Where do sensitivity readers fit within the publishing industry?
Bailey Green
In the modern age, topics of diversity, representation and cultural awareness are often discussed, debated or celebrated by individuals who may not be accustomed to witnessing accurate reflections of themselves within literature. With specific reference to the publishing industry, it may be easy to question why these minority groups and diverse individuals are not simply added to more publications. To effectively portray diverse characters, storylines or scenes, sensitivity readers are hired to work with authors. Sensitivity readers ensure that all details, characteristics, dialogue and depictions are accurate and inoffensive, based on their knowledge or relevant lived experiences, prior to the manuscript going into publication.
It may seem like an innocent and appropriate way to ensure all people are accurately represented in written media. However, some authors and workers within the publishing industry disagree with the work sensitivity readers may perform or dispute the edits that sensitivity readers may suggest. Some authors argue that sensitivity readers merely censor fictional publications ‘as to make them more politically palpable’. Sensitivity readers may be questioned on their qualifications, ability and whether they are merely removing an author’s free speech and silencing their writing ability, for fear of causing offence. These sentiments from authors can lead to the question: are sensitivity readers editing for accuracy, or are they changing an author's work and intent? Furthermore, how can the developing relevance of sensitivity readers within the industry become more acknowledged and welcomed?
This report aims to appropriately define and investigate the sensitivity reading practice, providing a comprehensive analysis of arguments from both sides of the debate. With insight from sensitivity readers and analyses of prior research and publications, this report will highlight the influential position that sensitivity readers hold within the publishing industry by identifying key arguments, disputes and appropriate instances of disagreements. Using examples of literature and comments from sensitivity readers, it will offer potential solutions for settling the debate and contemplate questions for future research regarding the evolving roles of sensitivity readers within the publishing industry.
What is a sensitivity reader?
Generally, a sensitivity reader is hired by a publisher to read an author’s manuscript for any inaccuracies, biases, stereotypes or inappropriate depictions of diverse individuals or minority groups. The Macquarie Dictionary defines diversity as a state of difference between two or more subjects. For the purpose of this report, the topic of diversity will relate to sexuality, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, physicality and culture. Minority refers to a lesser amount—typically less than half of a whole. The term will be used to refer to small communities throughout the population based on their respective diversities. While reading a manuscript, the sensitivity reader should be able to relate to the lived experiences of the specific group of people, such as those identifying as LGBTQIA+, those with disabilities and illnesses or individuals of varying ethnic backgrounds, to highlight any offensive portrayals or uninformed assumptions by the author.
Sensitivity reading is a service that may oftentimes be provided on a freelance basis. Mya Nunally, who works as a freelance sensitivity reader for Salt and Sage Books, has performed sensitivity reads on articles, short stories, graphic novels and picture books. Nunally explains that, on average, they devote approximately three weeks to each manuscript, first reading the provided piece from a general perspective, before reading with a specific focus on the identities and experiences that they are knowledgeable of. Nunally further explained that their pay depends on the length of the given piece. In their eponymous blog, sensitivity reader Leigh Shulman expands on the process by highlighting the importance of providing feedback to the respective authors. The feedback would usually include any problematic wording in the author’s depiction of diverse individuals or groups and present any solutions or potential edits to refine and correct the piece.
An example of a sensitivity read comes from James M. Tilton, who hired several sensitivity readers to examine his manuscript, which centres on an LGBTQIA+ romance. Identifying as a straight man, Tilton attests that ‘sensitivity readers are…the best thing to happen to [his] manuscript’. Following feedback from his sensitivity readers, the author was able to discuss potential changes and confidently make edits to his manuscript to better suit the community he was writing about. Tilton’s positive experience with sensitivity readers highlights their effectiveness with respect to editing for accurate representation of the LGBTQIA+ community, without removing the author from the discussion. However, while the act of editing an author’s work to ensure appropriate representation for diverse communities may seem modern to some, the practice of accurately portraying diversity has been constant throughout history.
In 1774, British lexicographer Samuel Johnson wrote to Warren Hastings, a former Governor-General of India, to learn about the Indian people and landscapes that were then under British control. He admitted that his ‘knowledge of them is too scanty to furnish [him] with proper [topics] of inquiry…I can only wish…that a mind comprehensive like yours will find leisure…to inquire into many subjects of which the European world…thinks not at all…’, which provides context for how the desire to accurately depict and represent a culture and race different to one’s own is not a new concept.
When specifically looking at the industry practice of sensitivity reading, research suggests that it is quite modern: thought to have potentially stemmed from young adult literature in the late twentieth century. Judy Blume’s fictional narrative, Forever, published in 1975, was criticised for sexually explicit scenes and language, primarily around adolescent girls. The sexual content is the main cause of why the novel has been considered one of the most banned and challenging books. Ironically, this content united many readers and authors, who were outraged by the notion of the industry censoring this type of content in books—a key argument that still challenges sensitivity readers, today.
Censorship or editing? The debate between authors and sensitivity readers
The act of censoring publications is defined by the Macquarie Dictionary as silencing or supressing aspects of literature deemed morally or politically unsuitable or offensive.
Accusations of censorship are often at the forefront of the debate against sensitivity readers. Censoring is utilised to denounce the practice, depicting it as counterproductive and crass. Some publishers attest that it removes authenticity from publications that otherwise would highlight societal progression and alters an author’s intention for their manuscript. Authors are likening the suggested censorship to a specific assault against their creative freedoms and means of expression. They may perceive discussions of edits and changes as an attempt to water down their publications and feel their visions as writers are not being considered, with very little room for compromise.
Anthony Horowitz stands for these arguments and feels that he has been a victim of sensitivity readers needlessly censoring his writing. When depicting a character as Native American, some language and imagery used in his manuscript was highlighted and altered after a sensitivity reader, who specialises in the field of Indigenous Americans, identified some phrasing and sentences as potentially upsetting for some readers. Horowitz felt obliged to comply for the sake of his publication but continues to disagree with the changes to his manuscript, feeling as though his work was unfairly misinterpreted. Horowitz may feel inclined to side with those who further the argument against sensitivity readers, stating that they have no proper qualifications to edit someone’s work, regardless of their experiences or relatability to diverse characters, themes or storylines that are deemed essential for the author’s publication.
A literary agent felt obliged to hire a sensitivity reader when his client’s manuscript recounted characters and events of the Vietnam War. However, only after the sensitivity read was completed and the author felt that the work was unfairly altered, he begun to question the practice. The agent questioned the qualifications of sensitivity readers in general: are their judgments made solely on their personal experiences and views on a topic? His query pertains to whether these personal experiences cause for biased editing. The thought precedes the claim that sensitivity readers are merely controlling an author’s thoughts and writing styles, and perhaps ‘giving kids and their families too little credit for being able to sift truth from falsehood’. In other words, the argument insists that readers should be able to make their own judgments about the literature they choose to read.
The arguments against sensitivity readers may provide a derogatory portrayal of the practice; however, some writers and publishers within the industry continue to encourage the profession, refuting the argument that the practice is an act of censorship. Their counterarguments depict sensitivity reading as a mode of choosing language, carefully, to portray a lived experience. Author Hannah Grieco supports this notion through the assertion that ‘using language to show a lived experience is very different than using language to casually mock a marginalized group of people’.
As the publishing industry produces more stories of diversity, including characters of varying races, experiences, illnesses and identities, the requirement for sensitivity readers is further encouraged by many members of the industry and public, alike. Perhaps, this is caused by the statistical imbalance of authors. In 2019, Diversity Baseline Study (DBS) 2.0 found that 76% of publishers were white, 81% identified as straight and 89% lived without a disability in America, leading to the following question: how can sufficient representation be created if the publishing industry is mostly made of white, straight-identifying individuals living without disability or the experiences of those who are not feeling adequately represented by the publishing industry? Diversity in the industry has not greatly changed since the initial study. With DBS 3.0 in progress, it has already been made known that the results remain quite similar. However, that is not to stop straight, white authors from writing about people of colour and other life experiences that they, personally, have not lived.
Justina Ireland is another author who writes favourably of sensitivity readers. Her contention states that by ensuring all literary publications are accessible to all people, sensitivity readers can highlight the beauty of marginalised communities and ensure that diverse authors can potentially feel more welcomed within the publishing industry. It can also put a stop to authors who may consider writing diverse stories as ‘a way to make a quick buck’.
Are sensitivity readers editing for accuracy or censoring an author’s work?
The physical embodiment, gender and race of characters in popular literature has recently become a frequented topic of discussion; specifically, the reworkings of Roald Dahl’s books. Edits made to Dahl’s books by sensitivity readers include alterations to the depictions of a person’s physicality and mental health and the implementation of diverse families. Examples include changing ‘enormously fat’ to ‘enormous’, altering adjectives like ‘crazy’ to ‘silly’ and rewriting ‘Mother and Father’ as ‘parents’. There are some disagreements with these edits, as they were made after Dahl passed away in 1990, and the detractors of the changes felt the edits make the imaginative stories bland and tedious. Young adult author and sensitivity reader, Charlie Higson, attests that the ideas for the changes were agreeable, though they were ‘not very well done and don’t have [Dahl’s] authentic voice’.
The new iterations of Dahl’s publications have gathered mixed feelings among readers and those within the publishing industry. Older generations may see the new edits as younger generations being more sensitive than inclusive; however, younger generations may argue that submitting the stories for a sensitivity read could allow for a broader audience to access Dahl’s works. It was the publishing house, Puffin, that decided to make the changes to Dahl’s stories, following the same argument.
Sensitivity reader Helen Gould mentions the importance in realising the control that sensitivity readers actually have when collaborating with authors, which is very little. Gould states that the authors—regardless of opinions from sensitivity readers or publishers—have the final say on any changes or alterations to the text, and though Dahl had passed away before the edits were made, she contends that many individuals would have signed off on the changes, for the better.
Implications for the publishing industry
To better understand the place of sensitivity readers in the publishing industry, sensitivity readers Alison Evans and David Carpio were interviewed on their experiences as Australian and international sensitivity readers, respectively. Evans is a freelance writer, editor and sensitivity reader, who began in the industry as an author. They began as a sensitivity reader after publishing their fictional novel, Ida, which centres around a Vietnamese Australian. As a white person, Evans felt as though they had written a character that would have been better portrayed by an author of Vietnamese heritage, and even though they were writing with the aid of sensitivity readers, stated that they felt they ‘took up a lot of space that [they] shouldn’t have’. Carpio, who started as a freelance sensitivity reader for Spanish authors, has been working with Salt and Sage Books since 2019. He has assisted in the production and editing of zines and fictional anthologies, with a specific focus on the queer community. Carpio has worked on approximately twenty manuscripts since becoming a sensitivity reader.
When discussing the debate between authors and sensitivity readers, with a focus on the terms censorship and editing for accuracy, both individuals held similar, though differing opinions. Evans was thankful in expressing their lack of negative feedback or arguments from the publishing industry and authors regarding their work as a sensitivity reader, though made a comment referring to anonymity. Many of the writers they have worked with have not known who their hired sensitivity reader would be. When questioned on any reasoning to this, Evans considered the possibility of it being to do with the safety of sensitivity readers and their respective identity. They preferred the term editing over censoring, feeling that it was more accurate to the sensitivity reading practice. Carpio, to further Evans’ standpoint, commended the community of sensitivity readers and highlighted their necessity for giving an accurate voice to small communities of diverse individuals. However, he illustrates that ‘[not] only trans voices can write trans characters,’ and regardless of identity, no individual person can write with accuracy, consistently. Therefore, the more sensitivity readers help teach and educate authors and the public on diverse people and cultures, the less the practice will be needed.
Future of sensitivity reading within the publishing industry
While some continue to argue against sensitivity readers, considering them to be naïve, sensitivity readers remain within the industry, and as modern society proceeds to produce diverse publications, it is important to consider the future of the practice. Evans expresses that going forwards, the publishing industry requires structural change. Sensitivity reading can be perceived as a ‘stopgap measure’—a temporary solution. An example of change, as suggested by Evans, could involve a change in the title of the work, itself. Sensitivity may bring assumptions of the practice being too problematic with relation to the word sensitive, particularly from older generations who use vocabulary such as ‘snowflake’ to criticise individuals. Editing, Evans agreed, is a more suitable term that should be associated with the work.
Carpio highlights Evans’ opinion by contending that sensitivity reading is merely a ‘temporary fix’. If more people knew about the diversities of other people and cultures, the work would no longer be needed, as an educational practice. However, it remains necessary for sensitivity readers to remain in the industry to aid the teaching and further encourage stories of diversity, together with publishing houses and the publishing community.
Further research and questions
When considering sensitivity readers and their relevance within the publishing industry, several arguments from sensitivity readers, authors, publishing agents and the public either denote or promote the practice in the present day. However, to support the work of sensitivity readers and their role within the publishing industry, it is important to note opportunities for further research and questions, e.g. highlighting the changes that sensitivity readers may make to manuscripts, researching the data around the performance of the book’s sales and providing feedback to measure the effectiveness of the practice. Recording responses from readers regarding books that have undergone a sensitivity read may assist in recognising the value of editing for accuracy and aid in measuring whether marginalised communities feel appropriately represented after the changes have been made. These queries can support further investigation on the debate between authors and sensitivity readers and continue building towards increased diversity and inclusion within the publishing industry.
Conclusion
Sensitivity reading has increasingly become a prominent aspect of the publishing industry. Promoting diversity, inclusivity and accuracy in writing, the practice works to allow for positive and effective representation for diverse individuals and cultures. Regardless of sexual identity, gender, race, ethnicity, disability or illness, sensitivity readers work with authors to ensure that their writing is accurate, appropriate and inclusive. Through analysing reports, studies, interviews and historical events, the study investigated the debate between authors and sensitivity readers, regarding whether the practice was a means of erasing free speech and censoring a writer’s voice. Interviews with sensitivity readers Alison Evans and David Carpio provided insight into the benefits and challenges of the practice, and each sensitivity reader, while fortunate to not have received disputes from authors in the past, expressed their thoughts on the pressures of the practice and suggested further action for the future roles of sensitivity readers within the industry. Overall, the insights from this report can assist in furthering the diversity of published literature by highlighting the efficiency of sensitivity readers and how they work to welcome new readers to literature that may involve more inclusive, appropriate and inoffensive representation.
About the author
Bailey is an enthusiastic author of fiction, sci-fi, and music-related storytelling (occasionally, he dares to dabble in poetry). With a passion for teaching and education, Bailey strives to foster positive inclusivity and meaningful representation for all individuals through his writing.