cronesmoon: Dishwashing

Hurricane Cronesmoon (

cronesmoon) wrote,
@ 2008-02-19 17:21:00

Dishwashing
I have just come from washing dishes, which although it is certainly far from my fave task can, if one is very present for it, be quite sensuous: warm water, soft suds, smooth china.... But I do understand why someone might find that concept alien. Once I was made to change a scene in a story because the editor did not believe that anyone could under any circumstances enjoy washing dishes. Very likely since the enjoyment of dishwashing was not central to the story, she was right to eliminate it in order to prevent disconcertment on the part of some or many readers. It is over such small things that the unwary writer can most readily trip. (She said ponderously.)

(Post a new comment)

	greyorm 2008-02-20 06:25 pm UTC (link)
	Seems like the right call for the wrong reasons. (Editors who think they are anthropologists or psychologists without actually being either are on my "Nothing worse than..." list.) (Reply to this)(Thread)

	cronesmoon 2008-02-20 11:12 pm UTC (link)
	Actually it was for the right reasons. The editor was offended that I would write of a woman enjoying such a task; I believe it threatened her femininity in some way, or her feministness, or something. She perceived it as some sort of stereotyping, if I understood correctly. Anyway, I was glad to be saved from giving unintentional offense to others. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

twyleth_teg
2008-02-21 12:02 am UTC (link)

I like washing dishes and I'm a chick. [had some random woman scream at me in passing once for using "chick" instead of "women"- hows that for offending perfect strangers? XD]
Mind you I liked where the sink was positioned to wash, more then the actual washing. Because there was a big window that looked out over the farm and could get fine views of sunsets, green wheat rippling in the wind, the local deer-herd, birds splashing in the mud puddles and other such charming but sadly overlooked things.
But it's all bulldozed now :( and I've yet to find a suitable washing-window.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	cronesmoon 2008-02-21 12:19 am UTC (link)
	Sounds like a lovely window. Very sad it's gone. And yeah, we're not to say "girl" or "chick," even when referring to a person of the female persuasion who is too young to be comfortable with the word "woman." If she's past pre-teens, she's a woman, like it or not. It is to sigh. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	twyleth_teg 2008-02-22 09:29 am UTC (link)
	Lulz! but the word itself "woman" is fine? I've never been fond of it- and im not a feminist by any means- so I use any other possible word. Chick? Yeah. Dame? rarely. Broad? ^_^ Weeeeeench! [People really hate wench] Hoyden- nobody knows what it is! And don't forget the ever-popular "Rib" :P (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	cronesmoon 2008-02-22 12:28 pm UTC (link)
	I used "chick" for years and years after it was no longer politically correct. "Broad" is usually reserved for a joking reference or someone not liked. Wench is good. Hoyden has too many connotations. "Person of the female persuasion" is too large a mouthful. These days I usually settle for "people." Or, sometimes, "young persons," because that amuses me. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	greyorm 2008-02-21 12:11 am UTC (link)
	Sorry, it still sounds like the wrong reason to me, if not more so. "It doesn't work for the character/story." Good reason. Editing based on personal politics? Definitely a sin. But I suspect we'll simply have to disagree on this. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	cronesmoon 2008-02-21 12:17 am UTC (link)
	Yeah, I guess we'll have to disagree. I appreciate the effort editors and copy editors have made to help me communicate what I intended. This one included. It makes no nevermind to me whether the request is based on personal politics or the phase of the moon, if the result is to prevent the story from communicating something I neither foresaw nor intended. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2008-02-21 05:39 pm UTC (link)

Have to say I'm with Greyorm on this one.:) I've read about many things I wouldn't personally enjoy and it's never spoiled my pleasure. In fact, it's always nice to have a new perspective. I just assume an author is telling me a story, not trying to tell me how to live my life.
As to the reason being the right one, I have my doubts. Isn't this just a subtle confirmation of the sexist view that an intelligent and able human being cannot possibly be a domestic one? It depresses me that the skills we traditionally think of as female are still so undervalued along with the people who practice them. To me that is not feminism.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

cronesmoon
2008-02-22 12:23 pm UTC (link)

I think I am not communicating very well here. We're wandering far afield from the simple point I wanted (but clearly failed) to make, which is that the author cannot safely assume he exemplifies all humanity.

First I'll tackle the all-but-ignored point that the dishwashing, in this story, was completely unimportant and told us nothing about the character, situation, or plot, yet as my editor's reaction exemplified, it potentially introduced powerful emotions that would distract some readers from the story. Not a thing to be desired. It just doesn't matter why the editor thought as she did, or whether we agree with her. The point is that the action described caused a strong reaction in this reader that distracted her from what I wanted to say. And I could avoid it in other readers like her simply by changing the protagonist's activity. Willing, me? You bet!

The point introduced by Greyorm, whether an editor's reason for making a point is any importance whatsoever, is, I think, something that many writers may struggle with, because they have not come to understand (or do not agree) that editors, like writers, are readers. If the editor sees something in your story that you didn't intend, there will be other readers who will see that thing too. If that thing will distract them from your story, it really doesn't matter in the least whether it's "really" there, or why the reader sees it: what matters is to remove the possibility that someone will be distracted by it from your story.

"The meaning of your communication is the response you get." It is your job as writer to say what you mean in such a way that readers whose politics, opinions, and education differ from yours will still receive the message you intended. (It is at this that I am consistently failing in this thread, alas.)

In the case mentioned, the editor could not have seen the potential problem if her politics had matched mine. It was her politics that made her able to see what some other readers would have been distracted by. If she felt as I do about dishwashing, she'd have been as ignorant as I was of the potential readers to whom enjoyment of dishwashing is or was symbolic of antifeminist values. (This was in the early 1970s, when feminism was shiny-new. Please try to apply that thought to your political reactions here.)

Maybe it's a sign of my failure to be a Great Artist, but it just seems to me that it's my job as writer to find ways to say what I mean that neither confuse nor mislead the average reader. (You may say my editor wasn't average, but I think in that time, she very likely was, and I was the one out of step.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2008-02-22 03:53 pm UTC (link)

From:Anonymous again Sorry, I didn't mean to muddy the waters. You did explain the situation quite clearly and I did not mean to imply that the editor's judgement was comercially wrong or that your decision to change your work was incorrect. I was just intrigued by the situation and after reading the comments you'd recieved, I felt like giving a response to the editior's thinking from my own perspective, as a reader and a feminist. Maybe I should have considered a bit before posting. I appreciate now that my comment maybe wasn't particularly relevant to the point you were trying to make.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

cronesmoon
2008-02-22 04:06 pm UTC (link)

Wow, I'm really not doing well at all. I didn't mean to criticize your response; I valued it. Relevant? Eh, maybe not, but relevance isn't required of the interesting.

Re your opinion as a feminist, though, that's why I mentioned the era in which the story was published. Feminists were just feeling their way and still responding violently to any perceived stereotype. I suspect most of them, in fact, didn't value the pursuits that were regarded as "women's work," and why should they, when they'd been raised to believe that such work was beneath the dignity of anyone worthwhile? It takes time for new pride to embrace old pursuits.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

2ndsoprano
2008-02-22 05:29 pm UTC (link)

I'm going to bundle responses into one reply, as I am just catching up on stuff after a full week of baby spoiling! lol

I understood you r point in the original post, and must say I agree. Anything that pulls any reader out of the story is not a good thing. And it doesn't matter why the pulling back occurred. What is important is that it did occur, and could well be the difference between a reader enjoying a story or not. The only exception would be, of course, if the point in question is central to the story- then, of course, it must stay. Well, I suppose even then, if it is a big enough problem spot to turn off a large number of readers, there might be reason to try and rework. But if, as in your case, it is a small detail and not central to the story as a whole, changing it makes sense. I don't think it would have bothered me, and I am not fond of dishwashing (that's what God invented dishwashers for! Tho I do get a certain satisfaction from folding laundry and that is something not all can relate to.), but if it upset someone enough to comment, it may very well upset more. And why risk popping readers out of the story unnecessarily?

As for the girl/woman thing, I really don't like using "woman," particularly for a young character. And I don't mean just pre-teen/teen. It seems so - ponderous or something. But, then, what? If "girl" is unacceptable, and chick is too non-PC, what's really left? Female? Dudette??? LOL

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

cronesmoon
2008-02-22 07:45 pm UTC (link)

LOL, I vote for dudette.

"Young woman" sometimes works, though it's cumbersome. But really for anyone under about 25 or so, "woman" seems altogether too ponderous (that's an excellent word for it).

They shouldn't take away words for political correctness if they won't give us equally good ones to use in their stead. "Woman" is simply not a satisfactory substitute for "girl." Females don't have as many options as males (lad, guy, dude, fellow...), in this as in so many things.

Then again, males have less tendency to take exception to such terms of address. "Boy" is right out (which I guess is a parallel with "girl"), of course. But I can't think of another term they particularly seem to mind, while females object to "girl," "lady," "chick," "wench," "bird," and, probably, "dudette."

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	2ndsoprano 2008-02-22 08:11 pm UTC (link)
	Bitch?? I know when someone calls me that, my usual response is "thank you!" LOL Seriously, I agree. If "they" are going to say we can't use a perfectly good word like girl, "they" really ought to give a decent substitute. Maybe we women are just too sensitive, unlike the guys, who don't really care what you call 'em, as long as you don't call 'em late for dinner! ;) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	just a question... (Anonymous) 2008-04-19 06:00 pm UTC (link)
	"The meaning of your communication is the response you get." I've been thinking about this sentence ever since you posted it. It seems to apply to so many situations besides the one under discussion here. Could you tell me where it comes from, please. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: just a question... cronesmoon 2008-04-20 12:50 pm UTC (link)
	As far as I know I made it up when I was writing the Amethyst essays (caution: Website unmaintained, most links broken) many years ago. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: just a question... (Anonymous) 2008-04-21 04:52 pm UTC (link)
	I enjoyed the essays a lot. Thank you for the link. Now another question, I have a journal on deviantArt and if you don't mind, I'd like to quote (and credit) you and maybe link people back to the essays. There's a few things in there I think I would like to share with friends. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: just a question... cronesmoon 2008-04-22 11:25 am UTC (link)
	Oh, that's odd: they're supposed to have a copyright statement at the bottom that specifically allows that sort of use. I'll try to get that corrected soon. Meantime sure, links and quotes are just fine with attribution. I'm glad you found something useful. (Reply to this)(Parent)

Mini Sitemap:

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…