By Walter Boomsma
207 343-1842
Communications Director
A writer’s choice, an editor’s decision
Sometimes the question is more important than the answer!
A colleague who writes fiction posted a question in our writer’s forum. His forthcoming book includes a character who uses some bigoted slurs and language. The author was rightfully concerned about the effect the language might have on readers and how he should handle it.
Ironically, as I reviewed a website post on the same day, I faced the decision of whether or not to delete an adjective that, while not offensive, could be considered discriminatory.
Writing and editing are more art than science. This is one reason I don’t fear AI (artificial intelligence), but that would be a digression.
To my writing colleague, I suggested that we writers must not become so obsessed with the fear of offending someone that we forget the ultimate purpose of writing.
As an editor, I focus on the fact anything that appears on the website or in the Bulletin reflects on the Grange as an organization. Offending people is not in our best interest.
In both cases, there can be some hard decisions as we strive to find the delicate balance. The standard for a fictional novel will be different from the standard for publications representing an organization. And while communication, by its nature, is never perfectly done, we have to try to create understanding. “Free speech” does not equate to “irresponsible speech.”
Hopefully, editors exist to improve communication. Ultimately, it’s not an exact science because the reader contributes much to the process of the words used by the writer. If you’ve ever been misunderstood, you know what that means.
My intent here is not to start a political discussion but rather to create an awareness that society is increasingly sensitive to word choices. Writers and speakers do well to be considerate and can unintentionally cause problems when they are not.
Here’s a simple example. Have you noticed that when I refer to the head of a committee, I use the term “chair” instead of “chairman?” It’s just a simple example of “gender neutrality.” Another example from the news is changing “policemen” to “police officers.” Occupations are gender-neutral and should be referred to accordingly.
I can offer another example of how word choice can be important. This was actually a few years ago, before the heightened sensitivity. Someone only slightly familiar with the Grange explained, “When I see events listed, I assume a meeting is for members only, but a program can be attended by anyone.”
Isn’t that interesting?
“ I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant”
Alan Greenspan
With a little focus and by working together, we can decrease the chances of that happening.
► FACT: The third most visited post in the past seven days was the list of new members! People are hungry for good news from Granges!
