UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion

53 views
Agony Aunt > And yet another cost

Comments Showing 1-23 of 23 (23 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Jim (new)

Jim | 21839 comments Apparently now you can hire a sensitivity reader to check through your book

It's only $250!

Why is it everybody gets more than the writer, and cash up front before the book is ever published?

http://blog.bookbaby.com/2018/03/publ...


message 2: by David (new)

David Manuel | 1147 comments Jim wrote: "Apparently now you can hire a sensitivity reader to check through your book

It's only $250!

Why is it everybody gets more than the writer, and cash up front before the book is ever published?

ht..."


Sensitivity reader? $250? Damn, I guess I'll just have to continue risking offending lots of people.

Oh, wait, I've been trying to offend lots of people! Never mind.


message 3: by Alicia (new)

Alicia Ehrhardt (aliciabutcherehrhardt) | 4165 comments I have CREDENTIALS. Female, part Mexican, chronically ill, and physically disabled. Oh, and have a big mouth.

I take sensitivity reading from no one. Ha!


Patti (baconater) (goldengreene) | 61757 comments Oh ferfuksake.

Six months rewriting a book so as not to offend?

That offends me.


message 5: by David (new)

David Edwards | 445 comments This YA story has given 'Sensitivity Reading' a boost. Having baddies with dark skins raised a storm of protest.

On the basis that no publicity is bad publicity, the insensitive version generated masses of visibility. I am therefore launching an Insensitivity Editing Service. For £500 I will take your manuscript and litter it with casual racism, misogyny, gratuitous pornography and acrostics claiming that sex with vacuum cleaners sucks.


message 6: by Kath (new)

Kath Middleton | 25061 comments I heard about this a few days ago. Readers, get a grip. Get over yourselves and grow up!


Patti (baconater) (goldengreene) | 61757 comments Hear, hear.


message 8: by Jim (new)

Jim | 21839 comments I'm in agriculture, we were excused political correctness long ago :-)


message 9: by Jim (new)

Jim | 21839 comments David wrote: "For £500 I will take your manuscript and litter it with casual racism, misogyny, gratuitous pornography and acrostics claiming that sex with vacuum cleaners sucks. ..."

I think that it's one of the best offers we're likely to get David, I recommend it to thoughtful writers :-)


message 10: by Tim (new)

Tim | 9478 comments Wasn't there a prize a while back that you could only enter for if your protag was a female who never got attacked/ assaulted/ dissed/ shot/ blown up/ thrown out of an airlock/ anything else that made protags interesting . . . ?


Patti (baconater) (goldengreene) | 61757 comments I think you missed the point of that prize, Tim.


message 12: by Jim (new)

Jim | 21839 comments Tim wrote: "Wasn't there a prize a while back that you could only enter for if your protag was a female who never got attacked/ assaulted/ dissed/ shot/ blown up/ thrown out of an airlock/ anything else that made protags interesting . . . ?..."

If there was the publicity was as tedious as the stories would be, so I missed it :-)


message 13: by Kath (new)

Kath Middleton | 25061 comments I saw that competition. And I thought, I don't know any woman as bland as that. I get the point - but it's not real life.


message 14: by Anna (new)

Anna Faversham (annafaversham) | 1692 comments A sensitivity reader! Sigh. I wish I could find something worth saying but I'm sitting here sighing and staring.


message 15: by Jim (new)

Jim | 21839 comments Kath wrote: "I saw that competition. And I thought, I don't know any woman as bland as that. I get the point - but it's not real life."

given the ladies of my acquaintance it struck me the competition was 'fantasy' in the saddest sense of the word


message 16: by Jacquelynn (new)

Jacquelynn Luben (jackieluben) | 276 comments It was worth reading this thread just for the laugh it gave me. Pity there's no 'like' button for the comments.


message 17: by Jim (new)

Jim | 21839 comments Jacquelynn wrote: "It was worth reading this thread just for the laugh it gave me. Pity there's no 'like' button for the comments."

yes I've felt that at times as well ;-)


message 18: by Joseph (new)

Joseph | 23 comments Some people do indeed need sensitivity readers, because they're 'friends' with the sort of people who demand that books must be 'sensitive'; this group being curiously vicious when their demands are not met.


message 19: by Jim (new)

Jim | 21839 comments Joseph wrote: "Some people do indeed need sensitivity readers, because they're 'friends' with the sort of people who demand that books must be 'sensitive'; this group being curiously vicious when their demands ar..."

if you sup with the devil, use a long spoon :-)


message 20: by H.E. (new)

H.E. Bulstrode (goodreadscomhebulstrode) | 58 comments By sensitivity reader do I take it that this is nothing more than a US euphemistic neologism for censor? Another addition to the contemporary lexicon of thoughtcrime.


message 21: by Jim (new)

Jim | 21839 comments H.E. wrote: "By sensitivity reader do I take it that this is nothing more than a US euphemistic neologism for censor? Another addition to the contemporary lexicon of thoughtcrime."

just about sums it up nicely :-)


message 22: by Rita (new)

Rita Chapman | 389 comments Every day I seem to read something that just defies belief! Here's another one! I can't imagine them being rushed off their feet.


message 23: by Chris (last edited May 15, 2018 03:52PM) (new)

Chris Naylor There's nothing new under the sun. The old name for this was bowdlerisation.


back to top