[latexr]

> Anne Frank's dairy is an example of that.

From Wikipedia’s page on Anne Frank[1]:

> Otto, the only survivor of the Frank family, returned to Amsterdam after the war to find that Anne's diary had been saved by his female secretaries, Miep Gies and Bep Voskuijl. He decided to fulfil his daughter's greatest wish to become a writer. He published her diary in 1947.

Her diary was published because her father had reason to believe it was something she would have approved of. In Márquez’s case we’re talking about going against the author’s expressed wishes. The situations are polar opposites.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Frank

[neilkk]

We only have Otto Frank's word for it that this is what she would have wanted. And he is known not to have had respect for her legacy in every way, for example editing the diary to remove criticism of himself.

Also, 'wanting to be a writer' does not necessarily mean that you would have wanted to have a specifically private piece of writing published.

[parineum]

Even if he's a liar and she didn't even want to be a writer, at least he left a plausible reason why it might be what she would want. In the absence of her actual wishes, that's the best we can do and, given the impact that the journal has had on the world, I find it hard to believe that anyone would not want that work published.

This, on the other hand, is someone going against explicitly stated wishes. It's not a very comparable situation.

[neilkk]

So the requirement is simply to come up with 'a plausible reason why it might be what [they] would want'?

[parineum]

I'm not saying it would be uncontroversial but it'd be a hell of a lot better than doing the exact opposite of explicit instructions.

[wolpoli]

My bad. I did not realize that she rescented her early wish that "she would never allow anyone to read it" [1]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Frank