Writing Beyond Lived Experience: Sensitivity Readers as Helpers, Not Censors

Sensitivity readers (also referred to as authenticity readers or diversity readers) sometimes get a bad rap despite their useful role in the editing process. For some authors, the fear of censorship--of being told ”you can’t write that because you haven’t lived through that experience”--clouds their understanding of what sensitivity readers really do: ensure authentic representation for the betterment of a written work (Clayton, Lawrence). Progressive writing is not about “just sticking to writing what you know,” which would suck the diversity out of many works; progressive writing is about putting in the effort and research to avoid perpetuating harmful stereotypes when writing beyond lived experience (Burnett). Sensitivity readers are an important layer to this process--they inform the author of “what [they] do not know that [they] do not know” even after research (Burnett). The negativity and misunderstanding of sensitivity reading as censorship must be dispelled, not only for the improvement of manuscripts, but out of respect for the characters represented, the readers absorbing those characters, and the valuable sensitivity readers themselves.

First, it’s important to address what topics may require a sensitivity reading. Cultural and racial sensitivity are some of the most common, but reading for bias can span many other facets of identity, such as the following: ability, body type, disorders, gender identity, religion, or sexuality (Clayton, Gower). With such a wide range of delicate subjects, authors are bound to end up writing characters that embody aspects of identity that differ from their own identities. And with minority groups in need of better representation behind each subject, authors are bound to end up needing sensitivity readers. The range and necessity show themselves here, yet the fear of censorship holds some authors back from seeking out this step when revising their manuscripts.

Those opposed to sensitivity readings express several issues: loss of freedom of expression, fear of public shaming on social media (resulting in damaged career), and ambiguity of appropriate terminology and portrayals when members within a minority group disagree on best practices (Gower, Kirch). However, most of these issues can be solved with sensitivity reading itself, or simply with a better understanding of it. Clayton notes that many articles that are critical of sensitivity reading as a form of censorship of expression come from “white, cisgendered, able-bodied, heterosexual writers” who fear sensitivity readers will prevent them from writing cross-culturally (Clayton). Sensitivity readings are not meant to eliminate cross-cultural writing. On the contrary, they aid cross-cultural writing by vetting for authenticity and weeding out inauthentic, disrespectful, and/or harmful portrayals. Cross-cultural writing can be beautifully rich, but not without authenticity. As Tripathi puts it, “it’s not about who’s allowed [to write from other perspectives]. It’s about whether you do it well” (Kantor). As with all other elements of the editing process, sensitivity reading only aims to improve a manuscript. Afterall, who wants to write a bad book?

Well, the second argument regarding freedom of expression is the stance that “books have a right to fail, to be bad” (Kirch). This argument focuses on the book itself rather than reader impact. Writers and editors have a responsibility to our readers. If a book fails on the grounds of prejudice and/or stereotypes, we are failing our readers as well. This also ties to the authorial fear of a damaged career--why would an author expect respect and success without in turn respecting their readers? Readers deserve to truly see themselves in books rather than be faced with harmful stereotypes. The goal of respectful and accurate portrayals through sensitivity reading is a way to garner more respect rather than deter from it. It is also a way to minimize career-ruining backlash on social media by handling biased revisions confidentially rather than allowing problematic portrayals to make their way into publications, and thus into the hands of readers who will have backlash (Tilton).

Perhaps the most compelling argument against sensitivity reading is the lack of consensus within minority groups on appropriate terminology and portrayals of their respective groups. Ambiguity arises when “what may offend one reader may not offend another from a similar background” (Kirch). An example of this pertaining to body type is the terminology surrounding obesity, with a plethora of stances on acceptable terminology from fat to plus-size to curvy, and so on (Gower). When there is no consensus within a minority group, such as with this terminology, it is impossible to find language that will appease all members of that community, and this puts authors under a lot of pressure to navigate a space without set parameters. Rather than a reason to skip out on a sensitivity reading, this is all the more reason to have multiple sensitivity readers (Clayton).  Going through multiple rounds of sensitivity readings will offer a variety of perspectives that amount to well rounded revision notes that can best aid the author in their final decisions.

This notion that multiple sensitivity readings--or any sensitivity readings--are ideal is countered by the idea that “any good editor should not need a sensitivity reader or else they’re not an editor worth paying” (Martire). However, this judgment is unfair to editors, who are just as human as the authors they help--not omniscient beings. Beyond this, editors may work specifically in one area of editing; the editor who writes the perfect developmental editing letter might not be the same editor who provides the perfect copyedit, and this speaks to their area of expertise rather than their general worth as an editor. Likewise, a manuscript may need sensitivity readings for several different identities that one editor alone does not embody. In particular, when it comes to white authors writing marginalized characters, paying sensitivity readers of that marginalized group is crucial as someone on the outside of that community who will be profiting off of that community’s stories. Understanding the value of sensitivity readers and paying them accordingly is an important way for white authors to be “more intentional with [their] privilege” (Tilton).

Keeping in mind the ambiguity caused by lack of consensus of appropriate language and portrayals within different minority groups, as well as authorial fears of public backlash, it is important to discern that a sensitivity reading is not “a ‘fix’ or ‘stamp of approval’ that provides a special defense against criticism of the finished work” (Savage). Especially in cases of contested appropriateness, criticism is to be expected. Sensitivity readings can reduce future backlash by helping authors avoid mistakes that they would otherwise fail to consider, but this does not guarantee that the author will make the most appropriate changes, nor that all readers will accept them. These readings should, however, best inform the author of how to handle certain topics, and explain what backlash (and why that backlash) may be received (Savage).

Ultimately, poorly written portrayals of marginalized groups harm everyone involved. They negatively impact the writer’s reputation, hurt readers of the marginalized community being written about, and strengthen harmful stereotypes for readers outside of that community. Sensitivity readers are not a cure-all, but they can certainly lessen each of these risks. Without sensitivity readers, some written works offer more harm than good. Eventually, this imbalance can put books out of circulation--especially as the literary world becomes more inclusive and progressive. No work is guaranteed to be timeless, but attention to bias now may prolong a book’s shelf life. An example of a work shifting to do more harm than good and losing its place on the shelf is Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, which uses racial slurs throughout and has since been banned in many classrooms. As one principal explains, “We have come to the conclusion that the community costs of reading this book… outweigh the literary benefits” (Kaufman). While many would argue that Twain’s piece is still a good book regardless of the usage of slurs, the fact that the book has been banned time and time again shows the emotional tax it places on its readers. Sensitivity readings may be uncomfortable for an author who does not feel that they are being prejudiced, but skipping this process only pushes that discomfort onto readers who are left to face the author’s prejudiced writing, whether or not the author was aware of their bias.

As writers and editors, it is our responsibility to do the uncomfortable work in order to craft the best piece of writing for our readers. Authors writing outside of their lived experiences should put research into the experiences they seek to portray, but they cannot expect to learn everything in their research. This is where the crucial role of sensitivity readers can fill in the gaps, pinpointing small details or big picture threads that tie to bias of many forms, depending on what the sensitivity reader is vetting for. The role of a sensitivity reader is not to censor an author, but to provide feedback that confronts the author’s own bias. At the end of the day, all parties have the same goal: creating the most compelling, authentic manuscript possible.

Works Cited

Burnett, Matia. “Overcoming Bias: Authors and Editors Discuss Sensitivity Readers.” Publishers Weekly, 23 Feb. 2017. 

Clayton, Dhonielle. "Let's Talk About Sensitivity Readers." Publishers Weekly, 12 Jan. 2018.

Gower, Jasmine. "Approaches to Contested In-Group Terminology for Mindful Editors". Book Publishing Final Research Paper. 2019. archives.pdx.edu/ds/psu/29113.

Kantor, Emma. "Engaging With Sensitivity Readers: A YPG Panel." Publishers Weekly, 14 Dec. 2017.

Kaufman, Gil. "Here's Why Banning 'Huck Finn' Over the N-Word Sends the Wrong Message." PEN America. 14 Dec. 2015.

Kirch, Claire. "WI13: Panel on Sensitivity Readers and Free Expression Sparks Lively Debate." Publishers Weekly, 1 Feb. 2018.

Lawrence, E. E. "Is Sensitivity Reading a Form of Censorship?" Journal of Information Ethics, vol. 29, no. 1, 2020, pp. 30-44. ProQuest, proquest.com/docview/2429828872?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true.

Matire, J. L. "Amplifying Silenced Voices Through Micro- and Small-Press Publishing." Pub Res Q 37, 213-226, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-021-09797-7.

Savage, Angela. "The Responsible Writer." Writers Victoria, 3 Dec. 2018.

Tilton, James. "Sensitivity Readers! What Are They Good For? (A Lot.)." Publishers Weekly, 10 Aug. 2018.