Sensitivity Readers Are Not Censors

Few issues in the world of publishing are more controversial right now than that of sensitivity readers. On the off chance you are not familiar with what a sensitivity reader (SR) does, this is a person hired by a writer, editor, or publisher to review a manuscript to make certain there is no language, character portrayals, and situations that are offensive to any group or population.

Dhonielle Clayton is the chief operating officer of We Need Diverse Books, a nonprofit founded in 2014 to support writers from marginalized groups and to advocate for more diversity in publishing. The way she sees it, the job of a sensitivity reader is first and foremost to improve the literary quality of a book by steering the author away from one-dimensional portraits and clichés.

Think of an SR as a type of fact checker. Instead of fact checking numbers, quotes, foreign language words, geographic descriptions, and so on, SRs are fact checking race, religion, gender, culture, disease, or mental illness. On the surface, this sounds good for everyone, right? No author wants to offend a reader or worse, yet, an entire category of readers. Then why is the use of sensitivity readers such a sore spot for so many writers and an ongoing stumbling block for publishing houses?

Writers vs. Editors

I conducted my own survey of sorts about people’s perception of the use of SRs and it’s as unscientific as a survey can be. I asked the members of a particular closed group of writers on social media their opinion of the use of SRs and I asked the same question of the members of a closed group of editors on social media. (See, I told you it was unscientific.)

Overwhelmingly, the writers (many of whom have little or no professional writing experience) were vehemently opposed to the use of SRs. Since it was the first time some of them had ever even heard of an SR, they were appalled at the thought of their work being “censored.” Again, noting that many who responded to my question are young and/or unpublished, their attitude was “no one’s gonna tell me what I can and can’t write.”

Ah, I love the smell of naiveté in the morning.

Conversely, those in the professional editors’ group were unanimously supportive of the use of SRs. I attribute this to two factors. First, these folks all understood the validity of using SRs and some had already worked on projects that employed them. Second, as editors, they are dedicated to the highest quality of writing possible, especially if they are identified with it in a professional capacity.

Is This Really Censorship?

The reaction of so many of the newbie writers in that Facebook group is indicative of the larger public relations problem sensitivity readers have.

The work they do has become synonymous with censorship in its most unsophisticated form—a knee-jerk reaction to any word, expression, or characterization that is insulting to the one person who is reading as a representative of an entire group or type of people.

In December 2017, the New York Times ran an article titled “In an Era of Online Outrage, Do Sensitivity Readers Result in Better Books, or Censorship?” The author, Alex Alter, highlighted a few of the most egregious examples of publishers scuttling books following concerns expressed by sensitivity readers, making it appear as though SRs have a stranglehold on publishers.

Censorship, which takes many forms, means the suppression or prohibition of something. So, let’s be clear, sensitivity readers have no power to censor.

No SR has the ability to say, “You are not allowed to describe a bi-sexual woman this way, so change it.” Or “A man of this race would never say this, so delete it.” Ultimately, the choice to leave the prose as is, delete it, or edit it is left to authors, editors, and publishers.

Diverse Authors

But Dhonielle Clayton and others in the publishing world have rightly pinpointed the real problem at the heart of this argument—the lack of diversity among authors and works chosen by publishers. As Clayton points out, “Publishing has a diversity problem.” According to Madison Schultz in her article “What Is a Sensitivity Reader, and Why Do You Need One?”

…31 percent of children’s books published in 2017 were about non-White characters, but only 7 percent of the children’s books published in 2017 were written by Black, Latinx, or Native American authors.

Publishers know that the general public, especially where the children’s market is concerned, is clamoring for books that feature diverse characters and storylines. But those same publishers either can’t find diverse authors or are reluctant to offer publishing deals to diverse authors.

This is not to say that a writer should never write outside his or her areas of personal experience. No one is saying that, including SRs. But trained sensitivity readers—and yes, there are academic programs for sensitivity reading—help authors create believable, deep characters and genuine storylines that make for better books. While SRs are a step in the right direction, finding, promoting, and supporting diverse authors should be a priority of the traditional publishing houses.

In addition to working as a nonfiction and creative nonfiction editor and writing coach, I am co-author, with Dr. Terri Lyon, of the book Make a Difference with Mental Health Activism: No activism degree required—use your unique skills to change the world. Visit my website page Make a Difference and Dr. Lyon’s activism website Life At The Intersection to learn more about Make a Difference, including how to place bulk orders.

A Work of Fiction is Not a Fill-in-the-blank Game

Hemingway's Iceberg Theory

I studied journalism and advertising in college. These areas of mass communications, as my major was called, might sound unrelated, even contradictory. One is purely about the facts, and the other, well, not so much. But they do have one criterion in common—brevity.

In the study of the journalistic style, it is about the facts, ma’am, just the facts: the who, what, when, where, why, and how of a piece. Period.

In advertising, particularly print advertising, getting right to the heart of the matter is crucial too. Good print advertising is a handful of meticulously selected words meant to create an immediate need that will result in a sale.

Where am I going with this, you might ask?

I respect simplicity, but I have grown distressed by a pervasive misunderstanding and misuse of a style of writing known as the iceberg theory.

The Iceberg Theory

Attributed to Ernest Hemingway, the iceberg theory states that a writer should not write into a fictional story everything he or she knows about a character, setting, and even plot, but should say just enough so that an astute reader can discern, on his or her own, the truth of what isn’t said.

Hemingway was a journalist-turned-fiction writer and he remained all about minimalism of wording.

In Support of Minimalism

The iceberg theory has been discussed and argued ad nauseum for decades and I don’t intend to address the pros and cons. Besides, I’m torn. I was a technical writer, specializing in user-friendly computer software instruction manuals. I was a minimalist with my documentation. My rule: write just what the end-user needs to know to operate the software; nothing more, nothing less. And I did it well.

When I edit now, I strike out lengthy descriptions that go into too much detail, strings of adjectival synonyms (he was strong, muscular, well-built, and physically fit), and unnecessary words and phrases like rather (rather strong), quite (quite strong), somewhat (somewhat strong), very (very strong), so (so strong), so very (so very strong), double use of very (very, very strong), and double use of so (so, so strong). I could continue, but you get the idea. So, yes, I’m a minimalist of sorts, myself.

Hemingway's Theory, Misunderstood

But notice I did not say I grow distressed by use of the iceberg theory. No, I grow distressed by misuse of the iceberg theory. I see and hear newbie or mediocre writers justify their mediocre writing by applying this theory incorrectly. Let me clarify what Hemingway said and what he meant, for never has such a simple statement been so grossly misapplied.

This is the entire quote is the core of Hemingway's theory:

If a writer of a prose knows enough about what he is writing about he may omit things that he knows and the reader, if the writer is writing truly enough, will have a feeling of those things as strongly as though the writer had stated them. The dignity of movement of the iceberg is due to only one-eighth of it being above water. The writer who omits things because he does not know them only makes hollow places in his writing.

--Hemingway, Death in the Afternoon

I have highlighted the final sentence of this quote for a reason. Many misguided writers think that Hemingway’s iceberg theory says to leave out details and descriptions and let the readers use their imaginations to fill in those details themselves.

Nonsense! This is not the iceberg theory and it is not what Hemingway meant.

Hemingway is saying that a writer must know his subject so thoroughly that he can omit details and can do so with a skill that allows an astute, attentive reader to intuit them on his or her own. That is the meaning of the iceberg theory.

Readers Should Reach Similar Conclusions

To write as Hemingway wrote in the short story A Clean, Well-Lighted Place takes artisanship that few writers can pull off. He alludes to the thoughts, emotions, and motivations behind the characters’ behaviors. In this way, the reader is able to infer much about the lives of each of the three main characters. But—and here’s the crux—readers will come to the same or similar conclusions about the characters and their behaviors. Why? Because those details are there for the attentive reader to discern.

That, my friends, takes talent. Anyone who says that the iceberg theory means that a writer should omit vital story elements (such as physical characteristics and setting descriptions) and leave those details up to the reader’s imagination either misunderstands the iceberg theory or is too lazy or untalented to write substantive prose.

As Hemingway said, “The writer who omits things because he does not know them only makes hollow places in his writing.”

The iceberg theory does not mean you should write prose like it’s a game of Mad Libs.

In addition to working as a nonfiction and creative nonfiction editor and writing coach, I am co-author, with Dr. Terri Lyon, of the book Make a Difference with Mental Health Activism: No activism degree required—use your unique skills to change the world. Visit my website page Make a Difference and Dr. Lyon’s activism website Life At The Intersection to learn more about Make a Difference, including how to place bulk orders.