A viral clip that’s been circulating features author Adam Szetela arguing that “sensitivity readers” are reshaping trade publishing—and not for the better. You can watch it here: Conversations with Coleman – Adam Szetela clip.
Szetela’s new book with MIT Press also lays out his case: That Book Is Dangerous!
Below is a plain-English explainer (what they are, where they came from, who uses them) and Scribe’s stance.
What is a sensitivity reader?
A sensitivity reader is a paid pre-publication reviewer who evaluates a manuscript for potentially offensive or stereotypical portrayals related to particular identities or experiences (race, religion, disability, gender/sexuality, etc.). They provide a report with suggested changes. See The Guardian’s explainer: “Sensitivity readers: what publishing’s most polarising role is really about”.
When did the role emerge?
Use of sensitivity reads accelerated in YA (young-adult) publishing in the mid-to-late 2010s, following social-media controversies over representation. Notable flashpoints include:
- Amélie Wen Zhao’s Blood Heir (publication initially pulled in 2019 after online backlash; later revised and released): The Guardian and context on subsequent sensitivity reads: SDSU ChildLit blog
- Kosoko Jackson’s A Place for Wolves (author withdrew the 2019 debut after backlash; Jackson himself had worked as a sensitivity reader)
- Laura Moriarty’s American Heart (2017 controversy over representation): overview of the Kirkus review reversal and sensitivity-reader debate: Why Evolution Is True.
These incidents helped normalize pre-publication sensitivity reviews across parts of trade publishing.
Who uses them?
There’s no single industry-wide policy, but the practice is common at major houses and among literary estates, used case-by-case:
Bottom line: sensitivity reads are now widespread in trade publishing. Some are initiated by publishers; others by authors.
Against sensitivity readers
We’re for editing. We’re for accuracy. We’re for readers. We’re not for sensitivity readers.
-
Identity ≠ editorial expertise
Lived experience matters; it isn’t an editorial credential. Identities aren’t monoliths; what offends one reader may ring true for another. Even proponents frame sensitivity reads as advisory and subjective. We prefer subject-matter experts (e.g. a surgeon for a surgical scene) over identity proxies.
-
It chills risk and texture
Recent high-profile rewrites of classics to “modernize” language (Dahl, Christie, Bond) were widely criticized as censorship-by-committee: AP, The Guardian—Dahl, The Guardian—Christie, The Guardian—Bond.
-
It confuses craft problems with content taboos
The core editorial questions—Is this true? clear? well-structured?—can get replaced by “Will anyone object?” This is no more than a moving target that narrows what authors dare attempt. The YA controversies show how fast social storms can force capitulations.
- It can become risk-management theater
Checklists don’t build courage. Publishers should warn about real risks and then stand behind work worth fighting for.
- The better safeguard is the market of readers
If a portrayal is false or lazy, readers will say so—loudly and with their wallets. The solution is stronger editing, better research, and braver stewardship, not identity deputization.
What we do instead
- Author freedom. You control your voice. We won’t launder it through identity vetoes.
- One kind of “censorship.” We won’t let you publish a bad book— one that is rushed, untrue, structurally broken, or lazy on the page. That’s discipline, not ideology.
We’re pro-editing, pro-accuracy, and pro-reader—but we don’t use sensitivity readers. Literature must be allowed to risk offense; the alternative is a timid, sanitized bookshelf curated by fear. We’ll help you make the strongest, truest version of your book—and the only thing we’ll “censor” is bad craft.