There is also that obfuscation coming between innocent description and overt racism generally referred to as a Dog Whistle. However, I agree that censorship is not the answer and suggest that improving Critical Thinking skills would be the more beneficial direction. Unfortunately, here in the United States it is apparent that a third of the people are incapable of thinking for themselves.
It’s always a good thing for those of us who take literature seriously to be sensitive to what they read. Quite often, matters of the vital import are communicated with subtleties and nuances, and without sufficient sensitivity to these things, one may well miss the development of Emma Woodhouse’s perceptions, or of Lambert Strether’s. Which would be a shame, as these developments are at the very centre of these novels. So yes, let’s have more sensitive readers, by all means. That can only be good for the furtherance of literary values.
However, another expression, similar sounding but very different in meaning, has been making its way quite insistently into my consciousness of late, and this time, I’m not so sure it is very good for the furtherance of literary values. And that’s “sensitivity readers”. Being long of the opinion that any noun may be verbed, I have no objection…
View original post 1,386 more words