Diversity and inclusion (DEI) has become a bit of a hot topic in editing.
Editors and publishers are actively discussing it, thinking about language and how individuals and communities are represented in the content we work on.
I’d like to share with you a practical example of positive reading for DEI, to show how and why it can be helpful for your book.
DEI in a family context
Over the last year or so, I’ve worked on a few scripts by different authors that referenced family situations. As part of the read, I found myself highlighting some potential diversity gaps in the content for the authors to look at and consider.
To be clear, just in case this might be interpreted as a political flag to wave or drum to bang (which would be an incorrect assumption!), I did it because it was obvious from the writing that the view was very much through the authors’ personal lens and their own lives – they simply weren’t aware of this, which is fine.
Here’s another reason why I delivered those notes: these days, diverse lives are a fact. Families are no longer necessarily the traditionally married, co-parented, nuclear norm. And how individuals are raised can manifest in so many ways: for example, some might have been orphaned, adopted, fostered or raised in care, or by a lone parent or perhaps an older-generation relative.
But also – and importantly – I noted this for the authors to consider because not including those potential audiences can be bad for business. It’s key to bear in mind that people from those backgrounds could well be reading their books.
If those readers don’t see themselves there, they might question whether the book is actually relevant to them (and perhaps feel excluded, possibly even silenced).
A book that isn’t inclusive of the diverse readership of today may not sell as well, or speak to as full an audience as it might.
It’s relevant to mention further that I wasn’t only referring to LGBTQIA+ communities in my notes. In the context of family, I also noted individuals who are child-free by choice and childless not by choice.
Childlessness can be a highly sensitive issue for readers, because pronatal language and scenarios assuming successful, natural reproductive ability as the norm – even as a/the definition of womanhood – can be deeply upsetting for those who have gone through the distress of, say, IVF or miscarriage.
(And of course, it’s worth highlighting that human reproduction isn’t the life choice of those who’ve taken a happy, conscious decision to be child-free.)
All the authors I was collaborating with took these constructive notes well. One told me how much she was enjoying the general process of working through the feedback and revising her script: in fact, exchanging thoughts on this particular point helped both of us clarify the book’s audience, and how to address them, even better.
The others responded positively too: one assimilated my suggestions for increased reach, while the other commended the feedback and went on to revise their script.
Is DEI in publishing really a ‘threat’?
Perhaps it’s useful just for argument’s sake, if we posit DEI reading as a ‘threat’, to think about why that might appear to be the case.
The thing about DEI is that it can present us with a different perspective from our own lived experience, and sometimes that can feel alien or uncomfortable.
Equality is now enshrined in UK law under the Equality Act 2010, which protects certain characteristics from discrimination and covers a range from age, sexuality and gender to disability, religion/belief, race/ethnicity and more. This is something that editors are obliged to look for and note, if it does happen to turn up in a script from a legal viewpoint.
Unfortunately, there has also been unhelpfully negative, knee-jerk sensationalism over sensitivity reading and DEI in publishing. Some of the brouhaha in recent times (such as this) isn’t fully representative of how authors are engaging productively with this topic, or the way that editors are working with them in this area on a day-to-day basis.
There is no need to feel confronted by, or afraid of, what DEI might present. It isn’t about getting in people’s faces; rather, a more gentle, measured and collaborative process.
What is true is that we’ve reached the stage where the written word needs to reflect (and in many cases, actively respect, due to historic wrongs), the reality of many lived experiences.
Put simply: when we publish, we can’t operate in a vacuum anymore.
DEI isn’t censorship
Let’s be clear: no good editor runs a bowdlerising pen over an author’s work – ever.
That isn’t our job or right in any respect.
However, it is perhaps relevant for author preparedness to be open to editorial notes. I’m not an authenticity or sensitivity reader by trade, but I’ve already incorporated inclusivity and terminology awareness into my work for some time as a matter of course – specifically per the legal aspect above, which is part of an expected (and accepted) commissioned editing brief.
It’s helpful for editors to work with writers on certain elements of language and representation, and to share why they’re so key to a fully-rounded result.
We want your book to be under as many noses as possible, and to sell well!
My job as an editor is to advocate for both author and reader. The book sets the intention, and how the reader is going to receive that is a crucial factor in its projected success. My neutral viewpoint gives a window on the text that helps to make the result an engaging, productive and useful experience for every reader.
Editors only suggest, and leave it to the author to decide.
Ultimately, the name on the cover shoulders what’s inside. It’s the author’s book, and we’re clear about that.
What happens after that is all part and parcel of the process of putting our words out there into the world.
Lisa Cordaro Publishing Services 