Dear Reader, let me warn you ahead of time – you are probably going to be offended by this.
I am opposed to the sanitizing of ART.
In an effort to make everything a wonderfully happy “Disney World”, people struggle to be politically correct – socially correct – sensitivity correct and whatever else there is.
The world isn’t Disney. The world is ugly and brutal. Hiding behind a fake plastic smile while cowering inside a blanket of “correctness” is not a solution. It is simply another way to turn a blind eye.
People think, say and do not-correct things. A person can easily say something which they mean to be innocent and then be blamed for being racist or ignorant of others’ feelings. What is acceptable in one society is not true for all. A current example is Beyonce and the use of the word spaz in her lyrics. While using it is acceptable in her culture, it is an offensive word in other cultures. Being a global artist, she must censor her work to not offend.
Read that again – she must CENSOR her work. Censor art???? You may not be a fan of the singer or her music, but she is an “artist” and therefore her music is “art”.
Art is meant to invoke thought and discussion. Censoring it so that it matches what “YOU” believe to be proper is invalidating what others think.
Books are art and Roald Dahl’s current situation is another example. Sanitizing his work erases societal history. What would be better, would be to leave the books as written and IF offence occurs, discuss it. My daughter has read all the books, and if she had questions or comments, we discussed it. If she did not, I did not point out things. She was a child and still learning about the world.
Let me repeat – Art is meant to invoke thought and discussion.
Dame Agatha Christie was sensitivity censored long ago. There are three titles for one book – 10 Little Niggers was changed to 10 Little Indians was changed to And Then There Were None.
So far, I have only bumped into the sensitivity issue with one of my books. That’s not to say that I am not being “insensitive” in the others. But I have only had it pointed out once.
My reaction? Not horror at my being so wrong. It was a disgusted snort. I am sure the person meant well, and I’m in no way criticizing her. (I will call her a her as she is a female, but I have no idea which gender she identifies with and I am going to keep this simple and not go into he/she, she/he, it, they, them, the person, the human, the physical being or whatever.)
It was pointed out that when my main character, when he – who definitely identifies as a he, when he slayed a dragon and then proceeded to cut off a chunk to roast and eat, that I should put a warning on the book cover so as not to offend/upset vegetarians or vegans or animal rights people or any other group that could possibly decide that it needs to be offended.
I did not put the warning. The book was written in the medieval era. They ate whatever they could. Meat was a luxury. We have so much of it now, that we can vilify the eating of it. Hundreds of years ago, it was a completely different affair. Why sanitize the book for the truth?
Will I use a sensitivity reader? I doubt it. If a character acts or says something that others might find offensive, it is because I wrote it that way. For a third time – Art is meant to invoke thought and discussion. If a reader is offended by something and pauses to think how horrible/annoying it is then the book has done its job by provoking thought.
Isn’t better for a reader to think – It was inappropriate to say that about “insert sensitive topic here”. The reader might – and I am only saying might – then be more aware of their words when speaking about the same topic.
I teach a beginner writers course and a student asked, “Is it ok for a character to be racist?” I replied that it was then suggested she read To Kill a Mockingbird. Which is the book that at a younger age, opened my eyes to racism - stereotypical racist thoughts and people. If it had been subjected to a sensitivity reader, the soul of the book would have been lost.
At this point, you are either annoyed with me or heaving a sigh of relief that someone has said what you thought. (Or, I guess there is a 3rd option, bored out of your mind and wondering why you’ve bothered to read this far.)
If you are annoyed – and don’t say I didn’t warn you - yay – I have provoked thought and discussion.
I’ll end this with 2 thoughts – when a group starts sanitizing a topic – a word – a thought - don’t just accept it. I could go deeper into the historical implications of thought/speech control, but I won’t. But be aware – sanitizing is for a bathroom – not art.
Art is meant to invoke thought and discussion.
Art is meant to invoke thought and discussion.
Art is meant to invoke thought and discussion.
Read it again and absorb the thought.
What’s Happening in March
Follow me
Author Group / Newsletter
or if you prefer -
Oh, AMEN, Daryl!
ReplyDeleteYour example (about the meat eaters) is so extreme as to be comical. In fact it highlights the absurdity of the concept of censoring so that you won't upset anyone.
One reason I like self-publishing is that I don't have to satisfy the editors of some publishing house. I remember I wrote a scene in one of my books in which the villain tries to rape the heroine. The heroine is Chinese (from Hong Kong), and the villain, who is French, calls her a "chink whore". The editor insisted I should remove this. I refused. It's part of the scene and helps define the character of the villain.
I won that round (though the publisher included a LONG list of warnings after the blurb...). But that sort of argument just tires me out!