I wonder about this in the same way that I wonder about all similar
a priori measures. If we take the story as published at the link to be a reflection of reality, it seems that the original review of the book was positive, and was (importantly...or so you would think to the people complaining about it, given the substance of their complaint) penned by a Muslim woman, at that.
So I just wonder, then, if the publisher's giving in to what seem to be a large number of social media comments from people offended by the
idea of the book is really doing anyone that much good. Certainly the author's side is represented in the story, and the sensitivity reader's, but all we hear from the audience is from the segment who were offended that the book even exists. What if they are a very small number, and even more to the point, what if even within the number who might have found the idea offensive, there could be some (maybe even the majority) who could find the book enriching even if they
still didn't like the idea of it? It would be hard to have that last result come to fruition if the book is sanitized beforehand in the name of appeasing a possibly inflated number of disgruntled perhaps-not-even-readers.
I mean, think about it logically for a second: If someone were to describe any number of seminal works of modern fiction according to the most distressing aspects of their story, then they don't seem like the kind of books that anyone would want to read or buy, and yet -- as shown by their durability on the market and perennial inclusion in basic courses on western literature or broader lists of books essential to the modern Western and/or American canon -- they have proven themselves to be very influential and helpful to generations of readers.
- "A woman is humiliated for the crime of having a baby of unknown parentage" (The Scarlet Letter) smacks of sexism, loose woman-shaming (really, auto-filter? I didn't invent the term, and I find it gross, but that's the term that people have come up with), and so forth
- "Lots of idiots hate and oppress and harm black people" (To Kill A Mockingbird, Uncle Tom's Cabin, and a million other titles) is obviously racist and offensive
- "The mentally disabled are better off in the long run living in state facilities, rather than striving to better their lot in life" (Flowers for Algernon) is totally abelist or whatever
etc., etc.
And I know that one possible response to this line of thinking is that society is changing and so what is acceptable to it in its consumption of art is changing too, and these books are old examples from times when people were 'less enlightened' or something, which...fine, I guess, but my point is more how do we ever expect to get anywhere in life by deciding beforehand that because these great works
can be summarized in ways that offend us (or, heck, can be
actually offensive, not just in summary), therefore something must be done to make them more palatable?
I just wonder if it has ever occurred to the people who feel that rewriting works so as to soften them is the best solution that part of makes for truly revolutionary and thought-provoking work is that it has its hard edges, and that these have their reasons for being there, such that if you take them out, they don't work to stimulate discussion. Remove the mental retardation aspect from
Flowers for Algernon or the racist climate from
To Kill a Mockingbird, and how can they even teach the same lessons as they did when they forced the reader to look at these aspects of life that make them uncomfortable?
You've got to step out of the bubble sometime, folks. There simply aren't enough jobs as "sensitivity editors" out there...and there will conceivably be even fewer in the future if the concept really catches on outside of YA novels. (Though I would say it is suspect enough even if limited to mostly or only that. I read all the books that I mentioned above while I was in junior high and high school.)
