I received this email, from a source I’ll be polite and leave unnamed:
We are reprinting your amusing article about James Bond that you had in the NY Times. Would it be fair to identify you thus: “Deborah Lipp, a practicing witch, is the author of the upcoming “Ultimate James Bond Fan Book.””
My response:
Is it normal for you to identify your authors by their religion? If not, I suggest you leave mine out.
My take, for whatever it’s worth: yeah, identifying your religious affiliation is uncalled for (and presumably trades on its ‘exotic’ value); on the other hand, identifying specific titles or accomplishments associated with your religion (e.g., ‘author of X books on Wiccan practice’) would be perfectly reasonable. To cite a parallel example, the late Jeff Smith was often identified as a United Methodist minister, but absent his ordination he’d never have been identified as ‘a practicing United Methodist’.
But yeah, the way they phrase it reeks of ‘isn’t that cute ‘n quirky?’
Oh, absolutely. “Author of..” would have been totally legit, and maybe interesting. But the rule is, if you’re not sure it’s bigotry, try substitution:
Deborah Lipp, a Jew, is the author of…
Somehow, I think not.
LOL. Completely bizarre. And yet…unsurprising.
Unsurprising indeed. But, while the editor didn’t apologize, the article ran without the Scarlet W attached.
D, I don’t know if you caught this or not…my comment in response to yours re: Friday Blogrollin’. 😉