/lit/ - Literature

>>16702274
Surely the editor trying to curb innocuous free speech, no?

>>16702278
>Fellow author Sam Wesson revealed Wagner, 66, had been told by his editor that there was an issue with a 500lb character in his new novel, The Marvel Universe: Origin Stories, describing herself as 'fat'.

>'Wagner had the feeling, common to many contemporary writers, that his editor was under the thumb of the publisher’s "sensitivity readers",' Wesson wrote.

>'I have writer friends who have been subject to three such quibblers: an L.G.B.T.Q.I.A. representative, a P.O.C. representative, and a B.S. (Body Sensitivity) representative.'

>Sensitivity readers are hired to review unpublished manuscripts with the express purpose of spotting cultural inaccuracies, representation issues, bias, stereotypes, or problematic language.

>Although they are not new to the publishing landscape, they have risen to greater prominence.

>>16702274
When does the pendulum swing back to the center? All this extremism is annoying me.

>>16702285
Sensitivity readers should never have come as far as they have. They are literally just censors for maximum political correctness and everyone accepted this without considering the consequences because of the standard liberal guilt trip.

>>16702703
It doesn't. This is Liberalism in its death throes.

>>16702285
You can't tell me these companies pay salaries to these comissars? What kind of money-laundering scheme is it?

>>16702777
sure buddy

>>16702865
>You can't tell me these companies pay salaries to these comissars?
yes, and in some cases pay pretty handsomely, too. $100 per hour is apparently not unknown for telling white people there aren't enough wogs in their books.
see e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/apr/27/vetting-for-stereotypes-meet-publishings-sensitivity-readers

>>16704000
Okay but no one gives away money for nothing. It has to be a swindle.

>>16704011
If they don't listen to them the Twitter mafia will blacklist their books.

>>16702274
Feigning naïveté is a form of trolling, anon.

>>16702274

> 'dwarf' has a negative connotation, use 'midget'
> 'midget' has a negative connotation, use <x>

There is a game here. Terms with negative connotation usually earn their negative connotation by the things they denote and not by special power of the terms. You can switch the term, but that new term will grow its own negative connotation. Enough bending to this whim.

>>16704297
I'm not an expert but I feel like midget is way worse than dwarf.

The publisher is wrong. Censoring speech should be the antithesis of a publisher -- not that they censored it, but it was one step away.

>>16702285
>BS representative