Didn't we just establish with Roald Dahl's books that people don't think this is a good idea? Why are we doing this again?
Whether or not someone finds them to be 'contentious, arbitrary, or destructive' really shouldn't matter, as the author was the one that chose the words that they put to paper at the time that it was written.
Society changes, but changing a work to conform to new and/or different societal norms should be frowned upon.
I'm begging you to learn how the editing process works.
These changes are post publication... after the author's approval.
Agatha Christie had no input regarding these changes.
We translate books to different languages all the time, or edit original works for reasons of clarity with modern day prose.
Just label the book as edited in the forward and there ought not to be a problem, right?
The reason for this edit is similar to that of a modernization: to make it more accessible to a present day audience.
Instead of saying that changes were made in a forward, perhaps it should have a forward that discusses how societal norms have changed since the book was written.
Changing the author's original text is not modernization, it is not clarification, it's destructive.
I don't think these authors meant to be insulting and evoke bitter feelings in their readers. So this change better aligns the story with it's original intent so the mere mention of a word doesn't obscure everything else.
That doesn't give anyone the right to change someone else's writings without their approval.
People need to be capable of understanding the context of the situation/time when something was written. They don't need to be pampered to because something might hurt their feelings.
You keep saying this, but it's not a realistic view of how publishing has ever worked. Entire books get posthumously published based on a few scenes or character sketches or even mutually contradictory drafts.
> They don't need to be pampered
Right, so this is just moralizing about what you assume readers need, not some real full-throated defense of authorial moral rights.
Fun fact; versions of Sam Pepys’ Diary with the naughty stuff were not available to the general public until the 70s.
We definitely disagree on that!