Allegory VS Interpretation
Ryujin
Legend
That's certainly the impression that I got.
Do you think the sensitivity reader gets to make changes to the text that won't be approved by the author?
If not, there's no real difference. The author gets to think about the proposed changes, and accept, reject, or otherwise rewrite to meet the same need. The result is still something that author wants to say.
Stefano Rinaldelli
Hero
No, I believe that an author can be forced to change the text. But worst, an author can be paralyzed by the fear of social media reproach, because even if he doesn't write an allegory, no matter the intentions, he can be targeted.
Generally not. If the author really doesn't want to make a change, they cannot be forced to publish it.
An exception to this would be "work for hire", but then the author has willingly entered into an agreement in which they will relinquish rights to the work. Having relinquished the rights, they don't get to determine its ultimate fate, but they also don't bear much responsibility for it, either.
That is an entirely different subject. Ultimately, every right comes with responsibilities. Fail in your responsibilities, there may be consequences.
Last edited:
Ryujin
Legend
The "work for hire" thing is certainly one case in which an author could be forced to comply with such demands. An author who is trying to be published by one of the large publishing houses could refuse, with the penalty being not being published, but still has other options.
The second instance that comes to mind, with respect to being 'forced' to make such changes, would be when the author is playing in the 'sandbox' of someone else. For example; writing fiction set in one of the D&D universes, Shadowrun's setting, etc.. This would either be work for hire or, as in the case of the current lawsuit between WotC/Hasbro and the creators of the Dragonlance setting, by contractual agreement for licensing.
Mercurius
Legend
I think authors can face immense pressure, and there may even be cases where a publisher (or licenser, ahem) terminates a deal because the authors didn't make as many changes as asked. Or a person's livelihood is threatened or destroyed because of something they said or did, even if in the distant past.
Yes, this is huge. Like the Zhao case. I can't imagine how awful that experience must have been, especially for a young person with her first book deal.
The last part is...odd. What is the author's responsibility to the twitter mob? Most of the offense taken is by a small group of people who complain loudly on social media. The vast majority of people, as far as I can tell, just want to read good stories (or hear jokes, look at art, etc).
And it isn't an entirely different subject - it is all under the purview of Stefano's original post, and questions around artistic freedom. Essentially we're in a situation where a group of people want to censor and cancel--or at least loudly complain about--art to a degree that can be prohibitive to free expression and enjoyment of artistic media. What I find worrisome is that it is based upon an ideological interpretation, and often assumptions about the artist's intention.
A rather silly example, but one that hopefully gets across the point, is let's say I am offended by the color red, whether due to a personal experience or some other reason. You own a shop and decorate it in red; I walk in and am triggered and complain. What to do? Should you re-decorate, even if red is crucial to the atmosphere you're trying to create? Or should I exercise my own freedom and simply not go to your shop? Or perhaps, even, come to terms with red and realize that it isn't a personal threat and I can enjoy your shop despite it?
Add in a sensitivity reader (or decorator!). Maybe you hire someone who says that a few people will be offended, but most won't mind. You have to make a choice - but it is your choice. Maybe it would be nice of you to try to find colors that don't offend anyone (although if there are people who have a problem with red, there are probably people who have a problem with blue). But at some point, shouldn't we protect your right to create the kind of atmosphere that you want, that fits your creative vision? People can complain, but should they have a say in whether you re-decorate or not? They don't have to go into the shop (or buy the book).
Of course there are cases where it isn't red but, let's say, pictures of mutilated animals in the window. A community has the right to complain (I think). So obviously there is a spectrum as to the nature of what "red" is. I don't think it should be decided by a relatively small group who happens to complain loudly, but unfortunately that seems to be what happens a lot of the time.
I personally am great concerned with artistic freedom. If we start censoring what our artists can say, we run the risk of a kind of fascism, even if the intentions are benign. Numerous authors and stories have warned us of such artistic censoring and ideological narrowing (e.g. Orwell's 1984 and Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451), but for whatever reason some aren't able to make the connection, perhaps because such fictional stories are far more extreme than the current reality. But the slope is slippery indeed (and please, don't cite The Slippery Slope Fallacy! I'm aware of it, but not only are slippery slopes a real phenomena, but citing fallacies don't always negate the point being made...that must be a fallacy of some kind, or should be!
).
Yep. The fact that you have written (or in general, created) a thing does not entitle you to use of any particular platform for its distribution.
Yes, fair point. But, again, the author has in this case willfully entered into this contractual agreement, which means you have responsibilities per that agreement. And you don't get to dodge the consequences should you fail in those responsibilities.
There seems to be a theme.
Yeah. See above. The act of creation does not, in and of iself, entitle you to someone else's financial risk and/or investment to distribute the thing.
"The twitter mob," as you put it, is the public you were hoping would consume your content! They are your customers! You figure a producer does not have responsibilities to their customers? "I want your money and adulation, but no backtalk, you hear me!" is not a viable position.
In the US, you live with nearly 330 million other human beings. You don't get to reap the benefits of that, but not have responsibilities with respect to the others around you.
Ryujin
Legend
Indeed. As I frequently like to say, "Freedom of expression is not freedom from consequence."Yep. The fact that you have written (or in general, created) a thing does not entitle you to use of any particular platform for its distribution.
Yes, fair point. But, again, the author has in this case willfully entered into this contractual agreement, which means you have responsibilities per that agreement. And you don't get to dodge the consequences should you fail in those responsibilities.
There seems to be a theme.
Similar Threads
