Hacker News Reader

Comment by timcederman | Hacker News Reader

It's not new. Books have been getting revised for decades now for newer sensibilities. (e.g. even the Hardy Boys was revised more than 60 years ago to sanitise it - https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/01/re...)

There was recent controversy about Roald Dahl's books getting revised (and he said himself 'change one word [in my books] and deal with my crocodile'), yet he also made revisions in his own lifetime for the same reason (https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2023/02/21/woke-w...)

View on HN

So what if it's not new? That doesn't really make it better. An author rewriting another edition of his own work is not the same as deceptively presenting an unoriginal work as being genuine.

I'm answering the musing from the person I replied to:

> It is hard to me to understand how much this revisionist tendency is just a recent invention and to what extent it has been present throughout the history.

Fair enough.

There's a world of difference between an author revising their own work voluntarily, and their work being censored and amended without their consent. Any writer may review their work and find it wanting for any variety of reasons - but it remains the record of their creative vision. The most perfect expression of their ideas and deepest self. Even children's stories. The Forbes article you link to lists a variety of nonsensical changes that seem to have been made 'just because'. As a writer myself, I find the concept of 'sensitivity readers' condescending, troubling and downright dangerous.

To cite the article you've linked - Author Salman Rushdie wrote, “Roald Dahl was no angel but this is absurd censorship. Puffin Books and the Dahl estate should be ashamed.”

> s a writer myself, I find the concept of 'sensitivity readers' condescending, troubling and downright dangerous.

Also a writer myself, I find 'sensitivity readers' just another tool in the toolbox. I wouldn't find it appropriate to have a generic one, but if I'm, say, depicting an addict I might want to consult someone who either has lived experiences with addiction or someone who is an expert on addicts, so that I'm not unintentionally spreading bullshit tropes. A basic "am I the asshole" sort of check.

What you're describing already existed. It's the role of a researcher or fact checker. A sensitivity reader explicitly serves a different function. Not checking for accuracy but perceived offensiveness. This is an ever expanding rubric and one that (for the 'sensitivity reader' like the bureaucrat), can only fail catastrophically in one direction. The incentive is not to ensure accuracy, it's to avoid controversy.

The phrase 'bullshit tropes', so reminiscent of 'piece of shit people' is telling here.

I mean I can factually portray a spiral into addiction pretty accurately but I would rather not do so in an asshole manner :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com