Publishers are cynically using ‘sensitivity readers’ to protect their bottom lines

theguardian.com:

T he news that many of Roald Dahl’s books had been edited by the publisher Puffin to excise “offensive references to gender and race” has unleashed a brouhaha among the literary establishment, anti-woke crusaders and just about everyone online.

The revisions brought simmering debates about censorship in the name of creating a more genteel, accepting society to their head. An added valence, that the books are for children, seemed to weigh in favor of those who believed references to women as “hags” or to a “weird African language the monkeys spoke” should be scrubbed so that future generations can be shielded from prejudiced thoughts.

I’m skeptical of the motives of those desperate for works of fiction for children to remain hateful – even Dahl himself, a known racist and antisemite, changed his Oompa Loompas from Black to orange when it seemed expedient – but I’m equally wary of a publishing and film industry that hides behind humane ends in order to safeguard the value of blockbuster intellectual properties.

It feels like no coincidence that the Dahl IP was sanitized just before a massive sale to Netflix, nor that Ian Fleming’s estate should, as reported, bring in sensitivity readers to sanitize the James Bond novels in what seems like a last-ditch attempt to save a franchise whose relevance is on the wane and offends contemporary sensibilities. As books become assets, publishers become asset managers trying to future-proof their toxic investments, like BP investing in green energies.

The head honchos of the culture industry say that they’re interested in making sure their titles can be “enjoyed by all today”. If that were true, wouldn’t the most natural thing be to leave books as they are, perhaps with explanatory