1/ It's basically impossible for a children's or young adult's book to get published without input from a 'sensitivity reader'.
These are EDI professionals who scour books for any hint of themes which might attract controversy.
2/ They come at books looking for ways to be offended. Most of them time they find problems. As a result, most books published today are sanitised, politically correct, and wooden.
@CartoonsHateHer has written interestingly on her experience of the modern publishing process
3/ Authors aren't even allowed to have villains who could come across as sexist / racist / homophobic / transphobic / culturally appropriative.
Children aren't pathetic and thin skinned. They can handle nuance and complexity. But publishers refuse to acknowledge this
4/ Directly from a sensitivity reader's mouth: I found this passage from the Cambridge Latin Course Textbook's 'EDI Reader' equally fascinating and shocking.
Even textbooks have to be edited to ensure depictions of the ancient world live up to the standards of modern feminism.
5/ Not even the classics are safe. Sensitivity readers have scoured through treasured children's books.
Take a look at what they did to Roald Dahl's 'The Witches'. Which version would you rather read for pleasure?
6/ Reading a book like this isn't pleasurable. Children know when they're being lectured - this is now the modern reading experience.
Kate Clanchy has written brilliantly on how sensitivity readers slowly and systematically tore her book to pieces.
7/ Authors have also spoken out about the desire of publishers to put out 'political' stories.
Gone are the days of 'Just William' and 'Adrian Mole' charting the lives of the average schoolboy.
Children's literature has been turned into political hectoring.
7/ A survey of some of the titles currently being aggressively marketed to children (of all ages)
The Pronoun Book
I am Jack (story of a transgender YouTube human rights campaigner)
No Ballet Shoes in Syria (story of a Syrian refugee fighting to stay in the UK)
8/ Give children 'Ballet Shoes', 'The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe', 'The Famous Five', anything by Tolkien, or the Railway Children and I guarantee they'll read them.
Give them sanitised slop, and I really can't blame them for turning to other activists.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Rachel Reeves claims she has just discovered a £22 billion black hole.
She's announced cuts to major public infrastructure projects which could have driven enormous growth and prosperity.
Short 🧵on wasted public money that could be cut.
1/ 15.6 billion a year on Net Zero
Aurora Energy Research have costed Labour's commitment to Net Zero by 2030 at 15.6 bn/year (with a total additional investment of £116 bn over the next 11 years)
2/ £11.6 billion in overseas climate aid.
Miliband has confirmed Labour are still committed to spending £11.6 billion in 'International Climate Finance' before 2026.
The National Gallery have taken the decision to brand John Constable's Hay Wain as a "contested" landscape due to his "conservative" attitudes and "privileged" position.
🧵on why we should oppose this sort of politicised curation from a museum funded by the taxpayer
1/ The National Gallery is a non-departmental body of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
The collection is free to view and in 2023 the gallery received £30.7 million from the taxpayer.
Their curatorial decisions are therefore in the public interest.
2/The Hay Wain is being depicted as a painting produced"conservative" attitudes. In reality - it's a radical artwork.
The portrait was produced in 1821 at the height of the academic hierarchy of artistic genres - with history painting at the top and landscapes much further down.
Royal Parks have branded the Albert Memorial as “offensive” as it “reflects a “Victorian view of European supremacy”.
This decision does not meet the rigorous standards set by the Government’s “Retain and Explain Guidance” or Policy Exchange’s “Principles for Change”. Why? 🧵
2/ The Royal Parks website claims that the statue reflects a “Victorian view of the world that differs from mainstream views held today … though the Empire has traditionally been celebrated as a symbol of British supremacy, many today consider this view as problematic”.
3/ These claims are no longer available on the Royal Parks website and seem to have been removed. Do Royal Parks no longer stand by their comments? If so, who made this decision and why has there been no statement retracting the claims?