Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Times article publishers defend your writers

8 replies

334bu · 25/10/2020 15:32

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/93e05a8c-139f-11eb-8d4b-d807836d5e13?shareToken=8601bf9b988fec75f4a8435e2a4952d8

OP posts:
FleetsumNLangCleg · 25/10/2020 17:27

Chilling article. What a time to be alive. And as Douglas Murray says, even if we start fixing this today, we will wait at least a generation to see an improvement.

One of the comments:
"When I read this, having already read the report about pupils at Benenden school protesting so vociferously about the use of a word in its exact historical context that the Head was forced to apologise I realised just how far many of our young people have been radicalised. They have been rendered unfit for real life."

Imnobody4 · 25/10/2020 17:45

What scares me most is how little push back there's been.

DrDavidBanner · 25/10/2020 18:21

Thats insane, none of it makes sense to me. I love reading and am a great fan of crime fiction, thrillers and at this time of year spooky and horror fiction among other genres. The idea that an author should not write about something that is not their lived experience shows a narrow and uncreative mind.

I can only assume the people creating these rules do not enjoy fiction or have a very small world view and its a really depressing thought.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 25/10/2020 18:31

The idea that an author should not write about something that is not their lived experience shows a narrow and uncreative mind.

It's bonkers. The whole point of fiction is that you use your imagination.

wellbehavedwomen · 25/10/2020 18:33

That's a really interesting article. It is scary, of course, in the conformity and fear, but this also made me happy:

A publisher who lost out in the bidding says: “They went for lunatic sums. Some of it is guilt money and badge-wearing, but there are also some really interesting books coming through. People won’t just say ‘black writers’ soon: it isn’t right to group them together. For example, there’s a school of Nigerian writers, almost all women, and they’re among the most interesting writers in the world.”

We do need to expand horizons on what is published, and read. That's great. What isn't is the narrowing of what is permitted to authors. Yes, of course lived experience matters (well, unless you're women, apparently, but I digress....) but creative imagination is also vital. Shakespeare wasn't a woman, nor black, yet he wrote amazing women characters, and Othello. We shouldn't have guideropes up on creativity.

Greencoatblue · 25/10/2020 18:39

“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize!”

One of the comments, how true in these fanatical times! As someone else commented below the article, that's autobiographies only from now on then.

Delphinium20 · 25/10/2020 19:43

Love the J March commentary.

ChattyLion · 27/10/2020 09:09

It’s great if this is actually a permanent change and fewer writers will face barriers to getting published based on their background ir topic. I am not sure this article finds any very likely- looking long-term cultural change in publishing industry at present though. Not if tokenistic representation with rules placed over creativity have been the industry’s response so far. I obviously hope that’s wrong and it’s a pendulum swinging that will permanently settle into a more equitable place.

It’s profoundly racist to expect or require writers from ethnic minority backgrounds to only write about race if they want to be published, or to encourage that these authors only be ‘read’ as writing about race, whatever it is they are saying. I’ve noticed that publishers allow white writers to write about ‘non-race’ issues but don’t often allow writers of other ethnicities that same privilege even when they’ve authored a book about something else, which reinforces a white default or norm.

It’s also wrong and fruitless to try to prevent any writer from imagining the experience of others in fiction, provided what they write is within the law. It might be crap writing but that’s a different issue. Perhaps it might be great or illuminating or anything else.

The industry reaction the article describes is ultimately self-defeating, if published authors according to their background have to write exclusively about (their) race (but different rules dependent on their own background) or must avoid referring to it at all, and if fiction will be killed off, with autobiography becoming dominant (whether expressed as such or not).

That backwards-looking centring life experience approach feels also an opportunity cost, at a time when imagining about the future is a really powerful contribution to a culture with a lot of uncertainty and division in it. We need books exploring race issues in detail which won’t be easy reads for many of us but we also need the same writers to be free to write what they want to write about that may not be related to race at all. We need others to be free to critique all of that writing or to write their own responses and get them published.

It’s another example of identity politics in combination with the market appearing to free people or offer a new better way of working, but in reality potentially trapping and dividing them away from each other into smaller and ever more specifically labelled boxes. We need to recognise and celebrate difference, but also we urgently need to work out how to bring about more social cohesion, though I recognise it will need a much bigger approach than publishing books.

There’s a whole interesting other question underneath this about why, as readers, we often want to know ‘who’ is writing, when we read the work, and it would also be interesting to think about other issues like sexism and able-ism and how they play into this, but that’s for another thread..

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread