There’s something beautiful about watching a story form.
The hours spent, the messy drafts, the characters who whisper their truths when no one else is paying attention. Writing for me always felt like that — a more intimate relationship where a writer gradually gets to understand the world they’ve been carrying inside all along.
But I can say without a doubt that something almost interesting is happening in the literary world today.
Stories are no longer shaped by the author alone. They now pass through new hands — the people whose work is not simply to edit grammar, but to examine the heart of a narrative. To ask: Does this representation feel fair? Did the writer see the people they wrote about clearly?
They are known as the sensitivity readers, who seek to redefine what we call modern storytelling.
At first, I had no possible idea what to feel about them.
A part of me felt captivated by the intention — But another part of me wondered:
Where is the line between guidance and interference? Between protecting voices and policing them? Between editorial care and creative control?
And maybe that’s the tension every writer feels today.
We want our stories to be ready as truthful, responsible — yet we also desire freedom to want to produce without the fear of being misunderstood.
The more conversations that talk about literature, the more crucial I realise: this isn’t just a publishing debate.
It’s a major question about how we tend to be represented, and who gets to talk about the stories in the first place.
A sensitivity reader is referred to as someone who is hired to look for offensive content, and differences in a literary work, and to produce a report for a publisher with changes The use of sensitivity readers in literary work has attracted criticism from some authors and members of the public, particularly with respect to the practice of seeming to re-edit works that were published in the past. In an essay, it was seen. Wrote that sensitivity readers seemed to imply that writing should only represent the world plainly. The readers were believed not to realise the irony and proposed to cancel the journeys of ideas across chapters.
What fascinates me most about the rise of sensitivity reading isn’t just the controversy — it’s what it reveals about how much stories actually matter to people.
We’ve gotten to a point where readers no longer want to be invisible. They want to see themselves being mirrored— and not exaggerated nor erased. And that, to me personally speaking, makes it feel more like care.
When someone reads a story and says, “This hurt me,” it doesn’t imply that writers should not create. It means writing that it has power — the kind that makes you heal. Sensitivity reading, then, isn’t about making the author go quiet; it’s about making sure that their words can go farther in real lives.
I think of it in this kind of manner: a good sensitivity reader doesn’t neglect your voice — they help you hear it more precisely. They ask the questions your audience might be too tired to ask. They nudge you toward empathy, not censorship.
And maybe that’s what the literary world has been needing for a long time — empathy as an editorial value.
Because when you strip it down, sensitivity reading isn’t about being “politically correct.”
It’s about being emotionally honest.
One of the most remarkable examples of why sensitivity reading matters is the controversy that centred on the book, American Dirt.
When it was first out, the story was actually meant to shed more light on the cruel nature of migration — yet the people it was meant for were the ones who felt the most underappreciated.
What struck me wasn’t just the backlash, but the emotional weight behind it.
Mexican and Latinx readers weren’t angry because someone “dared” to write outside her culture.
They were in pain because the portrayal felt more distant and shaped them wrongly from the outside looking in.
It made me remember something simple but important:
When a story carries someone's lived experience, accuracy has to be a form of regard.
The situation could have been different if the book had gone through thoughtful cultural checks.
Not policing.
Not censorship.
Just listening before publishing.
For me, this case study isn’t about blaming the author.
It’s about recognising how a story can break trust when the people inside it feel misrepresented.
And it’s proof that sensitivity readers aren’t “barriers”, they are bridges.
When I look at everything, the arguments, the fears, the misunderstandings, here’s where my heart settles:
I don’t think sensitivity readers exist to restrict creativity.
I think they exist to remind us that our words touch real people.
As writers, we all have blind spots regarding this very issue.
We all have experiences that we’ve never lived, languages we don’t even think of speaking, and histories we don’t fully know how to articulate yet.
So if someone from a community says, “This is negative,” or “This isn’t how we perceive our lives to look,”
I believe the humane response is to listen, not defend.
Literature shapes the way strangers see each other.
It shapes empathy.
It shapes ignorance, too.
That’s why I see sensitivity reading as more of a safety railing than a lock.
Not something that takes away your free will, something that encourages you to walk more responsibly with it.
If there’s something the American Dirt controversy proves to me, it’s that the intentions of someone are never enough.
Good intentions don’t stop harm.
Research doesn’t erase cultural nuance.
And passion doesn’t eliminate the need for accountability.
So my stance is simple:
Write boldly, but listen humbly.
Imagine widely, but represent carefully.
Create freely, but consider deeply.
Because stories are powerful — and power needs tenderness.
At the end of everything we face, the truth remains the same:
- Sensitivity readers don’t silence the author.
- They strengthen the story.
- They catch the wounds the writer didn’t mean to leave.
- They protect the communities that rarely get to speak for themselves.
It’s not only about censorship.
It’s more about responsibility.
References: