From Publishers Weekly:
I woke up early one morning, my wife lying in bed next to me, already awake. She has often has bad insomnia, so I asked how long she’d been up.
“All night,” she said. “I haven’t slept at all.”
“That sucks,” I said. “You want some breakfast?”
It was a simple interaction, but recently I’ve been thinking how ridiculous it would’ve been if I’d said, “I was here next to you all night. If you were really awake, I’d have noticed.” Or, “I’ve never experienced insomnia. I don’t think it’s real.”
And, yet, that’s how many of us respond when people of color tell us about their experiences with racism. This nonsense has been on full display in the publishing industry recently thanks to the ongoing debate regarding the role of sensitivity readers in modern publishing.
For the uninitiated, sensitivity readers are people from marginalized backgrounds who vet manuscripts to ensure that their representation of underrepresented groups is both accurate and respectful. Unfortunately, these readers, who should be universally celebrated and appreciated, have instead been at the heart of a heated argument that’s been spotlighted by everyone from the New York Times to Katie Couric.
The heart of the controversy? Many white writers cry censorship whenever a sensitivity reader advocates for thoughtful and accurate representation.
. . . .
As a straight white male who’s spent the past four years writing a queer love story, I’ve used nearly a dozen sensitivity readers so far, and I will no doubt use several more once my agent and I go on submission. The verdict? Sensitivity readers are hands down the best thing to ever happen to my manuscript.
. . . .
Sensitivity readers are helping me learn to be more intentional with my privilege. By paying marginalized creators for a sensitivity read, I help finance their own creative projects. These sensitivity readers also inspired me to think critically about putting my money where my mouth is and supporting wonderful organizations like We Need Diverse Books.
Link to the rest at Publishers Weekly
PG is quite intentional with his privilege and is inclined to assert that privilege by avoiding books that require sensitivity readers.
His next nonfiction book (he’s enjoying a science fiction series at the moment) is going to be Eye-Deep in Hell: Trench Warfare in World War I by John Ellis.
According to the West Coast Review of Books, Mr. Ellis “describes graphically the disgusting, revolting conditions of hunger, infestation, disease, and above all, fatigue that were endured”.
There’s no word about whether Mr. Ellis became more or less intentional with his privilege during the writing of any of his books, but PG doubts any sensitivity readers were involved.
After Eye-Deep in Hell, PG is intentionally considering another Ellis book, The Social History of the Machine Gun. Who could possibly resist a title like that?
Perhaps PG needs to start a John Ellis book club to encourage more diverse books.
Incidentally, while searching for a bit more background on the John Ellis discussed above, PG came across another fascinating John Ellis.
The second John Ellis (4 October 1874 – 20 September 1932) “was a British executioner for 23 years, from 1901 to 1924. His other occupations were as a Rochdale hairdresser and newsagent.”
“At the age of 22 he applied to the Home Office to become an executioner and was invited to attend training at Newgate Prison. He first participated in an execution in Newcastle in December 1901, as assistant to William Billington. Ellis served as Chief Executioner from 1907 and was involved in a total of 203 executions.
Among the executions he performed were those of Hawley Harvey Crippen (known as Dr. Crippen) in 1910, Frederick Seddon in 1912, Sir Roger Casement in 1916, Herbert Rowse Armstrong in 1922, and of Edith Thompson in 1923. He took the responsibility of his position very seriously and hoped to “despatch” the condemned person with as little fuss and pain to the individual concerned as possible.
. . . .
His relations to his fellow executioners were strained. Henry Pierrepoint was struck off the list of executioners following a complaint by Ellis. Pierrepoint, arriving at Chelmsford prison slightly intoxicated on 13 July 1910, had started a row, and would have beaten up Ellis had not warders intervened. Pierrepoint’s brother, Thomas, also an executioner, is reported to have said about John Ellis that “it was impossible to work with him”.”
Once again, PG is unsure about how intentional Executioner John was with his privilege, but he did write a book, Diary of a Hangman: Britain’s executioner for 23 years.
A reviewer of Diary of a Hangman has the following to say:
All in all it was a fairly interesting read and was quite a bit better than Pierrepoint: A Family of Executioners: The Story of Britain’s Infamous Hangmen which I read recently. The book details Ellis’s career as a hangman but it does not do so in a straightforward chronological fashion. Rather, it jumps back and forth in time and deals with various episodes in Ellis’s life in a somewhat rambling fashion. In the foreword we are told that this is because the book was actually a record of Ellis’s verbal reminiscences and, although the text is never haphazard or confusing, a more chronological approach would have been better.
Do I smell a “Sensitivity Consultant” employment push here?
I don’t need no stinkin’ sensitivity readers. I write my own stuff. And if what I write frosts some people, TS. Don’t buy my stuff. But I’m not going to alter what I write, how I write, or censor myself.
My writing is MINE. And not subject to alteration by anyone else (one of many reasons I’ll never go Trad Pub). I’m the one in total control here.
“Do I smell a “Sensitivity Consultant” employment push here?”
Could be. Maybe they can’t write themselves out of a plot hole so they want the power to tell people that can write what they’re doing ‘wrong’.
A bit like those analysts that kept saying Amazon was doing so many things oh so wrong – only to discover that Jeff knew where he was heading better than they did.
I think there is a problem with many authors not being so good at writing characters of another sex/race/culture. Think of all the male writers who can’t let a single female character pass without mentioning what her breasts look like.
However, sensitivity readers are not the answer. Mostly because a sensitivity reader has no right to try to represent an entire sex, race or culture from their own experience.
Also because “sensitivity” seems to be entirely feelings based. And there are some areas where feelings can be a good enough reason to avoid something. Don’t make light of rape and sexual assault. Just don’t. There’s nothing that can justify using such awful things in humorous or causal ways.
But there are also a lot of things which people get sensitive about where it doesn’t make much sense. I can’t for the life of me sympathize with people who insist comparing the complexions of People of Color to food is dehumanizing. Food is just one of those ubiquitous things that all skin colors get compared to. People both need and love food and it’s part of our daily lives. Unless people are using a comparison like “her skin was the color of rotten bananas” I just don’t see how it’s a negative thing. The foods people use as comparisons are almost always and I only say “almost” to be fair. I’ve never actually seen any generally gross or disliked food used to describe people. It says your skin is like chocolate? Take that as a compliment! Chocolate is one of the most loved edibles on the planet! There’s a point where you need to just calm down with the sensitivity.
I totally agree about the food thing. It’s so weird to me when people say it’s racist to describe a character’s skin as the color of chocolate. There are a lot of much less complimentary yet still accurate brown things that the skin could be compared to. (Among the less objectionable ones I can think of are tree bark or perhaps the fur of a beaver.) I can’t think of many things more complimentary than chocolate. And white people’s skin is often compared to milk or peaches and cream (never see anyone complaining that that’s racist), despite both of those being more poetic than accurate, since white people aren’t literally white, but someone might well literally have skin the color of chocolate. If the complaint is that food comparisons are “dehumanizing”, then how can we compare any aspect of a person’s body to anything other than another human body part? And how useful is a description like, “Flora’s skin was the warm brown of a Hispanic person”? “His eyes were the blue of light blue eyes.” I mean, if we’re supposed to eliminate “dehumanizing” descriptors in regards to people, we’re pretty much eliminating all metaphors/similes used in description.
Honestly, if someone complains about a book comparing a person’s skin to chocolate because racism, that’s pretty much them telling me, “I’m a prat; ignore me.”
“Flora’s skin was the warm brown of a Hispanic person”?
—
That would be meaningless in and of itself. 😉
First because there really is no such thing as a hispanic person.
Second because the various groups pigeonholed under “hispanics” are each heterogeneous with pigmentation, features, and hair of all types and all mixtures. There is no such thing as a baseline for any of the nationalities and cultures involved.
Third, even so called-hispanic surnames can be found among “non-hispanic” heritages. Start with France and Israel and go from there.
I’m pretty sure no “sensitivity reader” will warn of that since their stock in trade looks to be overstatement and stereotypes. Precisely what we were supposed to have left behind in decades past.
I have a very good friend with blonde hair, blue eyes, and cream colored skin who speaks Spanish as her native tongue and was born in Mexico city. As were her parents, and grandparents, and great-grandparents…
Not everybody spends weekends tanning at the beach. 😉
North America wasn’t the only region getting irish, italian, german, and jewish immigrants from Europe in the 19th. Or from India, China, russia, etc in the 20th.
There’s noticeable chinese communities all over. And Brazil, for one, has a fairly large Japanese community.
For that matter, Spain itself is pretty varied and not just in visible traits.
He needs to prove how ‘woke’ he is. As with all their ideas and beliefs, it isn’t about the idea or belief but how you are seen implementing them.
Virtue signaling.
As a straight white male who’s spent the past four years writing a queer love story, I’ve used nearly a dozen sensitivity readers so far, and I will no doubt use several more once my agent and I go on submission. The verdict? Sensitivity readers are hands down the best thing to ever happen to my manuscript.
Given this fact pattern, how is this anything other than a vanity project? Whatever my opinion of sensitivity readers might otherwise be, I see no way on earth this book does anything but lose money. Possibly a great deal.
And another thing. (A more serious thought this time) Isn’t this what writers are meant to do? Put themselves in other people’s minds and lives? Imagine what that might be like? Nobody said it would be easy, but many of us try to do it, and manage to achieve at least some approximation. If he needs a group of sensitivity readers, I’d suggest that he might not be doing his job very well, if at all. I’ve written in the persona – and voice – of a late 18th century Scottish gardener, and (so I’m told) managed it pretty competently. I’ve written in the persona of Jean Armour, the much neglected but fascinating wife of our national poet – and obviously, in both cases, there was no ‘sensitivity reader’ I could resurrect to tell me if I’d got it right. Research, affection, fascination, imagination, remembering that in the words of Hilary Mantel, you can’t have historical characters even thinking things they would and could not think – all of these are vital. It seems to me that he’s doing his own craft an injustice by trying to pass all that on to somebody else.
“The heart of the controversy? Many white writers cry censorship whenever a sensitivity reader advocates for thoughtful and accurate representation.”
Disclaimer: I am not white.
The reason writers scream censorship is because that’s what censorship is. The fear has always been government censorship, but now it’s social censorship. Would you insist a black writer get white readers to vet the “the whitness” of his characters? This entire thing comes from SPOILED, RICH, MFA, students who can’t imagine anyone who isn’t black having a terrible childhood and setbacks as adults because of it. Racism does exist but I can neither fix someone else’s racism or give away my desire to outgrow my dirt poor upbringing where we used leaves as toilet paper. I love how these rich assholes think giving some kid 300 bucks to vet his book somehow absolves him of his guilt. Idiot. Racism is the new Catholic church (circa 12th century because I’ve read a frigging book) and he’s buying his indulgence.
I love how these rich assholes think giving some kid 300 bucks to vet his book somehow absolves him of his guilt. Idiot.
I wonder if he’s a kid or some fifty-two year-old white guy hustling other white guys.
I have no problem with either scenario.
If people are willing to submit…
(shrug)
As long as they don’t mess with me I’m content to live and let die.
Do you think they have to prove their credentials? Maybe they have something similar to the Ariernachweis that could make them readily identifiable as certified sensitivity readers? How far back does one have to be able to trace their pedigree?
I am disappointed by the lack of sensitivity to this important issue.
I am disappointed by the lack of sensitivity to this self-important issue.
FIFY 😉
I agree with all of the above. But also, in most long term and generally happy marriages the insomnia conversation might well consist of ‘How strange that you say you didn’t sleep a wink when I could hear you snoring for hours.’ We’ve been together for 38 years and counting…
Whenever anyone says they didn’t sleep a wink, I always assume hyperbole and they ment they had a bad night’s sleep.
It’s a terrible metaphor for racism and actually quite ironic. Since he seems to think everyone in the world is exactly like him and the morons he surrounds himself with.
As Ogden Nash put it in “Stilly Night” with the conclusion that
“I am certain that the first words of the Sleeping Beauty to her prince were, ‘You would have to kiss me just when I had dropped off after tossing and turning for a hundred years.'”
I certainly would object to having some official “sensitivity reader” tell me what I can or can’t write. However, now that I’m self-publishing my Safe Harbor Medical mystery series and can no longer rely on a traditional editor (or be subjected to one, in a few cases), I try to include subject-matter experts among my beta readers whenever possible.
This includes medical and law-enforcement professionals. Also, readers who have some knowledge of and sensitivity to other issues that may arise in my books involving various minorities including LGBTQ folks.
While I do as much research as I can up front, little things may slip by me and I aim for authenticity. Also, being a member of a minority myself, I admit to some prickliness when writers make ham-handed assumptions, so turnabout seems like fair play.
I do detest the current misuse of the word “privilege,” though. A person may be privileged in one context and suffer the fires of hell in another. Judging and dismissing others (such as white males) because they are members of a group seems counterproductive and narrow-minded to me.
The sensitivity police has already reached the point where a lesbian woman isn’t fit to play a lesbian character unless they say so.
Oh, well said!
PG,
Your use of the word “intentional” echoes what I’ve been trying to understand lately with the words:
– attention, intention, inattention
Examples:
I’m curious, and I pay attention.
– Attention is like money, I have a limited amount to spend.
My intention is to tell Story.
– Intention is the focus for my attention.
I am often guilty of inattention to details.
– In other words, I didn’t focus my attention or pay attention to the cost.
I’m not sure what the “at”, “in”, or the root “tention” represent.
It’s things like this that grab my attention and have me spend large blocks of time that I could better spend on more productive things, yet this is the heart of what I’m trying to understand. HA!
Ethymology is an interesting field. If nothing else, it helps identify the innocent languages english has mugged for its rich vocabulary.
As for attention, intention, et al, there is no familial relationship this side of the early roman empire.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/Attention
Since the OED is so pricey, we mere mortals must make do with the web. 😉
“to stretch”
That takes me closer to what I’m trying to see. Thanks…
We are what we do with our attention.
“The heart of the controversy? Many white writers cry censorship whenever a sensitivity reader advocates for thoughtful and accurate representation.”
So do black writers, and female writers – none of us like being told what we can/should say and how we should say it …
And what idiot thinks that any ‘sensitivity reader’ can give them ‘thoughtful and accurate representation’ of anything they themselves haven’t lived through? Not every white male steps on blacks and females – and not all blacks and females have been stepped on by white males – or by anyone at all. Heck, I know several very predatory females including one one of my brothers had the misfortune to marry. I’m sure there’s a ‘sensitivity reader’ out there that could help me write her with just the right amount of cold calculating viciousness … 😛
No, PG, we – and you – don’t need a flock of sensitivity readers putting their own narrow spin on things – things get crazy enough around here without them! 😉
PG-
I have to disagree with your opinion. From my reading of Mr. Ellis’s book he shows a fundamental disregard for other beliefs besides those of his privileged background. His ‘World War II Databook” is just full of statistics, facts, and yet more statistics. But never once it is apparently he took the plight of the minority disabled questioning orientation midgets into account in his figures.
But this is an issue that is much deeper than Mr. Ellis when it comes to historical books. From insiders in the publishing world I am left to believe that almost all authors who write currently about the Revolutionary war, the American civil war, and Machiavelli’s The Prince weren’t even alive during that time. Also, they generally fail to interview people or employ sensitive readers who WERE alive during these times. Talk about getting a privileged perspective on the past.
Although I am left to believe some enlightenment is starting to come to the publishing world. An author who recently wrote a biography about a Russian Nuclear Submarine commander defecting to the United States was unable to sell his manuscript to any of the large publishers. He was blacklisted by them because of his one sided negative biased view of the Soviet Union. I believe if he had employed a sensitivity reader his manuscript would have been picked up by one them. Instead – in desperation so other crazies in the world could read such hate speech – found some small niche publisher – (which specializes in books on Naval matters) to sell such a book. Hopefully such small niche publishers in this day of enlightenment and corporate consolidation will no longer be able to publish such fear mongering hateful privileged smut.
The horror, the horror. Won’t someone please please think of the children.
Note, for the final point I can substitute a native Minnesota author and his publishing experience. It was blacklisted by the large publishes because his in-depth scholarly researched thesis on the need for term limits (supported by numerous references from the Constitution and the Magna Carta ) failed their sensitive reader review. Apparently the author did not ensure he had an ‘accurate and thoughtful representation” of our congressional leadership.
Jonathan – Thank you.
For the first time, I feel entirely woke.
Clearly, I need to use a battalion of sensitivity readers for my posts on TPV.
Too much of my original post was entirely from the view of an executioner. The first of my battalion of sensitivity readers must be someone who has been hanged.
If anyone has any suggestions, they would be most appreciated.
Well done 🙂
A book written by committee. Huh. No way that could go wrong, right?
The real problem is that the result will not be the author’s true thoughts, emotions, experiences, or observations. It’ll be a story terrified of giving offense, and thus not worth reading.
All this crap about privilege and sensitivity is just that, crap. If you can’t be special because of your wits and achievements and hard work, then let us force society to acknowledge how special you are because of your victimhood. I’d say that like all fads it’ll fade away, with the next generation blinking in puzzlement and wondering what in the world people were thinking. Unfortunately, so many people are making money off the deification of victimhood that I fear it’s going to hang around a whole lot longer than is merited.
It’s just the next step of the ‘no child left behind’ crowd growing up and finding that no one cares about what they think. They have to be special – their teachers and parents have been telling them so since day one – only to ‘grow up’ and find that the rest of the world doesn’t see anything ‘special’ about them …
Who’s that comedy guy that says: ‘You can’t fix stupid’?
His new line will be: ‘You can’t fix special’ …
This is far too simpleminded and slobbering to be real. Surely it’s only a clever send up of those writers who are so desperate to join the cool kids club that they’ll say whatever they think they’re supposed to say to be accepted. Publishers Weekly must be running it as a parody for our collective amusement. Tell me that’s what it is. Please.
PG,
J.R.R. Tolkein experienced WWI trench warfare and used it to good effect in Lord of the Rings.
Good point, PRS.
Tolkien always flatly denied this.