How I—a Jewish Writer—Approach Sensitivity Reads for Authors Who Write Jewish Characters

How I—a Jewish Writer—Approach Sensitivity Reads for Authors Who Write Jewish Characters

How l—a Jewish Writer—Approach Sensitivity Reads for Authors Who Write Jewish Characters

Building trust with readers by providing a clear why.

One piece is missing from an otherwise complete puzzle.

By Jamie Beth Cohen • July 14, 2021

 

I love writing about, talking about, and practicing Jewish customs. Because of that, I’ve become someone writers turn to for “sensitivity reads” (also known as “authenticity reads”) when writing Jewish characters. It’s fascinating work, but also work that is sometimes misunderstood by people inside and outside of publishing. Sensitivity readers are not here to censor authors but to help them avoid pitfalls they may not even realize exist. Because no matter how much research you do on a culture, you can’t find answers to questions you don’t know to ask.

Sensitivity readers are not here to censor authors but to help them avoid pitfalls they may not even realize exist.

Once, I read a published book where there were lots of flowers at a Jewish funeral. Can there be flowers at a fictional Jewish funeral? Sure. Is it common to have flowers at a Jewish funeral? Not really. Can there be a good reason for flowers at a real or fictional Jewish funeral? Sure. What if the deceased (real or fictional) had a lovely garden full of roses and lilacs and peonies? OK, there might be flowers at their funeral. What if the deceased (real or fictional) left specific wishes for a flower-filled funeral? Great! There’s nothing in Jewish law that says you can’t have flowers at a Jewish funeral. Even if there were, not every Jew follows Jewish law the same way.

But in a book, if there are flowers at a Jewish funeral and the reason isn’t in the text, an astute reader might wonder if the flowers were a conscious choice by the author or an oversight fueled by a lack of cultural understanding. And that wondering can take the reader out of the narrative and, in some situations, reinforce harmful misconceptions about Jews. When something an author writes doesn't ring true, feasible, or authentic to the reader, the reader may end up questioning what else the author got wrong. This breaks the necessary trust between author and reader.

So, if I were asked, “Can there be flowers at a Jewish funeral?,” I wouldn’t give a yes or no answer. I would ask the author, “Why do you want to write a scene with flowers at a Jewish funeral? Is the scene necessary? Are the flowers? Have you laid the groundwork in the text that supports that choice?”

When something an author writes doesn't ring true, feasible, or authentic to the reader, the reader may end up questioning what else the author got wrong.

It’s not only non-Jewish writers who have questions about writing Jewish characters.

In an online group of Jewish writers I’m in, someone asked if a Jewish family having bacon at the breakfast table would be appropriate for a middle grade novel.

She, a Jewish writer, grew up with bacon, as did I, but what she was asking was, “How would this land with middle grade readers?” Because when we write for kids, we think about how what we write will shape their perceptions and realities (the “mirrors and windows” theory). So, the conversation among Jewish writers in this case was not “Could this happen?”—we all knew it could—but rather, “What does it mean to put this in a book?”

When I do an authenticity read, my feedback is always informed by the fact that I was raised one way but, as the saying goes, “Two Jews, three opinions.”

I was raised a secular Jew in Pittsburgh, and my husband went to an Orthodox Jewish day school and a Conservative Jewish congregation in New Rochelle, New York. We are both Ashkenazi Jews. Combined, we have worked in multiple Jewish professional settings, including newspapers, synagogues, camps, K-12 schools, undergrad programs, and seminaries on the East Coast, in the Midwest, and in California. When I’m doing a sensitivity read and come up against something that strikes me as a potential misstep, I leverage not just our combined knowledge but those of our connections.

When writing Jewish characters, any answer to a question about a lifecycle event, a tradition/custom, a religious observance, or daily life will be…maddeningly varied.

This past year, I sensitivity-read a manuscript for a non-Jewish author who lives in (and set the story in) an area where I have never lived. A few things gave me pause. I checked with people I knew who lived there. I gave detailed feedback and ultimately asked why one of her characters was Jewish. It turns out, it was to set the character apart and in contrast to another main character. I asked if that was really necessary and if there were other ways to set the two apart without positioning a Jewish character as “other.” (Because I live in an area with a large population of conservative Christians, Christian hegemony is one of the things I think about a lot, so that’s another lens I bring to my work.) She hadn’t thought about that, so she took the feedback to heart in her revision process.

Ultimately, it’s important to understand that when writing Jewish characters, any answer to a question about a lifecycle event, a tradition/custom, a religious observance, or daily life will be:

  1. hyper-local,
  2. time-period dependent,
  3. based on the character’s level of observance and/or denomination, and
  4. maddeningly varied.

If the why is solid, and clear on the page, a writer can do just about anything.

For example, I’m working on a memoir about the death of my (Jewish) dad, who was cremated following an autopsy. Obviously, this is nonfiction, but I will still acknowledge in the text that an autopsy and cremation are not typical for Jews, and I will explain why they happened in my family. Am I required to explain it? No. But as a writer and a Jew, I want to address the questions these details will raise so as not to leave the reader wondering.

In my work, I’m never looking to tell someone what they can or can’t do, but I often ask why they are doing what they are doing. In my opinion, if the why is solid, and clear on the page, a writer can do just about anything. To me, that’s the best thing about writing.

Jamie Beth Cohen is a writer, storyteller, and podcaster. She writes about difficult things, but her friends think she’s funny.

jamiebethcohen.com

 

 Photo: Mark Pontz Photography

Putting Language on a Meat-Free Diet

Putting Language on a Meat-Free Diet

Putting Language on a Meat-Free Diet

Carnivorous expressions serve to exclude, not include.

Through wood slats of a fence pokes a pink snout of a black and white pig.

By Steve Bien-Aimé • March 7, 2017

  The battles for inclusive language often occur surrounding issues of race, gender, sexual orientation, and disability. Seeking inclusivity in more spaces improves societies; how can making all people feel welcome be a bad thing? With this noble goal in mind, I’d like to further the discussion of linguistic inclusivity in terms of food. It’s good that restaurants broaden their selections to account for folks with various dietary needs, so isn’t it time for food-related language to accommodate as many folks as possible? At this point, some of you might be asking: Steve, what do you mean?

It makes little sense to alienate 16 million people without good reason.

A preference for meat-based expression runs throughout the English language. For instance in 2015, a Dallas Cowboys running back criticized a former teammate by saying “there was a lot of meat left on the bone” in regard to the numerous missed opportunities attributed to his ex-colleague. This expression makes sense to an overwhelming number of Americans as a supermajority of people here are meat eaters. But millions would prefer if all the meat were left on the bone. According to a 2012 Gallup survey, 5 percent of people in the United States identify as vegetarian. That number sounds small until we recognize that there are about 323 million people living in the United States, according to a 2016 U.S. Census estimate. Thus, there are roughly 16.1 million vegetarians. It makes little sense to alienate 16 million people without good reason. The best communicators seek to widen their audiences, not narrow them. Precise language use can prevent transgressions and make meanings as clear as possible. Some inclusive-language critics dismiss expressions as just that—harmless expressions. But intended or not, harm is still harm. Imagine having a discussion with someone who is vegetarian or vegan for ethical or religious reasons, and you nonchalantly utter an expression like beating a dead horse. They don’t necessarily want to engage in a conversation where someone has flagrantly, yet casually, violated one of their sincerely held beliefs. Even among meat eaters, we must be vigilant with our food-based terminology. There are some common phrases that contain pork; however, millions of Americans do not eat pork, such as many followers of Islam and Judaism.

Some inclusive-language critics dismiss expressions as just that—harmless expressions. But intended or not, harm is still harm.

Consider the popular phrase bringing home the bacon, which simply refers to earning a wage and taking the proceeds back to your family. Bringing home the bacon has endured despite the fact that most people today do not work in agriculture. A July/August 2016 Atlantic article contains the following passage: “For most of American history, a principal goal of any member of Congress was to bring home bacon for his district. Pork-barrel spending never really cost very much, and it helped glue Congress together by giving members a kind of currency to trade: You support my pork, and I’ll support yours.” Indeed, pork-related expressions play large roles in politics. The term pork barrel has existed since 1909 and refers to politicians bringing government money to their constituents, according to Merriam-Webster. A November 2016 Washington Post column on government spending uses the sentence, “A proposal was offered to bring back earmarks—the pork-barrel spending added to bills that allow individual members a little goody here or there for their district.” Additionally, a bunch of pigs in what’s presumably a hog pen served as the column’s cover photo. The wording and the photo selection illustrate who is and who is not in power as all language is political in nature, according to linguistic and cultural scholars. These pork usages reflect the influential positions Christian people hold in U.S. society. Take Congress: According to Pew, 91 percent of congressional members are Christian, down slightly from the 95 percent in 1961–62. If we lived in a country that contained a Muslim or Jewish majority citizenry, I doubt we’d see pork-barrel politics or bringing home the bacon. It wouldn’t make sense.

Common language usages should not trample over others who are different.

I don’t think that people who are using terms such as bringing home the bacon or pork-barrel politics have animosity toward Jewish or Muslim people. I also don’t think they object to Jewish or Muslim people earning a living or serving in politics. Correspondingly, I don’t believe that people who use meat terminology hate vegetarians or are consciously trying to make vegetarians uncomfortable. That said, common language usages should not trample over others who are different, despite most Americans identifying as Christian and even more identifying as meat eaters. It is through being more mindful that our word choices do matter, even when we’re not overtly discussing race, gender, sexuality, disability, or religion. Cultures often use food to unify people, but if we’re careless, we might push people away with our verbal food choices.

Steve is smiling in a sky-blue button-down shirt.Steve Bien-Aimé is an assistant professor of journalism at Northern Kentucky University. Before receiving his doctorate from Penn State’s College of Communications, Steve worked as a copy editor at The News Journal in Delaware and The Baltimore Sun and served in a variety of functions at FOXSports.com, departing as deputy NFL editor. His research interests include race and gender portrayals in news and sports media.