Hubbry Logo
Sensitivity readerSensitivity readerMain
Open search
Sensitivity reader
Community hub
Sensitivity reader
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Sensitivity reader
Sensitivity reader
Sensitivity reader
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A sensitivity reader is someone hired to look for offensive content, stereotypes, and bias in a literary work, and to create a report for an author or publisher with suggested changes.[1][2] The use of sensitivity readers has attracted criticism from some authors and members of the public, particularly with respect to the practice of re-editing works that were published in the past.

Purpose

[edit]

Proponents state "the literary quality of a work is substantially improved" when reviewed and copy-edited by others from "a specific Nation or community that the author is writing about".[1] Helen Wicks, managing director for children's trade at Bonnier, describes the practice as playing "an important role in inclusive, forward-thinking publishing".[3]

US young adult fiction

[edit]

From 2015, sensitivity readings became popular and influential in young adult fiction, partly in response to the movement for diversity in that genre.[4][5] Sensitivity readers were brought in after pre-publication controversies for authors including Laura Moriarty (whose American Heart had its prestigious Kirkus Reviews star removed prior to publication in 2017)[6] and Amélie Wen Zhao (Blood Heir).[7] Kosoko Jackson, a sensitivity reader himself, withdrew his own novel A Place for Wolves over sensitivity concerns in 2019.[8]

Revisions of published works

[edit]

Publishers have used sensitivity readers to flag content perceived as offensive in published works, such as outdated attitudes towards race or gender. In 2010, Hodder Children's Books published "contemporary" versions of Enid Blyton's Famous Five books which they described as having been "sensitively and carefully" revised to rephrase some outdated language, intending to make the works "timeless". This included replacing words whose meanings had changed (such as gay and queer), as well as updating obsolete terms (such as housemistress and school tunic) and removing terms like tinker which could read be more pejoratively than Blyton would have intended.[9] The editions were withdrawn in 2016, after feedback from readers suggested that the editions were "not required".[10] In 2023 the publisher said that it would be removing "inappropriate or offensive" terms but retaining old-fashioned terms as part of the series' setting.[11]

As part of an ebook range in 2018, publisher Scholastic made edits to the 1990s children's book series Goosebumps, "to keep the language current and avoid imagery that could negatively impact a young person’s view of themselves today, with a particular focus on mental health". The author R. L. Stine said that the changes had not been shown to him.[12][13]

Some digital editions of novels by Agatha Christie were altered from 2020 onwards to remove references to ethnicity, such as an "Indian temper" or a female character's body "of black marble".[14][15][16] In 1940, the title of her novel Ten Little Niggers had been changed to And Then There Were None for the American market, with changes also being made to remove the term from the text, including the name of the island where the story takes place.[17]

In February 2023, Ian Fleming's James Bond series was re-published with a number of racial slurs and references removed.[18] A disclaimer in each book stated, "This book was written at a time when terms and attitudes which might be considered offensive by modern readers were commonplace. A number of updates have been made in this edition, while keeping as close as possible to the original text and the period in which it is set".[19][18] Charlie Higson, actor, comedian and author of the first five Young Bond novels, defended the alterations, saying that sensitivity reading was "nothing new", citing the example of Christie's And Then There Were None.[20]

That same month, new editions of Roald Dahl's children's novels published by Puffin Books, a division of Penguin Books, changed some of Dahl's language in line with recommendations by sensitivity readers.[21][22] The decision was met with criticism from groups and public figures including the CEO of PEN America, Salman Rushdie, Brian Cox, Rishi Sunak, and Kemi Badenoch, as well as Fantastic Mr. Fox director Wes Anderson.[23][24][25][26] Consequently, Puffin announced that it would also continue to sell the original, unaltered editions of Roald Dahl's children's novels, under the title The Roald Dahl Classic Collection.[27][28] On 26 February 2023, 7 days after the original announcement by Puffin Books, Ian Fleming Publications announced that Ian Fleming's James Bond series would receive several revisions, including removing racial slurs and a racist depiction of African Americans in Live and Let Die, following a review from sensitivity reviewers.[29]

Penguin Books' 2023 reedition of P. G. Wodehouse's 1934 novel Thank You, Jeeves included a disclaimer that the publisher had "sought to edit, minimally, words that we regard as unacceptable to present-day readers". This included the removal of racial slurs.[30]

Criticism

[edit]

Following the controversy[clarification needed] over the book American Dirt in 2020, the use of sensitivity readers was questioned.[31] Lionel Shriver accused sensitivity readers of being censorious, of being "new moral gatekeepers" or of offering a way to "cancel-proof your book".[32][33][34]

Kate Clanchy wrote an essay in 2022 expressing her concerns that her sensitivity readers seemed "to concur that the past should match an idealised present", and to imply that writing "should represent the world as it ought to be, not as it is". Clanchy believed that the readers did not recognise irony and satire and wished "to eliminate journeys of thought across chapters, ambiguity from paragraphs, and nuance from sentences".[35]

Writer Anthony Horowitz wrote in 2023 that it felt "wrong to be told what to write by an outside party, no matter how well-meaning", when he accepted suggested changes to descriptions of native American characters in one of his books.[36]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Sensitivity reader

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A sensitivity reader is a freelance , often with personal experience in a marginalized identity group, hired by authors or publishers to scrutinize unpublished manuscripts for depictions that might perpetuate stereotypes, inaccuracies, or potential offense related to race, , , sexuality, , or other protected characteristics, offering recommendations to revise such content for greater authenticity or reduced risk of public backlash. The practice, which functions as a specialized form of beta reading or cultural , emerged prominently in the mid-2010s amid intensifying cultural pressures on the industry to prioritize inclusive representation and preempt controversies. Proponents view sensitivity readers as essential for avoiding harmful tropes and ensuring respectful portrayals drawn from lived expertise, thereby broadening literature's appeal and credibility in diverse markets. However, the role has drawn sharp criticism for substituting subjective ideological preferences over artistic judgment, effectively outsourcing narrative decisions to non-authors and incentivizing preemptive to evade subjective vetoes on content deemed insufficiently affirming. Detractors argue this dynamic erodes creative , inflates costs in an already marginal-profit industry, and correlates with broader trends of in , where manuscripts risk rejection or heavy based on alignment with prevailing cultural orthodoxies rather than merit or coherence. While some defend the process as voluntary consultation akin to historical , empirical patterns suggest it often exerts gatekeeping influence, particularly given the concentration of decision-making power in ideologically aligned editorial circles.

Definition and Origins

Core Definition

A sensitivity reader is a paid , often with personal experience in a specific cultural, ethnic, racial, or identity group, hired by authors or publishers to scrutinize unpublished manuscripts for elements perceived as stereotypical, biased, inaccurate, or potentially harmful in depictions of those groups. The role functions as a specialized form of beta reading, distinct from general , by focusing exclusively on authenticity in representation rather than plot, , or pacing. Readers produce reports highlighting issues such as cultural insensitivities or factual errors drawn from their expertise, but they do not typically mandate changes, leaving revisions to the author's discretion. Qualifications for sensitivity readers emphasize within the reviewed demographic, supplemented by professional skills in and feedback, though formal is absent and selection relies on networks like freelance directories or agency recommendations. Compensation varies, with rates reported between $0.01 and $0.05 per word or flat fees of $300 to $1,500 depending on length and complexity, reflecting the service's position as an optional, non-standardized industry practice. While proponents view it as a tool for factual accuracy in diverse portrayals, the process inherently introduces subjective judgments about offensiveness, varying by individual reader perspectives.

Historical Emergence

The practice of sensitivity reading originated as an informal extension of beta reading, where authors sought feedback from individuals with personal experience in depicted marginalized groups to enhance authenticity and avoid inaccuracies, a method borrowed from fanfiction communities and early circles in the early . This approach gained structure through the launch of the website Writing in the Margins in , founded by author to connect writers with consultants offering expertise on cultural sensitivities, marking the shift toward professionalized services amid growing demands for representative accuracy in . Public awareness and adoption accelerated in 2016 following online criticism of advance reader copies of novel The Continent by Keira Drake, which featured elements perceived as stereotypical "white savior" tropes, prompting publishers and authors to more routinely employ sensitivity readers to similar backlash. In response, expanded Writing in the Margins to include a sensitivity reader database that year, facilitating easier access to such services and solidifying the role within mainstream publishing workflows. By 2017, major outlets documented the trend's institutionalization, with publishers like those handling Jodi Picoult's works hiring readers for manuscripts involving racial or ethnic themes, reflecting broader industry adaptations to social media-driven scrutiny over representational issues. The emergence coincided with intensified cultural pressures post-2010s movements, where publishing houses faced risks of boycotts or reputational damage from perceived insensitivities, leading to proactive integration of sensitivity reviews as a risk-mitigation tool rather than a traditional staple focused on or factual coherence. Usage proliferated over the subsequent decade, with surveys indicating widespread employment by 2023, though early implementations were often author-initiated rather than publisher-mandated. This development prioritized avoidance of offense over unfiltered creative expression, diverging from historical editing norms that emphasized artistic integrity.

Practices and Implementation

Hiring and Selection Process

Sensitivity readers are predominantly engaged as freelancers by individual authors during revisions or by houses as consultants for specific projects. Publishers often maintain internal databases of vetted freelancers, while authors source candidates through specialized directories, networks, or consulting services such as Salt & Sage Books and Writing Diversely. The hiring process begins with the client identifying the need for review on a particular representation, such as depictions of racial minorities, disabilities, or LGBTQ+ experiences, and then querying potential readers via their websites or groups like the . Candidates submit proposals including their relevant expertise, proposed rates—typically ranging from $0.005 to $0.02 per word or flat fees of $300 to $1,200 depending on length—and timelines. Selection emphasizes matching the reader's self-reported within the targeted group to the 's content, supplemented by academic, professional, or cultural knowledge to assess authenticity, , and potential biases. Clients may request sample feedback or conduct brief consultations to evaluate constructiveness, prioritizing those who provide contextual alternatives rather than prescriptive changes. No standardized or formal exists; qualifications rely on the reader's demonstrated ability to offer informed, resilient analysis amid potentially distressing material, with publishers favoring repeats from reliable databases to streamline future hires. This ad hoc approach allows flexibility but varies widely, as readers operate independently without overarching regulatory bodies.

Scope of Review and Feedback

Sensitivity readers concentrate their examination on manuscript elements depicting marginalized identities, experiences, or communities unfamiliar to the author, including race, , , , , conditions, and cultural specifics such as traditions or professional contexts. This review targets potential inaccuracies in representation, drawing from the reader's lived expertise to assess authenticity rather than imposing broad stylistic changes. Within this scope, they scrutinize character behaviors, dialogue, descriptive phrasing, and narrative details for signs of , biases, or mischaracterizations—such as unrealistic mannerisms (e.g., women at night with in unsafe scenarios), culturally incongruent elements (e.g., inappropriate hairstyles or foods), or exoticizing language (e.g., overemphasizing physical traits like "glowing brown skin" or "eyes like jewels" for minority characters). Feedback identifies these issues with specific examples, like flagging a character's overt denial of as a "" trope that undermines nuance, or inaccuracies in specialized settings such as techniques or eating disorders. The process often involves multiple readers for overlapping sensitivities, with reviews applied across draft stages to refine portrayals without altering core plot or voice. Provided feedback consists of advisory notes and suggestions, typically detailed comments recommending revisions, alternative expressions, or additional resources to enhance respectful and accurate depiction. These are non-binding, allowing authors to implement changes selectively—for example, one author adopted all serious and most minor recommendations from a dozen readers—while emphasizing prevention of unintended offense over mandatory . Contracts may delineate exact focus areas, ensuring the review aligns with the manuscript's needs rather than a comprehensive edit.

Applications in Publishing

In New Manuscripts

Sensitivity readers are typically engaged for new manuscripts during the pre-publication editing stages, where they examine drafts for depictions of marginalized identities, cultural elements, or historical contexts unfamiliar to the . This involves reviewing the text—often the full or targeted sections—for potential inaccuracies, , or biased portrayals that could undermine authenticity or provoke backlash. The process begins with the , agent, or publisher providing the reader with the draft, along with any specific guidelines on focus areas such as race, , sexuality, or . The reader's feedback takes the form of marginal notes, inline comments, or a separate report highlighting flagged passages, explaining concerns based on or expertise, and suggesting alternatives without dictating revisions. For instance, in a case, author Mark Schaefer hired a sensitivity reader for his business book to scrutinize representations of diverse professionals, resulting in adjustments to and scenarios deemed inauthentic. Publishers may commission such reviews as part of , particularly for genres like fiction or speculative works featuring diverse casts, with the goal of preempting post-publication controversies. By September 2025, some literary agents and houses reportedly required sensitivity reads before considering submissions, reflecting integration into acquisition pipelines. Implementation varies: freelance readers charge per word or project, often $0.01–$0.04 per word for full manuscripts, and sign nondisclosure agreements to maintain during this unpublished phase. Authors retain final authority over changes, though feedback influences revisions to align with market expectations for inclusive representation. In practice, this step parallels beta reading but prioritizes cultural consultation over plot or style, occurring after initial drafts but before copyediting.

In Revisions of Existing Works

Sensitivity readers are increasingly applied to revisions of previously published works, particularly literary and backlist titles, to identify and mitigate content perceived as offensive or outdated in contemporary contexts, such as racial stereotypes, portrayals, or derogatory regarding and . In this process, readers provide detailed feedback on specific passages, recommending alterations like word substitutions, character description neutralizations, or excisions to align texts with current cultural sensitivities, often commissioned by publishers or author estates ahead of reissues or anniversaries. Publishers justify these revisions as necessary for broadening and sales, arguing that unedited originals risk alienating modern audiences, though such changes typically require approval from rights holders and may include disclaimers noting . A prominent case occurred in February 2023, when , an imprint of , released revised editions of Roald Dahl's children's novels, including and Matilda, following review by sensitivity readers. Over 80 books underwent hundreds of alterations, such as replacing "fat" with "enormous" or "beast" in descriptions, excising phrases like "ugly little witch" for female characters, and rephrasing Oompa-Loompa lyrics to remove references to "small men" in favor of gender-neutral terms; the publisher stated these edits ensured the works "can continue to be enjoyed by all today." Public backlash prompted Puffin to reinstate original editions alongside the revised versions by March 2023, preserving both for readers. Similarly, in February 2023, Ian Fleming Publications revised 12 James Bond novels by Ian Fleming for their 70th anniversary editions, employing sensitivity readers to excise racial slurs and stereotypes, including removing references to Black characters' physical features in Live and Let Die (originally published 1954) and altering epithets in other titles. The edits mirrored prior American sanitizations from the 1950s and included a foreword disclaimer: "This book was written at a time when terms and attitudes... may cause offence today," with the estate emphasizing fidelity to Fleming's intent while adapting for modern readership. These interventions highlight how sensitivity reading extends to copyrighted backlists, often prioritizing market viability over unaltered reproduction, though they stop short of public domain works where such authority is absent.

Reception and Debates

Arguments in Support

Proponents of sensitivity readers assert that they serve as a specialized form of consultation, akin to beta reading or , to identify unintentional cultural inaccuracies, , or biases in depictions of marginalized groups, thereby enhancing the manuscript's authenticity without compelling alterations. This feedback is viewed as voluntary guidance, allowing authors to refine portrayals based on insider perspectives that outsiders may lack, as exemplified by author Becky Albertalli's use of sensitivity readers across multiple drafts to address potential missteps in representing LGBTQ+ characters. Advocates further claim that sensitivity reading promotes more respectful and nuanced representations, reducing the likelihood of harmful clichés or offensive content that could alienate readers or perpetuate about diverse experiences. For instance, readers from affected communities can flag blind spots in character behaviors, speech patterns, or cultural details, fostering greater accuracy in fiction involving themes of race, , or sexuality. In the context, supporters argue that employing sensitivity readers preempts post-publication controversies and backlash, safeguarding authors and publishers from reputational damage and boycotts triggered by perceived insensitivities. This proactive approach is said to align with industry demands for inclusivity, potentially broadening audience appeal by signaling cultural awareness, though such benefits remain largely anecdotal rather than empirically quantified in large-scale studies.

Criticisms and Opposition

Critics argue that sensitivity readers impose ideological constraints on authors, potentially leading to and the sanitization of literature to avoid offense rather than engaging with complex human experiences. This process, they contend, prioritizes contemporary moral sensibilities over artistic integrity, resulting in works that tiptoe around difficult topics and diminish narrative depth. Author has publicly opposed their use, stating in 2023 that they encourage young writers to "bind their arms and legs in ways that are completely unnecessary," stifling creative freedom. Opposition also centers on the risk of altering established texts, as seen in the 2023 revisions to Roald Dahl's children's by , where sensitivity readers prompted changes to remove terms like "fat" and modify character descriptions related to weight, , and race, sparking widespread backlash for tampering with . Similar edits were applied to Ian Fleming's novels and R.L. Stine's series, replacing potentially dated language deemed insensitive, which critics viewed as retroactive that erodes the original intent and historical context of the works. In response to public outcry, publishers like Puffin announced they would release unedited "classic" editions alongside revised versions, highlighting the tension between adaptation and preservation. Literary agents and editors have warned that mandatory sensitivity reads can render manuscripts less authentic, as authors may preemptively conform to feedback to secure , effectively creative decisions to external evaluators with subjective viewpoints. This practice, opponents claim, functions as modern , where "offensive" content is excised not for factual inaccuracy but for alignment with prevailing cultural norms, potentially homogenizing and marginalizing dissenting voices. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression () has described the publishing industry's growing reliance on such readers as detrimental to free expression, arguing it fosters a on by prioritizing avoidance of over bold storytelling. Further critiques highlight how sensitivity reading may exacerbate biases within , as readers—often selected from ideologically aligned networks—can enforce narrow interpretations of representation, leading to demands for revisions that prioritize group approval over individual artistry. In one documented case, a memoir's authenticity was reportedly compromised when sensitivity feedback prompted changes that diluted personal experiences to fit expected narratives, illustrating how the process can corrupt rather than enhance literary truth. Detractors maintain that while diverse perspectives can inform writing, institutionalizing sensitivity reviews transforms voluntary consultation into a gatekeeping mechanism, undermining the foundational principle of as a space for unfiltered exploration of reality.

Empirical Evidence and Outcomes

Empirical research on the outcomes of sensitivity reading remains limited, with no large-scale quantitative studies evaluating its impact on book quality, reader reception, sales performance, or reduction in post- controversies. Proponents, including professionals, assert that sensitivity reading enhances authenticity by identifying cultural inaccuracies or harmful tropes, potentially averting backlash, but these benefits are supported primarily by anecdotal reports rather than controlled data. For instance, sensitivity readers themselves describe their feedback as contributing to smoother processes by flagging issues early, yet interviews reveal no metrics tying this to tangible improvements like fewer reader complaints or higher market success. Qualitative analyses portray sensitivity reading as an extension of , integrated into workflows to address representation concerns, but outcomes data is absent. A 2024 study based on interviews with practitioners found the practice normalized in pipelines, with readers viewing it as undercompensated that rewards personal fulfillment over proven efficacy. Critics highlight cases where sensitivity interventions failed to prevent or even provoked public outcry, such as the 2023 revisions to Roald Dahl's children's books, where alterations to language deemed offensive—guided by sensitivity consultations—drew accusations of and erosion of , leading to restored original editions amid backlash. Similarly, updates to Ian Fleming's novels, informed by sensitivity reviews, sparked debates over historical sanitization without evidence of enhanced reader satisfaction or sales uplift. The absence of rigorous metrics, such as comparative analyses of books with and without sensitivity reads, underscores a reliance on subjective assessments over causal . Industry adoption has grown, with some agents requiring sensitivity reports pre-submission as of 2025, yet no peer-reviewed research links this to reduced rates or better commercial viability. Opponents argue this gap enables unsubstantiated claims of harm mitigation, potentially fostering without verifiable gains in narrative integrity or audience engagement.

Cultural and Industry Impact

Effects on Authorship and Creativity

Sensitivity readers have been criticized for fostering among authors, as writers anticipate feedback on potentially offensive content and preemptively alter narratives to align with prevailing sensitivities, thereby constraining creative risk-taking. Authors report that the implicit pressure to incorporate suggested changes—often under threat of or publication hurdles—blurs the line between advisory input and censorship, leading to safer, more homogenized storytelling that prioritizes avoidance of over bold exploration. This dynamic undermines authorship by shifting authority from the writer's vision to external validators, potentially eroding the autonomy essential for original expression. Novelist argued in 2017 that employing sensitivity readers represents a " on ," as it encourages preemptive sanitization of works to evade subjective judgments of offense. Similarly, analyses of practices indicate that authors who reject sensitivity feedback risk backlash, prompting many to conceal such decisions and internalize cautionary adjustments, which stifles innovative portrayals of complex human experiences. While proponents claim sensitivity input enhances authenticity without curtailing creativity, the absence of rigorous empirical studies quantifying its net effect on literary output leaves these assertions unsubstantiated, with from authors emphasizing diminished artistic freedom over purported benefits. No large-scale data tracks changes in originality pre- and post-sensitivity review, but reported trends in —such as increased revisions for "problematic" tropes—suggest a causal link to more conformist narratives, as writers navigate an industry incentivized to mitigate backlash rather than champion unfiltered imagination.

Broader Implications for Free Expression

The practice of employing sensitivity readers has raised concerns among critics that it fosters a on free expression within , as authors and editors preemptively alter content to avoid potential offense or backlash, thereby constraining creative risks and narrative diversity. Organizations dedicated to defending speech, such as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), argue that this process sanitizes , producing works that prioritize ideological conformity over unfiltered artistic vision, ultimately diminishing the provocative or challenging elements essential to robust . For instance, the subjective flagging of terms like "" in Anthony Horowitz's manuscript—due to its phonetic resemblance to "scalp" and perceived racial insensitivity—illustrates how granular interventions can override , compelling revisions that homogenize language and ideas. Empirical cases underscore this dynamic, with authors engaging in self-censorship to secure publication amid industry pressures amplified by social media scrutiny. In 2019, young adult novelist Amélie Wen Zhao withdrew her debut Blood Heir prior to release following online accusations of racial insensitivity, a decision influenced by preemptive sensitivity concerns that mirrored the role of such readers in identifying "problematic" tropes. Similarly, Keira Drake delayed and revised The Continent in 2018 after sensitivity feedback highlighted colonial stereotypes, demonstrating how anticipated reader objections can lead to content overhaul or shelving. Research by Adam Szetela, detailed in his 2025 book That Book Is Dangerous!, based on interviews with executives from major publishers like Penguin Random House and HarperCollins, reveals systemic self-censorship driven by sensitivity protocols, where economic and reputational risks prompt preemptive edits to avert moral panics. Beyond new works, retroactive applications exacerbate these implications, as seen in unauthorized revisions to established texts, which erode trust in unaltered and signal to creators that even historical expression is subject to contemporary ideological standards. Puffin Books' 2023 edits to Roald Dahl's catalog, involving hundreds of changes to terms like "fat" replaced by "enormous" for inclusivity, proceeded without descendant approval, exemplifying how sensitivity-driven interventions can retroactively censor enduring literature. Likewise, Scholastic revised R.L. Stine's ebooks in 2018 sans author consent, removing phrases deemed insensitive. Critics contend this trend narrows the spectrum of permissible expression, incentivizing authors to internalize external sensitivities and produce risk-averse narratives that align with prevailing cultural norms, thereby undermining literature's capacity to explore uncomfortable truths or diverse viewpoints unencumbered.

References

  1. https://blog.reedsy.com/sensitivity-readers/
  2. https://publishdrive.com/what-are-sensitivity-readers.html
  3. https://www.sfwa.org/2024/04/02/what-is-sensitivity-reading/
  4. https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/authors/pw-select/article/94546-ask-an-expert-sensitivity-reading-and-diversity.html
  5. https://quillette.com/2019/10/01/the-problem-with-sensitivity-readers/
  6. https://reason.com/2022/07/05/rise-of-the-sensitivity-reader/
  7. https://unherd.com/2023/02/what-authors-hide-about-sensitivity-readers/
  8. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/mar/15/sensitivity-readers-what-publishings-most-polarising-role-is-really-about
  9. https://www.rabbitwitharedpen.com/blog/what-to-know-to-become-an-authenticity-reader
  10. https://lithub.com/on-the-use-of-sensitivity-readers-in-publishing/
  11. https://sites.duke.edu/unsuitable/sensitivity-readers/
  12. https://slate.com/culture/2017/02/how-sensitivity-readers-from-minority-groups-are-changing-the-book-publishing-ecosystem.html
  13. https://www.npr.org/2017/02/28/517657413/authors-hire-sensitivity-specialists-so-not-to-offend-readers
  14. https://harpymagazine.com/home-1/sensitivity-reader-pros-cons
  15. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-rise-of-the-sensitivity-reader/
  16. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12109-024-09997-x
  17. https://authorspublish.com/whats-a-sensitivity-reader-why-they-are-important-and-how-to-hire-one/
  18. https://www.wow-womenonwriting.com/96-FE-Sensitivity-Reader.html
  19. https://www.writersdigest.com/getting-published/writing-with-intention-on-hiring-a-sensitivity-reader
  20. https://jerichowriters.com/sensitivity-readers/
  21. https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blogs/soapbox/article/75806-let-s-talk-about-sensitivity-readers.html
  22. https://www.tckpublishing.com/sensitivity-readers/
  23. https://janefriedman.com/the-who-what-and-why-of-sensitivity-reads/
  24. https://businessesgrow.com/2021/03/25/sensitivity-reader/
  25. https://medium.com/lit-life/trade-secrets-of-sensitivity-readers-9624a40b657a
  26. https://www.dabblewriter.com/articles/sensitivity-reader
  27. https://www.andreadunlop.net/blog/2020/9/9/a-primer-on-sensitivity-readers
  28. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/feb/18/roald-dahl-books-rewritten-to-remove-language-deemed-offensive
  29. https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20230530-roald-dahl-the-fierce-debate-over-rewriting-childrens-classics
  30. https://time.com/6258547/james-bond-books-rewritten/
  31. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/roald-dahls-changes-childrens-books-rushdie-telegraph/
  32. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/feb/21/publisher-of-roald-dahl-books-in-french-no-plans-for-rewrite
  33. https://nypost.com/2023/02/26/sensitivity-readers-remove-offensive-language-from-james-bond-books/
  34. https://virginialawreview.org/articles/editing-classic-books-a-threat-to-the-public-domain/
  35. https://litreactor.com/columns/should-i-use-a-sensitivity-reader
  36. https://www.authorspublish.com/whats-a-sensitivity-reader-why-they-are-important-and-how-to-hire-one/
  37. https://knliterary.com/2020/06/19/sensitivity-read/
  38. https://selfpublishing.com/sensitivity-reader/
  39. https://www.rabbitwitharedpen.com/blog/sensitivity-reading-101
  40. https://bookmachine.org/2019/01/15/sensitivity-reading-what-you-need-to-know-and-why-it-matters/
  41. https://www.iped-editors.org/august-2022/why-sensitivity-readers-matter-and-should-be-paid-properly/
  42. https://www.thefire.org/news/why-sensitivity-readers-are-bad-free-speech-art-and-culture
  43. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/oct/03/ian-mcewan-criticises-hiring-of-sensitivity-readers-looking-for-offensive-material-in-manuscripts
  44. https://theweek.com/in-review/1021469/4-times-notable-books-or-series-were-rewritten-to-exclude-offensive-language
  45. https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blogs/soapbox/article/91454-the-sensitive-question-of-sensitivity-readers.html
  46. https://www.thefp.com/p/how-sensitivity-readers-made-publishing
  47. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09574042.2023.2278266
  48. https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/sensitivity-readers-writers-roald-dahl-1.6768418
  49. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/19/we-need-to-talk-about-sense-and-sensitivity-lionel-shriver
  50. https://unherd.com/2022/02/how-sensitivity-readers-corrupted-literature/
  51. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/anthony-horowitz-hurt-by-cuts-to-book-after-sensitivity-read-2twbjjgcf
  52. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/31/books/amelie-wen-zhao-blood-heir-ya-author-pulls-debut-accusations-racism.html
  53. https://www.vulture.com/2018/02/keira-drake-the-continent.html
  54. https://as.cornell.edu/news/censorship-other-side-aisle-new-book-considers-publishing-trends
  55. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/17/roald-dahl-books-rewritten-offensive-matilda-witches-twits/
  56. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/goosebumps-books-sanitised-without-rl-stines-permission-8qwvf7d5d
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.