Offensive material
So there's been a bit of a debate over at Fantasy magazine regarding Lisa Mantchev's story, which evolved into a discussion on being offended by writing, and covered a lot of different ground in different directions.

I want to make it clear up front that this post is *not* a response to that story, or that discussion. None of the positions summarised below are based on anybody in particular; they're generalised positions. The discussion got me thinking off on a trail about the idea of finding a story offensive, for whatever reason, and saying so. It cuts to the heart of debates about intent, reception etc.

So I'm trying to come up with a position in my head, I guess, regarding the general issue.

What I've come up with so far is this. If I'm offended by a story, I can have several different reactions. I've summarised four general positions, which aren't meant to be comprehensive:

(1) I was offended by the story, and I think the author acted with ill intent, and should apologise.

(2) I was offended by the story, but do not judge the author's intent. However I would like them to apologise/recognise the offence they have caused me, intentionally or not.

(3) I was offended by the story, but do not judge the author. I do not desire an apology, but I express my offence in the hope that the author and/or others might avoid such instances and consider their actions more carefully in the future.

(4) I was offended by the story but do not judge the author, and do not require any reaction or response from them. My feelings and interpretations are my own, and my responsibility.


Now, it seems to me likely that, when a person expresses the fact that they are offended by a story, in a large number of cases they are probably feeling (2) or (3).

However, when an author, or somebody on the author's behalf, takes offence at the reader's opinion, it is often because they *believe* that the reader is expressing proposition (1).

Similarly, when, in turn, the reader is hurt by the author or author-proxy's response, it is usually because they feel that that person is arguing that the reader should embrace proposition (4). Where often the author/proxy is in fact arguing for proposition (2) or (3).

Of course, there *will* be times when these assumptions are right, and there will be times when the reader and author genuinely cannot come to agreement on which proposition to embrace. But it's my belief that in a large number of instances, the conflict and hurt is caused by one or both members of the discussion assuming that the other is supporting a more extreme proposition than they in fact are.

In other words, a communication issue rather than a genuine conflict of beliefs.

I could be wrong. It's just my theory.