Authenticity Readers and the Changing Language of Representation
/
Much ink has been spilled recently over DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) that boils down to who does and doesn’t have a right to speak up, be heard, and be treated with human dignity. Even (or, perhaps, especially) in today’s charged political climate, written publications continue to hold weight with readers as sources of truth and authority. As such, authors’ word choices signal beliefs to readers that transcend the opinions of characters to reflect on the author directly.
Such word choices can enhance or diminish an author’s credibility with their intended audience. Uninformed or careless language can also result in reader backlash. Even when writing a historical fiction set when language was used differently, a new book’s readers exist in the world as it stands today. How do you strike the right tone in this constantly shifting literary landscape?
A perfect example is the evolving terminology around authenticity readers, previously referred to as “sensitivity readers.” Today, we’d like to shine a light on this updated language, why FriesenPress is adopting it, and why it matters.
Authenticity Readers
The term “sensitivity reader” came to widespread prominence in 2015. It referred to professional readers who self-identified as experts in certain topics, including race, sexuality, religion, and mental health. Authors could hire these readers to review their work and identify any passages that might be problematic for their demographic. Most would accompany this feedback with resources about harmful tropes, provide information about the history or legacy of the topic, or correct inaccuracies in the portrayal of certain identities.
Of course, no social group is a monolith, and it’s possible that one sensitivity reader might see nothing wrong with a certain presentation that another member of that community takes offense to. For this reason, most sensitivity readers offered their feedback with disclaimers that just because they approved text didn’t mean that the author was no longer responsible for any potential negative responses they got.
However, many communities began questioning the very language around this kind of review: sensitivity was frequently misconstrued as readers being “too sensitive” with how they or their communities were being portrayed. Many writers, like Anthony Horowitz, went on record to attest that no one had the right to tell them what they were allowed to say. While true, writers are still held accountable for writing ignorantly about groups they don’t belong to.
The issue wasn’t about anyone being “too sensitive.” The issue is that some writers inaccurately portray cultures, beliefs, or identities that they don’t understand, thereby misinforming readers. In many cases, this perpetuates harmful stereotypes or spreads misinformation. What their writing needs is better authenticity in the subject matter.
Thus the term “authenticity reader” is growing as the preferred term for this stage of preparing a manuscript for publication. In fact, many marginalized groups prefer this phrasing as being more respectful and accurate to the advice they provide. FriesenPress has chosen to update our language and use “authenticity reader” going forward to ensure we’re keeping apace improvements in the industry.
Editorial Feedback on Language
Part of an editor’s role is to review the text from the lens of the average audience for the book. Every author presents their text from their own lived experience, which includes how (and when) they were raised, the community they’re a part of, their personal (and internalized) beliefs, and their point of view. No matter who you are, you can only experience the world from your place in it, which means every writer will have blind spots. From using a term that you didn’t realize was a slur, to perpetuating harmful stereotypes, to excluding whole demographics from your advice — an editor can catch instances where the language might have unintended negative effects. Part of their role is to draw your attention to them.
It’s important to note that pointing out these impacts is in no way a criticism of the author’s character. The editor approaches each text in good faith and assumes the author is also writing in good faith. When they draw attention to a problematic passage, it’s to alert the author to ways the word choice or passage might land with readers that may not align with the author’s goals for their book. At the very least, it’s helpful to be aware of potentially negative reactions so that you aren’t blindsided by offended reviews or call-outs on social media.
Since there’s only one opportunity to make a first impression, if there are elements in the text that could cause problems for the author or negatively impact the book’s reception, we’d much rather give you the chance to address them prior to publication.
Word Choice Impact
What difference does a book’s authenticity have? Potentially quite a lot. In 2017, Laura Moriarty’s novel, American Heart, had its Kirkus Star removed from its public review after backlash for perpetuating the “white saviour” trope. Even big publishers like Penguin have chosen to remove racial slurs when reprinting classics, like 2023’s Thank You, Jeeves by P. G. Wodehouse. Other books have chosen to keep the original language intact, but include disclaimers about the language being a product of its time.
The fact is that problematic language is polarizing. Context matters. Do you want the focus on your book to be the inclusion of slurs, or do you want the focus to be on your storytelling ability or the journey you take your characters on? This is not to say that there aren’t times where the inclusion of harmful language can have its purpose: a memoir recounting the racism the author faced growing up, for instance; a queer romance reclaiming slurs in an act of defiance and pride; outdated language used in articles or letters that are reproduced in a historical biography.
When this kind of language is included, it’s advisable for the author to include some sort of disclaimer to indicate their intentions behind the use of such language, such as for authenticity of the time, location, or local vernacular.
So, should you include problematic language or not? Ask what value using this language adds to your narrative. Why are you the best person to tell this narrative? Who does this language hurt, and why? Is there another term, phrase, or theme you can lean into instead? FriesenPress strives to pair each book with an editor well-versed in their topic so that we can provide feedback on any content that might need additional work to improve its authenticity.
At the end of the day, the book is yours. So long as you’re not breaching hate speech laws, you can say whatever you want. Just be aware that some choices come with repercussions and review your text accordingly. If you write about identities or cultures that you’re not a part of, we encourage you to work with authenticity readers so that you can get inside insights on your manuscript early on. Approach this feedback openly and ready to listen and learn; doing so will make you a better writer.
Astra Crompton (she/they) is an eclectic writer, editor, and illustrator with over twenty-five years of publishing experience. Her work has been published in anthologies, table-top RPG books, magazines, and in several novels. They have also successfully completed NaNoWriMo six times and counting. Astra is currently the Editing & Illustrations Coordinator at FriesenPress, where they manage, coordinate, and vet FriesenPress’s industry-leading editing and illustrations teams.
