[note: I’m using “sensitivity reader” and “reader” to describe someone who reviews “unpublished manuscripts with the express purpose of spotting cultural inaccuracies, representation issues, bias, stereotypes, or problematic language.” (Reedsy Blog)]

Mea culpa for the click-baity title. A more accurate title would be “Here’s Why You May Want To Hire A Sensitivity Reader (subtitle: And Here’s What Happened When I Did).

One of the urban fantasy series I’m working on involves a female protagonist whose mother is a kitsune yokai from Japan and whose father is a white native of Los Angeles. The protagonist physically appears as a mix of Japanese and white ethnicities, and she’s in law enforcement.

The only lived experiences I have in common with my protagonist? We both have a white father, and I’ve spent almost half my life in L.A.

In other words, I’m writing WAAAAAAAY outside my known and lived experiences. I worked hard to be respectful of Japanese culture. I tried to avoid cultural landmines and not shoot myself in the narrative foot.

I still failed.

Here’s what happened when I worked with two different sensitivity readers and why you should strongly consider one if you’re writing outside your lived experience.

My writing group read the first 20K words of the first novel in my series and gave me a lot of helpful advice. Two of the members are ethnically Japanese (and female), and I got generally positive feedback. I addressed the group’s critiques and suggestions, but the more I worked on the manuscript, the more nervous I got. I needed more feedback, especially considering my writing group only saw a third of the novel.

The last thing I wanted to do was to publish a book highlighting a culture and society I adore, only to insult the very members of the society who produced that culture. The obvious next step was to hire a sensitivity reader.

I wound up hiring two.

Why? Wouldn’t one have been sufficient? Well, probably. Maybe. Actually, no.

I figured getting two critiques from two different sources would help me better understand what it’s like working with a sensitivity reader. Plus, I’d be able to compare their critiques.

In hindsight, I’m incredibly glad I hired two different readers. Here’s how it all went down . . .

[FYI: this entire process started in the summer of 2020. Pricing and policies may have changed since then.]

FINDING A READER

I found both readers through Google (a writer’s reliable go-to stop for any initial research!). They worked for different companies, each of which offered a variety of editing services (developmental, sensitivity, beta, etc.). I’m going to refer to the first company as Company One and its reader as Reader One. The second company I hired was Salt & Sage Books, and I requested Sachiko Burton as my reader.

PRICE QUOTE

Starting the quote process was easy, as both companies gave me quotes after completing an online form. The requested information was nearly identical: my name, pronouns, email address, book title, manuscript word count, genre, country of residence, requested topics to be read for, and a list of potential triggers my manuscript.

Company One requested a summary and a five-page sample of my manuscript, Salt & Sage did not. However, Salt & Sage asked about the level of familiarity I had with the cultural aspects I was requesting for the read.

I completed both forms within minutes of each other and received quotes very quickly. Company One quoted me $380 for a sensitivity reading of a 60K word manuscript and requested 4 weeks to complete the reading (I was told to expect the critique by August 8th). Erin Olds from Salt & Sage gave me a quote of $390 and requested three weeks for Sachiko’s critique. However, the start date would be later than Company One, meaning I should expect Sachiko’s critique by September 14th.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

95% of the clauses in the contracts from both companies were boilerplate in nature and very similar in content. Standard stuff based on my experience with legal agreements, except for one surprising condition.

My eyebrows raised at similar language in the contracts from both companies when it came to the conditions of my hiring them for a sensitivity reading. Both made it clear that unless they provided explicit permission in writing, I was not to publicly reference them or my readers.

My first thought was, “Weird. If I have a good experience with them, I’ll have to get their permission to promote them publicly.” Most companies want all the marketing they can get - why would you muzzle a customer like this?

Two seconds later, the light bulb went off, and I realized there was probably a very good reason for this policy, and it had nothing to do with five-star ratings. I know enough from my days in retail that some customers can be - and I’m being charitable here - jerks. Ladle in some spicy DEI elements, and it’s not hard to imagine an author going full troll on a reader they don’t agree with. For that matter, it’s not hard to imagine an author throwing their reader under the bus if they publish an offensive or insensitive book (“But I hired a sensitivity reader! It’s not MY fault you find my book offensive!”).

Another unexpected policy was the use of intermediaries between clients and readers (i.e., no direct contact between the two). Might be related to the issue above, might be do reduce scheduling and communications logistics for readers.

I don’t honestly know why a lot of editing companies have this policy. They didn’t say, and I’m guessing. But the result is when you hire an independent reader, chances are you can forget about sending them an email with a quick question or jumping on a brief call to discuss a diversity item in your manuscript.

I say “chances are” because Company One only offered feedback in writing via an intermediary. Salt & Sage Books offers varying levels of developmental editing, and the most in-depth package - the Deluxe Developmental edit - does include the option of up to (3) hours of video calls with your reader. The other three developmental edit packages, however, are all email-based and do not provide direct contact with a reader (I selected the Deep Dive Editorial Sensitivity Read for all but one of my edits with Sachiko).

PAYMENT

Company One required payment in full and up-front, while Salt & Sage Books charged half at the start of the reading and the balance on delivery of the critique. Both accepted online payments, but Company One did not accept credit cards (I had to use PayPal instead).

THE PROCESS

While I wanted feedback ASAP, I declined the additional fees for a speedier turnaround offered by both companies.

I received Company One’s reader critique as promised on Aug 8th (see details below).

Even though I declined to pay for a faster turnaround of Sachiko’s critique, Salt & Sage asked Sachiko about moving up the turnaround deadline. She agreed to deliver her critique a whole month earlier. I could now expect her critique on August 17th with no change to my quoted cost.

However, on August 14th I received an intriguing proposition from Erin at Salt & Sage: would I like to keep my sensitivity reading cost capped at the original $390, or would I be interested in paying $200 more for a far more detailed critique? Sachiko was only halfway through the manuscript but had already written 11K words (around 40 pages) of feedback. Erin sent me Sachiko’s feedback for the first two chapters of my manuscript so I could see the kind of detailed critique she was providing. I could pay the extra fee for that same level of detail or stick with the original price and get a lighter feedback for the second half of the book.

I read the two-chapter sample and was incredibly impressed. Lots of valuable suggestions and insane amounts of detailed feedback. I readily agreed to pay the extra $200. When Erin asked what deadline I would require, I asked if an additional two weeks would be sufficient. Based on the sample, an extra couple of weeks would be a small price to pay for such high-quality feedback. Erin let me know Sachiko confirmed she could hit that date.

On Aug 31st, I received the full critique from Sachiko (details below).

One thing I had not anticipated was how I’d be interacting with my readers. Both companies were identical in terms of how writers communicated with their assigned readers, which is to say they didn’t. Not directly.

In each case, someone from the company served as my go-between, answering questions before the reading started and shuttling information between me and my reader. That’s not to say I didn’t “know” who my reader was (both companies allowed me to request a specific reader from their editor pool, and they publicly posted their readers’ bios and qualification online). But I never communicated directly with either reader at any point.

This buffered model of communication was — and still is — somewhat frustrating, but it hasn’t stopped Sachiko from providing A-quality critiques. Clearly, it’s a model that can work with the right reader.

THE FEEDBACK

Company One sent me a 2.5-page Word doc with critique comments and lots of white space. No option to ask questions or clarify comments from the editor. The critique doc referenced manuscript page numbers that didn’t match the Word doc I’d submitted, even though I’d followed the company’s requested formatting in terms of font, font size, margins, etc. My best guess is Reader One changed the formatting for their reading, which threw off the page numbers.

Reader One’s critique wasn’t bad. They provided insights which I almost always agreed with. But the critique was more generic in terms of diversity and lacked specific comments about Japanese culture.

Based on their bio, Reader One said they could confidently comment on Japanese culture and was a regular reader for urban fantasy books. They were the best match from Company One’s reader pool at that time. Still, I’m not sure she was the most ideal choice of readers, and that was reflected in their critique. If I had accepted all of their feedback and published my book, it still would have been an embarrassment.

By comparison, the Salt & Sage critique from Sachiko included a 60 page .pdf with observations and suggestions plus a Word doc version of my manuscript packed with in-line comments (Sachiko used the Review and Comment feature). I was then given the chance to submit a single round of unlimited questions and requests for clarification. Sachiko turned her answers around in a week (that document was a 17 page .pdf; for reference, I sent her a 4-page Word doc of questions, so she wrote 13 pages of answers). Sachiko’s female and half Japanese, half white. She’s also a writer and a lover of urban fantasy. In other words, I’d be hard-pressed to find a better match for someone who could identify with my protagonist and my story.

THE WINNAH

Salt & Sage/Sachiko won this contest, hands-down. If Reader One’s critique was a tune up, Sachiko’s was a complete tear-down and rebuild of my narrative engine from a sensitivity perspective.

Yes, it wasn’t an apples-to-apples comparison, given I’d greenlit Salt & Sage to deliver a more detailed critique. But there’s no question that even if I had stuck with the original, lighter edit, Sachiko would have easily outstripped Reader One’s critique.

The really scary thing is I might not have found Salt & Sage and Sachiko if I hadn’t been willing to pay two different editors to read the same manuscript. Company One had good reviews from the limited amount of information available, as did Reader One. After reviewing over a dozen sensitivity companies, I picked the two most promising candidates, yet the results couldn’t have been more different.

And while Sachiko’s critique was extremely valuable, I found her diversity feedback wound up improving the developmental aspects of my novel. Correcting the diversity aspects of the manuscript often prompted me to make plot and developmental changes. One offhand comment of hers resulted in thirty minutes of research on the history of Little Tokyo in Los Angeles, and that research resulted in a much more believable location in the story. I felt like I was getting double the value for my money!

So, what kind of feedback did Sachiko provide?

A wide spectrum of comments, including suggesting a particular word should be avoided (including the historical context for why) to expanding my knowledge on a particular topic (e.g., how discrimination of and within the Japanese community works on multiple levels, not just in the obvious ways) to pointing out that a scene where a character laments about their discrimination was itself offensive (and how I could correct that while leaving the bulk of the scene intact).

And I reworked plot points and rewrote scenes which were theoretically fine from a sensitivity standpoint but had the potential to be so much better. Sachiko’s feedback gave me a new lens through which to view the manuscript. Soaking up her sensitivity insights triggered developmental edits that elevated the overall quality of my book.

I thought I was paying Sachiko to help me identify my manuscript’s sensitivity issues. Sachiko did far more than that — she made me a better writer.

READER REDUX

So, I’d found a reader I loved and who I wanted to work with on the rest of the series (yay!). Based on how great the sensitivity read was, I circled back to Erin at Salt & Sage about having Sachiko perform a developmental edit on the novel as well. Because Sachiko was already booked on other critiques, I had to wait until October to get her feedback. Her developmental read proved equally impressive.

When I asked Erin about having Sachiko critique a prequel novella in the series, she suggested I pay for a combined sensitivity/developmental edit, which was cheaper than paying for them separately. Even better, I now have a standing 10% loyalty discount on all future services since I’m a returning customer! Unfortunately, I had to wait almost two months to get back on Sachiko’s schedule.

Not wanting to lose more time with the series, I signed contracts to have a total of 5 more novels critiqued between Jan and Jun of 2021. That gave me some hard deadlines (which are proving to be great incentives) and the peace of mind that I wouldn’t have a manuscript hanging around for weeks or months while I waited for Sachiko’s next available slot.

THE ICING ON THE CAKE

I got great feedback, and I would have been happy with just that.

But I really enjoy working with Erin Olds and, indirectly, Sachiko Burton. They’re both passionate about what they do, and it really comes through in their emails and critiques. Always cheerful, always supportive. It feels like - gasp! - they actually like their work, and that makes a huge difference.

My interactions with Company One were professional and timely, but I didn’t get any where near the same sense of “hey, we’re glad to have you as a client, this is going to be fun and productive, and we’re really looking forward to working with you!”

On a related note, Sachiko delivers honest feedback without making me feel awful when I make a sensitivity mis-step. And the more we work together, the more trust there is on both sides. We’ve developed a shorthand for our communications over the past several months, and it makes the entire process more fluid and efficient.

It doesn’t hurt that Sachiko has a wicked sense of humor and a platinum-level geek membership status.

THE FREEDOM TO SAY NO

One thing I love about Sachiko is her willingness to let me make my own choices at the end of the day. She recognizes her feedback is a single point of data (though I view it as an incredibly valuable point of data), and she’s said I should feel free to write the story I want to write, regardless of her thoughts.

Happily, I can count on one hand how many times I chose not to go with her suggestions (and these were minor, trivial matters). But her explicit permission for me to be true to my story was refreshing, especially considering she was giving me feedback about her culture and lived experience. She clearly has strong opinions and grounded insights about what I’m writing, yet she remains respectful enough to give her honest opinion and then step back.

Or as she once wrote, “Now, again, this is your story. I’ll just offer my thoughts and suggestions, and you can do as you like with your own story baby.”

Knowing she’s not expecting me to simply adopt her critiques wholesale makes me even more inclined to lean into her feedback because in the back of my head I know I always have the option to say no.

YES, BUT . . .

Sachiko points out problematic issues in my manuscript and offers suggestions that still allow me to make my point. I didn’t want to skip over or minimize the issues I was writing about, and Sachiko never suggested I take that approach.

A lot of her feedback was along the lines of, “I’m not offended you included this troubling topic, I’m offended by how you approached it. Don’t shy away from the topic but consider addressing it from this angle instead . . .”

A CAVEAT

The only downside I’ve experienced so far with Sachiko is she’ll almost certainly never read the published version of a manuscript she’s critiqued. I send her a manuscript, she sends me back notes, I send her questions, she replies with answers, and then I’m off on my own again to rewrite the manuscript.

A traditionally published author would work with an editor until a final version was approved. Contractor readers do not unless you pay them for a second read, which may be advisable in some situations.

To work around this, I’m sending Sachiko a short list of major plot/character/world building changes from the previous manuscript every time I send her the manuscript for the next novel. Not ideal but a practical solution for now.

LESSONS LEARNED

If you decide to hire a sensitivity reader, please consider the following suggestions:

1) Shop around if you can afford it (or ask around if you have fellow writers hiring sensitivity readers). If I had only hired Company One, I would have walked away from the experience with a very different — and incorrect — view about just how valuable sensitivity services could be. I would have also published an embarrassing and offensive book.

2) Don’t jump at the first sensitivity reader you come across, even if you think they’re the perfect match. Do your homework. This can be tough (see Terms and Conditions), but when you’re shelling out hundreds of dollars, a little research is warranted.

3) Understand interactions with your reader will likely be indirect, and you may be limited on how much follow up you’re allowed to request. If you’re working on a series, develop a system to ensure your reader is up to date on edits to previous manuscripts so they can provide accurate critiques on future manuscripts.

4) If you find an editor you like and you’re writing a series, consider booking them for multiple engagements ahead of time (though no more frequently than you can realistically write/edit/submit a manuscript). The advantage indie authors have over traditional authors is we can write and publish as fast and as often as we like. But readers’ schedules can become the chokepoint in that workflow if you need a sensitivity read before publishing.

5) Salt & Sage encourages writers to send along questions or comments with their manuscripts. Take advantage of this if your reader allows it! I often know something — a scene, a plot line, the way a character is presented, etc. — isn’t working, but I can’t see why it’s not working. Pointing readers to these areas up front is like a freebie Q&A.

6) Be detailed and specific in your questions to your reader. We’re writers, but communicating in text is sometimes harder than a simple conversation. Yet, your interaction with your reader will likely be limited to text, so get as detailed as possible with your questions. There’s nothing worse than getting an answer to your question that doesn’t actually address your question.

7) When it comes to working with your reader, be respectful and humble. Are you the customer? Yes. Yes, you are. You’re spending money for a service. Do you want the best possible service? Yes. Yes, you do. So start by being a nice customer. Abide by the terms of your contract. If you disagree with your reader’s comments, handle it via the company. Do not personally stalk, attack or harass your reader. And if you absolutely hate the feedback you’ve been given, remember it’s a critique of your manuscript, not a personal attack on you (even though it feels like it because we writers wear our hearts on our sleeves).

9) Related: if you find a good reader match for your manuscript, you are likely asking someone to relive personal and painful experiences. Your unintended missteps will trigger an unpleasant reaction in your reader. So, before you reject their critique, consider your reader has willingly crawled across broken glass to deliver their feedback to you. Yes, they’re helping you not inflict unintended pain on readers, but doing so requires them to pay an emotional toll first.

9) Last, but perhaps most important, is something I’ve heard a lot from the sensitivity reading community. They are neither gate keepers nor givers of permission. They are individuals providing their subjective opinions about your manuscript. They are not representatives of certain minority groups or segments of our society. At the end of the day, you, the author, must take full responsibility for the impact of your book.

I consider myself extremely lucky to have stumbled onto an amazing reader right off the bat, and I shudder to think I almost published my first novel without seeking a sensitivity read. Not only did I avoid some truly embarrassing and offensive writing, my book as a whole is massively improved.

Whether that translates to a book people love and embrace is a different matter. I can’t predict how the book will be received, but I can say with absolute certainty that I’m a better writer after working with Sachiko.

And that’s kind of the point of this post.

A good reader doesn’t just help you avoid sensitivity missteps. A good reader helps you uncover the gems in your story you didn’t know were there. They’ll point out ways to better approach the topics you don’t fully understand. They’ll support you and cheer you on, even as they push you to work a little harder and challenge your impression that your story is “good to go.”

I’m not saying every writer needs a reader, but what writer doesn’t want a little cheerleading and a better book . . . ?