Sensitivity Readers - Are they a good idea?
This is the first I've heard of this as such a codified process. On Operation Awesome's blog, not too long ago, someone asked about "sensitivity readers." I'd never heard of them before. This was the answer:
I know there is a lot of fear out there, particularly in kid lit, about sensitivity reads and cancel culture and how the "woke" love to pile on books, sometimes even before they are published for their perceived mis-representation of certain groups. Is it any wonder that publishers, who hold the financial risk in this situation, are taking steps to mitigate that risk?
A sensitivity reader is basically someone from a community represented in your story who isn't there to cancel you, but to ensure that the representation of that character is authentic. For example, if you have a Taiwanese character in your story, your publisher may get a Taiwanese reader to do a sensitivity read to make sure the culture is represented in a realistic way.
Obviously people from all cultures and communities are different and have different experiences of being a part of that community, but having a sensitivity reader doesn't have to be scary. In fact, having a person with a different experience of that community can add additional depth and nuance to a character by giving you a different perspective. And if you are writing outside your community, it is a way to ensure you are not portraying that community in a way that is inauthentic or offensive.
Now, I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, I would love to have readers who could give me specific feedback about specialties that I want to write about authoritatively... but am, in fact, pretty ignorant about. For example, in Mask, Mirror and Maze, I write about the Purple Thunder tribe, who ride horses.
I haven't been on a horse since I was eight. I would love to have had a horse expert give me specific advice on my handling of it.
As it was, I read as many first hand accounts and nonfiction manuals on horses as I could... and then just did my best.
But is that what's really at work here?
Despite the soothing answer in the blog, to me this sounds like a political litmus test. (Or it sounds as if it is on a slippery slope to becoming such a test.) Let's be honest, the "sensitivity readers" aren't there to make sure your police procedural accurately reflects current practices, but to ensure that the story hits the right notes according to a given ideology.
My fellow writer, Mathiya Adams, has a book called The Truculent Trannie. I have to confess, that as her publisher, I was a wee bit nervous about tackling what seems to be the most controversial topic out there right now.
As the publisher, I could have tried to muscle into the project, giving power to my nervous fears, but in my opinion, that would be a betrayal of the artistic process. I believe it's more important to trust the author to tell the story.
Of course, a publisher has the legal right to issue such protocols, because they are the gatekeeper. That's not the same as the moral right.
(It's also stupid. The gatekeepers have always had arbitrary and sometimes even maddening rules about what they will accept. For instance, back when I was trying to get published, one of my manuscripts was rejected because, "we have too many books about dragons."
Yeah.
Right.
Just look on Amazon and see if anyone still likes books about dragons.
Anyway, back to the topic...)
I think most writers (is it just me?) are so terrified of offending anyone because of our innate personality type, that we are already at risk of shut down important elements of creativity.
Fear and creativity can't coexist. Honesty is the oxygen of creativity.
One of the central paradoxes of any art is that we create art to share. Art is the bridge between souls. Yet we cannot create art seeking to please other people. Because then we don't open our souls to begin with. With no soul, there is no bridge.
Political correctness, self-censorship, people-pleasing... all of these lead to the death of any true communion of souls through creative work.
Any publisher who requires a writer to bow to a sensitivity reader or any other political litmus test is a publisher who themselves should be boycotted and avoided by any self-respecting author.
If you want feedback on your story, find real people, not political appointees of some multinational corporation, to read you work and give you feedback.
Comments