{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022073578595317726, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.448275862068965, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
REVELATION, INTRUSION, AND QUESTIONS OF TASTE

Obituary columns pick over the expired human condition and deliver their posthumous review with a formidable exercise of authority. They inform, they enlighten, they entertain; they also have the capacity to offend and wound. The obituarist's appraisal will be scrutinised by relatives, lovers, antagonists, and acquaintances who remember the characters on the page with a familiarity not necessarily available to the readership at large. At the same time, though, there is a duty to present a complete account so that the cause of historical record is satisfied. In composing these posthumous studies, therefore, writers and editors frequently encounter an ethical dilemma in deciding what measure of intimate information should be revealed. The cause of death (particularly if self-inflicted) and the subject's sexual persuasion appear in this regard as questions of notable complexity. Then there is the matter of qualification for the page itself. Formerly concerned largely with society's more prominent citizens, whose life histories could safely be compiled from biographies and the files, obituary practice has been extended in recent times to offer an egalitarian coverage—notably in the aftermath of terrorism. Obituary desks have had to intrude on grief and seek information from the newly (and violently) bereaved. This article considers prevailing demands in obituary practice which require the exercise of delicate editorial judgment.