[sramsay]

I absolutely understand what you're saying. And you might be right in this particular case. But there's a difference between the "you" you have in mind here and figures of literally world-historical significance.

I doubt the "morbid curiosity of the general public" could ever succeed as a justification on ethical grounds, but as a literature scholar, I can say that there are usually other purposes in view. At some point, the work of an author like García Márquez becomes an important part of the world-wide human record and historians who study that record are not doing so out of morbid anything. In this case, we're trying to understand the evolution of one of the most important authors (and associated literary movements) in the twentieth century.

I've seen these kinds of decisions being made on the scholarly side (opening archives, publishing letters, etc.). I can tell you they aren't made lightly, and one of the ways we tend to adjudicate these dilemmas is by weighing the "privacy and last wishes" of an individual against the desire of the broader culture to understand itself and its history. Sometimes that latter claim isn't strong enough. But sometimes it really is.

[jrumbut]

It's especially true because of this line that could have easily come out of a Marquez novel:

> "And we decided, yes, it was a betrayal. But that's what children are for."