January 19, 2015

Did OUP ban references to pork products in its textbooks? Not really, but here are some references Melville House is banning

by

References to aspic will be banned from Melville House books in most parts of the world, except for those parts that really love aspic

References to aspic will be banned from Melville House books in most parts of the world, except for those parts that really love aspic

Here we are only a few weeks into 2015, and yet we’ve encountered enough stories of publishers unwilling to offend their potential audiences to last us through the end of the decade. (This is not even to mention the many publications—the New York Times among them—that did not publish Charlie Hebdo’s controversial cartoons after the horrific attacks in Paris.) The year began with HarperCollins and its Israel-omitting atlas, which was intended to cater to “local preferences” but instead proved extremely embarrassing, as people tend to notice when you erase countries from atlases.

And last Wednesday, the Guardian reported, in typically subtle fashion (“Pigs won’t fly in textbooks: OUP tells authors not to mention pork”), that Oxford University Press had told its textbook authors to tread lightly around topics that might provoke reactions in more “modest markets.” As with all great instances of bureaucratic anxiety, there was even an acronym: PARSNIP, which stands for Politics, Alcohol, Religion, Sex, Narcotics, -Isms, and Pork. OUP did not state whether actual parsnips are off limits, but one can assume that they probably are, because let’s be honest: no one needs to learn about parsnips.

The following day, OUP’s primary publishing director Jane Harley responded to the allegations in an op-ed, also published in the Guardian:

To clarify, OUP does not have a blanket ban on pork products in its titles, and we do still publish books about pigs . . . To address children’s learning needs, it is important that they also reflect the cultural context in which children are learning. In the UK, we take it for granted that we would not include references to sex, violence, or alcohol in our textbooks; to do so would be considered inappropriate and offensive to many . . . [We] consider avoiding references to a range of topics that could be considered sensitive—in a way that does not compromise quality, or negatively impact learning.

The entire piece is worth reading, as it provides a thoughtful (though necessarily abstract) look at the challenges of publishing books for diverse and ever-changing audiences.

And boy, can we relate. As our readership grows larger, more varied, and more far-flung, it has become necessary for us to take the cultural sensitivities of our readers very seriously.

With that in mind, we have developed a guide that lists potentially offensive topics and the regions that may be affected by references to said topics. Henceforth, we will omit these in our print and e-book editions and make appropriate substitutions. We have included an excerpt from this guide below, in the hope that our readers appreciate the considerable effort we are making on their behalf.

Melville House Potentially Offensive Topic Guide [Excerpt]

Topic: New York Yankees
Offensive in: New England except southern Connecticut and western Massachusetts (weekends only); scattered regions across United States
Solution: In New England: substitute all positive references to New York Yankees with references to Boston Red Sox; stet all negative references. In scattered regions across the United States: substitute all positive references to New York Yankees with references to baseball team nearest to given reader; stet all negative references.
Exceptions: None.

Topic: Aspic [pictured]
Offensive in: North America except rural regions of southern United States; South America; Western Europe; Asia (except Russia, Nepal, Thailand, and maybe a few other countries); Africa; Australia
Solution: Delete entire page containing reference to aspic, even if reference appears in the middle of the page. Readers who encounter aspic and are not of extractions listed above tend to be so horrified by aspic that even the suggestion of a reference is often enough to repel them.
Exceptions: If given reader has recently visited a hipster restaurant that serves aspic, consider stetting the reference, but omission is always preferable.

Topic: Religion
Offensive in: Everywhere
Solution: Omit any content having to do with any of the world’s religions. Even members of religions with generally peaceful tendencies may feel offended at an unexpected statement or remark.
Exceptions: None. What could go wrong?

Topic: Cigarettes
Offensive in: United States; Europe; India; China; Australia; scattered smaller countries
Solution: If reference is to a child with a cigarette, replace cigarette with candy cigarette. If reference is to an adult with a cigarette, replace cigarette with two candy cigarettes.
Exceptions: If the character looks who is smoking is really cool and smoking is making him or her seem even cooler, stet reference to cigarette.

Topic: Poetry
Offensive in: Everywhere
Solution: Omit any content having to do with any of the world’s poetry. Even poets with generally peaceful tendencies may feel offended at an unexpected statement or remark.
Exceptions: None. What could go wrong?

Topic: Pepsi
Offensive in: Georgia (state)
Solution: Given Georgians’ preference for all things Coca-Cola-related and antipathy to other soft drink brands, substitute mentions of Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, Sierra Mist, and Mug with mentions of Coke, Diet Coke, Sprite, and Barq’s, respectively.
Exceptions: Stet all mentions of Pepsi Clear—this is a topic that is absolutely hilarious in any cultural context.

Topic: Sex
Offensive in: [redacted]
Solution: Replace reference to sex with reference to [redacted].
Exceptions: [redacted].

 

Mark Krotov is senior editor at Melville House.

MobyLives