Showing posts with label warnings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label warnings. Show all posts

Monday, 4 December 2023

Beyond the Palewall (4)

 

["Beyond the Palewall" is the title of this series because "Beyond the Paywall" is taken. Information for which you are not willing to pay, along with information you may not wish to know, is presented in abbreviated form without charge. What has caught my eye may sometimes feel like a poke in yours and, in that sense, be beyond the pale for you. Items will appear weekly, or perhaps monthly, or maybe semi-annually, if I can get started and the weather is bleak.]



Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 
   
The name above is found on the list of those running for President of the United States. As the title of the article I will now point you to indicates, his politics are rather complex so I will simply offer you the inside information about the state of his Toyota minivan. I mainly know of him as the guy who was doing good work trying to keep the rivers clean. Apparently he doesn't care so much about the condition of his van and is now more worried about various conspiracies.
   After arriving at his mansion in Brentwood, which sounds exquisite and in which he lives with his actress wife, the reporter of this article is taken for a van ride which is described quite well: "The Mind-Bending Politics of RFK Jr.'s Spoiler Campaign: He's a Conservative. He's a Liberal. And He Could Turn the Presidential Race Upside Down," Olivia Nuzzi, New York Magazine, in the "Intelligencer", Nov. 22, 2023.

   "Bobby, as he’s known to friends, walked through the French doors dressed for his morning hike in blue jeans, a black hoodie, Keens, and an unfriendly expression. He said little as he led his three enormous canines to the van, though I don’t know what he could have said that would have prepared me for the sight of the thing. That the dog car survived a nuclear war maybe, or, even more frightening, the chicken-pox vaccine.
   Rearview mirror smashed to bits, seat belts chewed off, cushions gnawed open, filth and dog hair covering every surface. The death machine smells so bad I thought I might pass out after about 15 seconds riding shotgun, and that was before the candidate hung a sharp left and sped off toward the trailhead, the dogs barking and toppling over in the area of the car that theoretically should contain back seats but instead holds a wooden bench. “Shut up, you idiots!” he told the dogs. At least I think he was talking to them. He swung the vehicle around to park on the side of the road, released the hounds, and started his ascent."

Why I Don't Get Anything Done
   From the article I also learned about Amaryllis Fox Kennedy who is his campaign manager and daughter-in-law. Of course I had to remind myself of what 'amaryllis" means and will save you the trouble: "In the Victorian language of flowers, amaryllis means "love, beauty, and determination", and can also represent hope and achievement." (Among botanists there is some confusion about the Amaryllis and it is perhaps fortunate for Mrs. Kennedy that she was not named Hippeastrum.)
   Naturally, I then needed to know more about the bearer of that name who was born as Amaryllis Damerell Thornber and learned that she is a former CIA officer and author as well. Her mother's also intriguing name is Lafarge Damerell and she is a retired English actress. I was about to look her up, but instead noticed the name of her billionaire husband. He is Steven Rales, who among other activities, produces films such as Wes Anderson's, Moonrise Kingdom and The Grand Budapest Hotel. Fortunately I was able to exercise a bit of discipline and not investigate further, either the flowers or the people mentioned above. 



Sensitivity Readers
   By now you are used to being warned before watching or reading just about anything. I warned you about all of this in a post with the title, "Warning" and my coverage of this subject is bordering on the tiresome. Still, the following example serves to illustrate how silly this sensitivity stuff now is. "Sensitivity Readers", for those of you who do not do any reading, are those people who are hired by publishers to make sure you don't read anything offensive. As an aside, one has to wonder about such employees, many of whom must already be on long term disability. 
   Behind a paywall one finds this article: "Slouching Toward Sensitivity: Content Warning: This Essay Contains Obscenities, Slurs, Sex, Bullying, Child Abuse, Alcoholism, Pregnancy, Addiction, Murder, Suicide, Religion, Culture, Opinions, Politics, Language and Academe," Janet Burroway, Chronicle of Higher Education, Nov. 28, 2023.
   The author of the article is also the author of a textbook intended for university students, a book which she has successfully revised a few times over the last decade. I can't say I know the author, but I can say that it is highly unlikely that you will meet anyone more agreeable. Over the years she has acquiesced to many editorial suggestions and accepted advice to include examples that are sufficiently representative of diverse views coming from all sorts of people. Just getting all of that into one sentence, illustrates how difficult sensitivity editing can be. Since she writes about writing, it is best to have her tell you about the process.

"Unusually, this time around my publisher asked for no refreshing of my ideas, no major swaths of rewriting, only that I conform to the new sensibility. I was asked to change the binary “he/she,” for example, and to substitute they as a neutral nonbinary, or to refashion the sentence so that the plural made sense. The latter was often easy. The former not so much.
   My instructions suggested that even if I was positing a hypothetical stage scene, I should not designate an actor as male or female. I was asked not to say “pregnant woman” since trans men can sometimes give birth. I was asked to substitute “home” where I had said “house,” on the grounds that some people don’t have houses. (What of those who have a house but no home?) I was to add “or caregiver” to every mention of mother, father, or parents. “Heroine” and “hero” are out. “God” should not be referenced, since different people have different gods, or none. Likewise, “Him” should not be capitalized. Noah’s Ark should not be mentioned, since non-Bible-savvy students might not know the story. “First year” must be used instead of the sexist “freshman.” “Foreign” and “foreigners” are offensive in any context. “Nerd,” “tribal,” “naïve,” “’hood,” “ugliness,” and “race” should not be said. Don’t mention shame, straitjacket, suicide, Donald Trump, or Kevin Spacey!"

  I said she was agreeable and acquiescent and she was: "To virtually all of these admonitions, even when I thought them misguided or silly, I agreed. My own prose was not after all sacred. But when it came to the imaginative prose of other writers, trouble began."
   To provide examples of good and probably bad prose she did due diligence to make sure to fulfill the diversity quotient, but that wasn't enough since the examples chosen could not get by the sensitivity readers. She explains it:

   "The problems began with a short paragraph — one that had already been in the book for a couple of editions — from, as it happened, a white male author. Scott Russell Sanders, in a lovely memoir piece about his boyhood, “Coming from the Country,” records how his family moved north from Tennessee when he was “not quite six” and “still a two-legged smudge.”
  “The kids in Ohio took one listen to my Tennessee accent and decided I was a hick. … hillbilly, ridge runner, clodhopper, and hayseed.”
   This passage was flagged by the “development editor” (read: sensitivity reader) with the admonition that “these are derogatory terms Southern readers may feel strongly about.”
  “Yes,” I said; that was the point: “The terms are ugly and unfair, and no matter where we actually come from, we identify with the boy from Tennessee. No reader could miss this.”

 
The sensitivity reader did. As I indicated, Ms. Burroway is generally sympathetic with many of the 'liberal' goals of the new censors, but even she has to conclude that while, "The strictures of the left are more tentative and more benign. They are strictures, nevertheless."

Tuesday, 25 July 2023

Simple Solutions

   I have been busy for a bit and the weather is nice, but it is time to post something. I will again rely on the creativity of others, which you readers will find reassuring since I, myself, so far have demonstrated little of it. Here I will present two solutions to the problem that arises, when people who are more sensitive than I, come across something horrible or frightening when they are reading or watching in the privacy of their home or out walking in the public square. 



Caveat Lector

    I will keep this simple because it is and because I have touched upon it before in, for example, the appropriately titled, "WARNING."  This simple headline summarizes it all: "Only Trigger Warning Needed: Caveat Lector," and it is at the top of an an article in the National Post (June 29, 2023.) The solution occurred to the author, William Watson, who thought of it after watching Casablanca. In it Ilsa refers to the black piano player as the "boy." Since Ilsa (or Ingrid) were likely not racists and since the film otherwise embraces and exhibits values the sensitive will appreciate (anti-fascism, for example), does the movie really need to be banned or severely edited? Mr. Watson, thinks not, and notes that "the harm done by giving offence to some readers or viewers is outweighed by the benefit from the work itself."

  I agree and implied as much when I discussed in "WARNING"  the new propriety pronouncements being produced on Turner Classic Movies.  Mr. Watson suggests that Caveat Lector is better than "Contains Explicit Language" because generally we like language to be clear. I argued that "Viewer Discretion Advised" be placed before all films since now something in them will be offensive to someone. To be safe and to ensure the sensitive are not harmed perhaps all films and books be labeled with all of the warnings: Caveat Emptor, Caveat Lector, Caveat Auditor, Contains Explicit Language and Viewer (Reader) Discretion Advised. And, rather then ban or bowdlerize all older books and films or have librarians affix the above labels, a general public pronouncement, like the one found on beaches, should be widely promulgated indicating that all books or films produced before 2000 are to be approached cautiously: Danger: No Censors On Duty.

                                                     "Retain and Explain"

BEFORE



AFTER
   

   The solution to the problem of what to do with statues in squares or names on buildings which are problematic for those more sensitive than I, is encapsulated in the phrase, "Retain and Explain", which does have a nice ring to it. Rather than eliminate or subtract items and names from the landscape, we should add to them other objects or explanations which provide the historic context, as well as the present one which calls for the change. I will explain that the photos above portray the current view of many who believe that one should "Abolish and Remove." That is the statue of Edward Colston being dumped in the river in Bristol.

  "Retain and Explain" is an English suggestion, but I learned about it in an American article. I will provide the citation here since it helps explain things and because one reader told me they never look at the sources I usually dutifully apply at the bottom: "A Philosopher and a Slaver, But No Longer a Name on a Library: No One Disputes That George Berkeley Was Among Ireland's Greatest Thinkers, But He Was An Unapologetic Slaver. Now Trinity College Dublin Is Taking His Names Off One Of Its Buildings," Ed O'Loughlin, New York Times, May 8, 2023. Although his name is being removed from the library, "students will still encounter Berkeley in the form of a 19th century stained-glass window commemorating his life in the college chapel. The school decided to keep the window in place, but add information about the controversy -- adopting a so-called retain and explain approach." 

   "Retain and Explain" does sound nice, but it is not so simple. An explanatory plaque adjacent to a very large colonizer on a huge horse, would probably not be sufficient and the arguments over the statues would be endless. as would the debates about who should do the arguing. There would be other things to consider, but this day is a nice one and I will leave you to do the considering and will supply the sources to assist, although I know no one will read them. Do have a look at The Bonus, however, since it lists naming problems on the horizon. 

Sources: 
  This quotation -- "We believe that the right approach to statues, however contentious, is to retain and explain their presence" -- is found here: "Listing Controversy II: Staues, Contested Heritage And the Policy of "Retain and Explain", in Law & Place.
"Monumental Error: The Plan to 'Retain and Explain' Statues," Alexander Pelling-Bruce, The Spectator, April 10, 2021.
"The Times View on the Fate of Controversial Statues: Retain and Explain," The Times, Jan. 18, 2021.
"Retain and Explain is a Woke Trap To Rewrite History," Zareer Masani, The Sunday Telegraph, June 20, 2021. Here is his conclusion: 
"What such examples show is the near-impossibility of explaining in short captions what are often complex and contested reputations. Public spaces belong to the public, the vast majority of whom have little appetite for seeing monuments defaced by sanctimonious disclaimers. While most of us would back the policy to retain, must we really suffer it being accompanied by simplistic health warnings similar to those on cigarette packs? By all means let's also explain, but ensure those who do the explaining have the necessary expertise."

The Bonus:
   In the American article that started all of this it is noted that Berkeley came to America and that the University of California, Berkeley is named for him, but that the University is not changing the name. Yet.
  I have produced several posts about names, naming and statues and you likely will have read none of them and I won't bother pointing them out. A related one that you surely did not read was my year-end rant a few years ago. In it, you will note my prescience, in that I predicted that the names of some universities will be problematic for the sensitive ones (remember Ryerson?) Here is that small portion from a post that was too long:

The larger issue relates to the complete university not just the structures on the campus. What if the name applied to the entire university is tainted? I feel that it is my duty to alert you to some possible problems. In short, you would short the following colleges and universities if they were stocks or securities. The alphabetical list by institution includes the name of the person along with the alleged ‘crime’. 

Alcorn State (James L. He was a Confederate. Alcorn is largely black!)
Austin Peay  (Austin Peay. Like Jefferson, fathered a black child.)
Clemson ( Thomas Green. Married Calhoun’s daughter - see Yale above.)
Drake (Francis Marion. Killed a few Pawnees.)
Duke ( James Buchanan. Tobacco.)
Furman (Richard. The slave thing.)
George Mason (George Mason. The slave thing. See my related post - ASSOL)
Hofstra (William S. Lumber business - open to the charge of despoliation.)
Lamar ( Mirabeau Buonaparte. Slave trader AND Cherokee/Comanche killer.)
Marshall (John. His papers are online at the UVA. Find the problem yourself.)
Rice (William Marsh. Guy was a capitalist and died a rather messy death.)
Stanford (Leland Jr. The son of a robber baron.)
Tulane (Paul. Confederate donor.)
Vanderbilt (Cornelius. Rich - “unmannered brute.”)
Yale (Elihu. Corruption charges. Elis may become as rare as Jeffs.)

    Many colleges in the U.S. were founded by religious leaders and those named for such figures may be assumed to be safe from onomastic scrutiny (Wesleyan, for example) or maybe not (Oral Roberts). Otherwise if you are sending your sons or daughters off to college and you want them to have a ‘safe space’ , then perhaps you should consider a plainly-named land-grant university like the University of Iowa where the students are also likely to be less flighty. 

    As far as Canada goes, less work is required if you are trying to choose or avoid a university because of its name. Select one with a geographically-based name like ‘Toronto’, or  ‘Western’ which could exist anywhere and is surely not offensive. You could simply avoid any college that is named for a person unless she is Emily Carr. In the east, for example, I would not choose Dalhousie without thoroughly vetting the Earl. In the far west the choice is easy.  Go to UBC. It is clear that you should avoid Simon Fraser which will likely be attacked in the near future for reasons that are obvious. 

The source for the above, where there is even more, is my cleverly disguised post: "This Is NOT About Mariah Carey."

Sunday, 13 November 2022

WARNING

 


YOU WERE WARNED!

  I was riled a while back when I surfed past Turner Classic Movies and was presented with a WARNING about the upcoming showing of Gone With the Wind. The good news is, I suppose, that the movie was still being aired. Apparently HBO stopped showing it until a proper Sensitivity Disclaimer was composed. 
   Similar warnings are now required for other movies, such as Breakfast at Tiffany's (!)  and My Fair Lady,(!) and Disney+ is putting them before all of episodes of The Muppet Show. Sensitive times indeed.  



Disclaimers For Dummies
  Some time has passed and I am less riled now, but I still think the profusion of such pronouncements is excessive and likely to be counterproductive. TCM is probably "Reframing" films, partly to protect itself from the newly sensitized who may start picketing. I like Ben Mankiewicz and generally enjoy the analysis and background he provides. I have also benefitted from the insights of film critics who explained what some complicated movies were all about. But, this new didacticism which re-educates us as to what is right or wrong or good or bad about a movie and needs to "contextualize" it for us and point out that attitudes about such things as race and gender and cowboys and Indians were different back in olden times, assumes that most movie viewers are cretinous. There have always been some warnings and, for example, the Motion Picture Association provided ones for guidance, but they were intended to suggest to potential viewers, whether a film was appropriate for children

  There are thousands of films and even entire genres of them that are now unacceptable to the new sensitivity scrutinizers. Propriety Pronouncements are probably being produced as I write so we will know what to think about a film. Perhaps instead, this simple, old generic one can be used and placed before every movie - "Viewer Discretion Advised." 

Sources:
  About the changes at TCM see, "Turner Classic Movies is Changing, and Trying to Stay the Same," David Itzkoff, New York Times, Sept, 1, 2021.
  The piece about the awful, hurtful Muppets is here: "Disney + Adds 'Negative Depictions' Disclaimer to Multiple Episodes of The Muppet Show", Rosy Cordero, Entertainment, Feb. 21, 2021.
Post Script:
  It didn't take long for the conservative folks and Fox News to make fun of all this as the images above indicate.
The Bonus: Someone just paid $25,000 for the book - Gone With the WInd - I hope they know about it. 

Tuesday, 1 November 2022

Very Expensive Used Books


 

  In early October AbeBooks released its list of "Most Expensive Sales From July to September, 2022." Third on the list was Gone With the Wind. Here is their notice:

Gone with the Wind,  by Margaret Mitchell - $25,000
A first edition, first printing of Margaret Mitchell’s landmark novel about the American South during the American Civil War and its aftermath. The book is signed by the author on the front free endpaper. Gone With the Wind was published in May 1936 by Macmillan and this copy still has its original dust jacket. An immediate bestseller, a movie adaption of the novel followed in 1939. Mitchell won a Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 1937 thanks to this book.

  If you search on AbeBooks for another copy of Gone With the Wind, you will find that there are still many expensive ones available.
 

   The poor author does not benefit from any of this. She was struck by a drunk driver and killed in 1949. For a full accounting of this accident see my: "Martha Mitchell (1900 - 1949.)
   Although printed books have been devalued by many, others are willing to pay a lot for them. 
   Recently both Turner Classic Movies and HBO Max issued warnings for viewers about the content of the film version of Gone With the Wind. It doesn't look like booksellers are providing such alerts, but perhaps readers don't require them. 

The Bonus:
   Even business books can be very expensive. See: "Valuable Business Books."