed to see a man hand in hand with another on the street, but less prejudice is showed. And I'm sure a part of this is due to including gay in films and talk openly about. What I found wrong is the attitude to include these themes without nothing in the economy of the story that requested it. This stinks a lot.

 

[Ryujin]

Benny Hill! The best.

One of the most quoted semiotics, Umberto Eco, said that bestsellers are bestsellers because they are "ramshackable". He means that the story has many level of interpretation and all written in a proper way, those ending in embrace a very large part of the public taste and cultural levels.
He was so confident and skilled in writing structures to prove his theory writing down "The Name of the Rose". A book written exactly with this theory in mind, that can be red by all sort of people despite their cultural level and social extraction without being boring. This is a feature of all classic books and multilayer texts are the key to success.
Now, keeping on pushing to avoid (bad) interpretation, the texts risk to become flat.
Back to your video, there is a difference: benny hill seems to give more value to the Chabrol opus than what the same Chabrol admit. This is a case that make us laugh because the inversion is unharmful. At least benny will be a little disappointed but nothing more than this.
But what starts the editor wild scissors is the negative interpretation, that is as arbitrary as the good can be, or even more.
Finally, the scissors starts before the bad interpretation come out, so are predictive scissors... even more wild.
Don't you feel a subtle feel of intellectual mortification in all this? For writers, blocked. For readers, deprived by the freedom of interpretation because feeded with defused writings, without any depth.
The only visible result for me from using "sensitive advisor" in all this years is simply to have seen a lot of gay people and minorities people placed in stories "just because".
I find it more humiliating than not to be present at all.
But I have also to be honest and say that in 25 years the behaviour toward gay is changed in Italy. Not so changed to see a man hand in hand with another on the street, but less prejudice is showed. And I'm sure a part of this is due to including gay in films and talk openly about. What I found wrong is the attitude to include these themes without nothing in the economy of the story that requested it. This stinks a lot.

Or hiring Sensitive Readers can assist you with including people, in your story, who are different to yourself without falling into tropes and stereotypes of the people depicted. I may know people who have different national origins, cultural backgrounds, or sexuality than myself, but I don't know how to depict those people properly, because I don't have the necessary depth of understanding of their lives. If I want to depict such people well, then the assistance of those with such world experience is a necessary thing. I can either spend days, months, years gaining that knowledge, which may still be imperfect, or I can ask. It can add a great deal of depth to literature, rather than subtracting from it.

And, ultimately, the creator doesn't have to take that advice if they don't want to. I don't know why they wouldn't want to at least consider assistance from a subject matter expert, but they can choose not to. The authors I know choose to employ such readers/editors, in addition to simple proof readers, and I see nothing in their works suffering from the practice.

 

[Zardnaar]

Gonna be boring if it keeps up. Some things are deliberately offensive such as satire.

Otherwise it depends on what you're writing and why I suppose. A lot of books are going to fail all sorts of purity tests.

I don't think most people care anyway really bigger things to worry about.

In Lots of things to consider as well such as nuance.

If it keeps up I think you'll just get less variety as people will just draw in their own back grounds rather than risk getting ripped apart on social media.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

Or hiring Sensitive Readers can assist you with including people, in your story, who are different to yourself without falling into tropes and stereotypes of the people depicted. I may know people who have different national origins, cultural backgrounds, or sexuality than myself, but I don't know how to depict those people properly, because I don't have the necessary depth of understanding of their lives. If I want to depict such people well, then the assistance of those with such world experience is a necessary thing. I can either spend days, months, years gaining that knowledge, which may still be imperfect, or I can ask. It can add a great deal of depth to literature, rather than subtracting from it.

This is indeed the perfect case. Every tool is very good in doing one job, if used in the correct way. Thought, in last instance, I definitely prefer to read what the author wants to write, without mediation. I can accept it if the need of SR is an author instance, not an editorial one.

And, ultimately, the creator doesn't have to take that advice if they don't want to. I don't know why they wouldn't want to at least consider assistance from a subject matter expert, but they can choose not to. The authors I know choose to employ such readers/editors, in addition to simple proof readers, and I see nothing in their works suffering from the practice.

Because you are referring to authors that recognize the need to have SR near them. But devil is in the details: the problem is when an author doesn't have enough leverage to impose his view (not every author is ken follett or stephen king) against an editor choosen SR.
And you must consider that the more an issue (racial, gender, cultural and so on) is cogent in daily chronicles, the more editors will become paranoic to that issue, until the point to censor all text no matter how tangential they are to the issue.

 

[Umbran]

Thought, in last instance, I definitely prefer to read what the author wants to write, without mediation

I spoke with a friend who is a professional editor before responding to this.

First off, authors who get printed without editing are rare. You don't see much professional writing without editorial input.

Editors typically give advice. The text typically goes from author, to editor, back to author, with several rounds of this, and then on to printing*. Generally, authors don't let editor's changes go to press without their permission and agreement.

A good editor has also discussed the piece with the author, so they have a feeling for the author's desires and goals. So, the result should still be what the author wants to write, but improved to meet the desired goals.

So, what you are getting isn't "mediation". It is "with expert advice."




*Editing in journalsm can be a bit different, as when timeliness matters they may not be able to have time-consuming back-and-forth, but that's a special case.