Hi, SorryWatchers! This post may be unsafe for work!

Recently the white author of a romance novel came under fire on social media for using the terms “Dark Chocolate Love Monkey” and “Coffee-Colored Big-Dicked Servant of Lust” in her book. (Said author, one Amy Lane, had been previously criticized for racist and homophobic elements in her work — as explicated in this extremely funny Goodreads review — and for comparing readers who didn’t like her books to people who hate musicals and become heroin addicts because they have no imagination. I KNOW RIGHT WHAT.)

Lane’s editor initially tried to defend her, saying that Lane was in reality “calling out racist phrasing.” Here’s the context.

The context wasn’t actually helpful, because, as numerous writers of color pointed out, they do not find being called a monkey funny. They would not have described being called racist names as “awesome.” They would not have volunteered additional fun slurs.

There is MUCH MORE TO SAY here, but we need to get to the apologies, our raison d’être, so if you want more on the book and outcry, I direct you to the Storify of Julio. I do not know Julio, but we follow each other on Goodreads and Twitter; I find him hilarious and smart, and this will give you backstory, Beyoncé gifs, FURIOUS CAPITALIZATION, Liberace, a vigorous parrot and much more.

But on to the SorryWatching!

The editor who’d tried to defend her author, and the author’s publisher (Riptide Publishing) both apologized, and they both apologized well. The editor:

For 140 characters, this is excellent. She sounds self-aware and honest, and shows clear awareness of the hurt she caused. And the publisher’s in-depth response was nearly as good as a corporate apology gets. Here it is in full:

Yesterday, it was brought to our attention that a scene in a book we published was racist. Rather than listening to the voices of the people of color telling us this scene was racist, we posted a screen capture of the broader context of the scene in question, which we—blinded by our privilege as we were—believed framed the scene in an anti-racist light. We were wrong in our interpretation of the racism in that scene, and we were wrong to dismiss the hurt, anger, and concern expressed by many in the community.

Riptide apologizes for the hurt we caused, both for allowing the contents of the scene to make it past our editing process, and for our handling of our mistake when we were rightfully called out on it.

The author has agreed to edit the scene in question to take out the offensive phrasing, so we’ll be re-uploading the book once those changes have been made.

It is our sincerest hope that we never cause this kind of harm again. While we already have a number of measures in place to prevent precisely this eventuality, they have proven insufficient today, and so we will be expanding our measures as follows:

• In the past, we have strongly recommended that authors writing identities they don’t share find at least one beta reader of that identity or identities to review the manuscript for sensitivity issues. In the future, we will not allow any manuscript that has not been reviewed to reach publication. That said, this review process should not be the sole responsibility of the author. Thus:
• In the past, we have hired paid freelance sensitivity readers to vet a number of manuscripts for concerns regarding race, culture, religion, disability, gender, sexuality, and more. However, we recognize there is no one universal intersectional experience, and a single reader may not view a particular issue in the same light as other readers who share the same identities. Therefore, in future, we will employ sensitivity readers for all Riptide manuscripts. In addition to an author’s beta reader or readers, this will ensure a minimum of two differing perspectives on the intersectionalities at play in each book.
• In the past, we have tried to ensure we employ people with a wide range of intersectional identities, in part by making all internship positions at Riptide paid to keep them accessible to as wide a range of people as possible, and by using those positions as a vehicle for future hiring. While we have strong representation across the rainbow spectrum, we have been less successful with racial diversity. Moving forward, we will increase our hiring outreach in minority communities and schools, and focus on the importance of employing diverse points of view for both the acquisition and editing process.
• In the past, we have focused our education and the education of our staff on sensitivity issues regarding gender and sexual orientation. Moving forward, we will also focus our education and the education of our staff on a broader range of intersectional identities.
• In the past, we distributed an informal sensitivity guide to our developmental and line editors. Moving forward, this sensitivity guide will be formal, continually updated, and distributed to everyone on our editorial team, from developmental and line editors, to copy editors, proofers, advanced readers, and our sensitivity readers. We will also distribute this guide to new authors as we sign them.

In short, we have learned from this experience, and we will do better. Once again, we are deeply sorry for our insensitivities and for the pain we have caused.

Why is this good? It apologizes, acknowledges both the problem itself and the initial defensive response to being challenged about it, and most important, takes concrete steps to fix the issue in a longterm way: first by changing the wording in the book, and then by promising to hire beta readers from minority backgrounds to make sure white authors don’t go spectacularly off the rails again. (They’ve already started seeking such readers. Yes, the pay sucks. Welcome to publishing.) These are all important parts of an effective apology.

What could be better about Riptide’s apology? Well, it didn’t name the author, the book, or what, precisely, made the scene offensive. (Do you need a primer? Calling black people monkeys has, unsurprisingly, a vile history. And using food words to describe non-white people’s skin is also very not good. Here’s why. Buzzfeed did a very funny piece a few years ago called “If White Characters Were Described Like People of Color in Literature” which may also offer clarity. Examples included, “She was beautiful…like a tall clear glass filled with raw pasta,” and “She was transfixed by the gleam of his uncooked chicken breast skin.” See? Ew.)

After a bunch of wounded talk about bullying, the author apologized too. Her apology was…not good.

1. That one word was not the only problem. How quickly we forget “Coffee-Colored Big-Dicked Servant of Lust”! And “Dark Chocolate” — like a delicious bunny with a huge schlong! Again, being compared to food is fetishizing and dehumanizing, and don’t even go there with “Big-Dicked Servant of Lust” when you’re talking about a Black man.
2. This is a whole lotta passive voice for an apology. A good apology takes ownership. Here we have “as it was used,” “word choice has caused,” and “will be removed.” Lane is blaming the word, not the writer. (And again, it’s not just one word that’s the issue here, as her publisher clearly understands.) Regular SorryWatch readers know that the passive voice is not the friend of sincere apology — indeed, this apology hits the “avoidance of first person singular” square and multiple other squares in Bad Apology Bingo.)  In addition, Lane’s apology is so meager, so close-lipped and so under-duress-sounding (it’s not quite Johnny-Depp-hostage-video-level grudging, but it’s close), it feels almost as though Riptide made her say it.

Update, 3/12/18: A Riptide editor apparently resigned today in the wake of accusations of sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior. SorryWatch was also made aware of an earlier (poor) apology that Riptide made for racial insensitivity…and a promise of change that apparently went unfulfilled. To reiterate: Words — even thoughtful, sensitive words — are not enough. The apologizer actually has to live up to the apology. The apologizer has to do better. Riptide hasn’t done that.