... Ms. Alter from the New York Times might be surprised to learn that, rather than censoring my book, my sensitivity readers made it objectively better. By pointing out places where I’d unwittingly succumbed to stereotypes, they helped me create richer, more nuanced characters.
Without red-lining specific words, they suggested new terms and topics I could research to make the details of my characters’ lives more authentic. Perhaps best of all, they opened up my eyes to my own ingrained bias in how I perceive and describe people of all races.
... So let’s call “sensitivity readers” what they are: diversity editors. Let’s stop associating them with censorship and instead celebrate their role in the editorial process. Let’s afford them the same dignity as copy-editors, fact-checkers, and proofreaders. Let’s normalize their role in publishing.
We are experiencing some technical issues currently. If you post and nothing appears to happen please refresh your browser rather than hitting post again. Otherwise you will post twice, which is creating a lot of duplicates for the team to clear up. Please bear with us, these things will be sorted as soon as possible.Dismiss Notice
Writer's Digest: "The Problem with Sensitivity Readers Isn’t What You Think It Is"
An explanation about how sensitivity readers are not the Thought Police