So, I just read a thread about Cobain's journals being published. I said I didn't approve. On the other hand, I bought Salmon of Doubt which published a half finished novel by a dead author (Douglas Adams).

Assuming the author left no written record of what to do with their works after they are dead (as most anyone would probably say 'do what the author wanted!'), when is it ok to publish something after the author dies, and what is acceptable to publish by them (i.e. diary vs fiction)?

If the work was intended for publication when it was being written and is complete then I don't have much problem with it. If it was for the public but not complete than publishing can be okay, but it should be made very clear that the author had not completed his work. Personal diaries shouldn't be published at all until it is clear that the person is both long dead and clearly important historically - i.e. Shakespeare's personal stuff would be fine, Cobain's isn't. Hemingway would be a tough call, but probably not for another decade or three.

---
jello.
aka aron.
"That's it boy! You just lost your brain privileges!" - Plankton

what about people using the name of a famous author after they have passed?

Like V.C. Andrews. I remember how when she died, her family took it upon themselves to take advantage of the popularity of her books, and to continue publishing them in her name. Now THAT pissed me off. I used to read her books when I was much younger, and enjoyed the dark sinsiter quality to them. But the 'new' ones are all flash and no substance, thus pulling the name down with them.

Does this ever happen to other passed writers? I've heard of people assuming the names of dead family members who were writers, or inheriting them through the will, but all of this sounds so strange to me.

Back to Journals...

I keep journals, always have. I write sporadically, and sometimes manically. Why am I writing them, I wonder. Is anyone ever going to read them? Should I leave them for my grandchildren, wait until the incriminating evidence can't hurt me anymore? (I've had too many experiences of people reading my journals and me getting into deep trouble because of it)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Medusa:
what about people using the name of a famous author after they have passed?

---

That gets a bit sticky. The reason the family can get away with that and it not get labeled as fraud is that the new authors are working from notes/outlines/incomplete stuff that she had amassed before she died. Sometimes it seems okay. Say in cases where the work was very nearly complete having another author polish things a touch seems okay to me provided it is stated as such in the book. As far as I know this isn't the case with any of the V.C. Andrews stuff. Everything I've heard about that particular travisty I've hated. They are creating full novels in her name based on a paragraph's worth of outlining and slapping the name on it to sell copies. Bugger that. Now Tolkien's son did handle that sort of situation fairly well, imho.

---
jello.
aka aron.
"That's it boy! You just lost your brain privileges!" - Plankton

Similar to the Tolkien example would be Brian (son for Frank) Herbert (though I don't know much about the specifics).

tolkien's son has handled the responsibility of of his father's estate and legacy really well.

but from what i can gather the c.s. lewis estate wasn't handled as well. the publishing company was recently granted the right to have more stories written in the narnia series so long as they don't have a christian element. now, c.s. lewis stated he didn't want ANY more books written in the series and as a christian the religious element of the series was kind of the point (and a very beautiful point in my non-christian opinion)

~*~
*i know you're out there. i can hear you breathing*

Or, what about when an author specifically states he doesn't want to be published? This was the situation with Kafka--i think he asked that his works be burned...and look at them now.

_____
"You're innocent when you dream"
(anonymous graffito at the Someday Cafe)
Circus' Mask: http://circusmask.diaryland.com

Oooh, excellent point about Kafka, Circus. Nobody would have been able to read him if his last wishes had been honored, and the world would be a poorer place because of it.

Jeff
______________________________
ye gods and little fishes!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Circus:
Or, what about when an author specifically states he doesn't want to be published? This was the situation with Kafka--i think he asked that his works be burned...and look at them now.

---

I'm always, always, always against the destruction of art. If the author didn't want his works published but they seem to have some merit then they should be preserved for a time (say 50 to 100 yearsish) and then evaluated by the literary/publishing community again. If they still seem worthwhile then go from there.

---
jello.
aka aron.
"That's it boy! You just lost your brain privileges!" - Plankton

Yay me! I generated discussion! *beam beam beam*

Sorry about that happy moment there.

Getting back to the topic at hand...
What kind of standard should the literary/publishing community use to determine whether something is worthwhile? I agree that it's generally a bad thing to destroy art--but how does one determine what qualifies as art (is a doodle in Dali's notebook art, or is it something else? likewise, does a paragraph that seems to relate to my novel, jotted hastily in one of my journals qualify as something that should be saved, or not?), and what doesn't; and then, what qualifies as worthwhile and what doesn't?

I ask only because it sounds like a great solution to the problem...and yet sometimes simple solutions defy practical use, and i worry that this would be one of those cases.

_____
"You're innocent when you dream"
(anonymous graffito at the Someday Cafe)
Circus' Mask: http://circusmask.diaryland.com

Unfortunately, the standard that most often gets used by the publishing industry is money. If somebody thinks it will sell, then it gets published.

I think money is a huge factor in the publication of Kurt Cobain's journals (the impetus for this discussion). Is Kurt spinning in his grave right now? Undoubtedly yes. Is it wrong for someone to get rich (or richer) from this? Yes...but if nobody made money from the sale of books, we'd never have books to begin with. As a fan of Kurt Cobain and Nirvana, I'm glad for the chance to read his private writings

Jeff
______________________________
ye gods and little fishes!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Circus:
Or, what about when an author specifically states he doesn't want to be published? This was the situation with Kafka--i think he asked that his works be burned...and look at them now.

_____
"You're innocent when you dream"
(anonymous graffito at the Someday Cafe)
Circus' Mask: http://circusmask.diaryland.com

---

I don't know, if he really said they should be burnt, I say burn them. Even if it is regular novel ands not journals, the author could be genuinely concerned about them being published. Maybe s/he really did only write them for his/her own amusement or feels they reflect what he wanted to say. Let's say there's an author who's enjoyed a certain amount of success in his lifetime and still got some of the earlier works lying around because the material can be used in the future. So s/he wants them to be destroyed if they are still around when the time comes. Why shouldn't that be respected? Art is about art on the artists own terms.

And this wasn't just about Kafka, obviously, but generally and more or less regardless of the reason the artist gives for not wanting it published.

lordvader

quote:

---

Originally posted by Manxom Vroom:
I think money is a huge factor in the publication of Kurt Cobain's journals ...

---

How much is/should the motivation to publish most-mortem part of this discussion? Saving art or making a buck, it shouldn't matter, it should come down to the author shouldn't it? (not that it does). It sounds like both Kafka and Cobain desired the respective works to be destroyed, but we're more willing to accept Kafka's work of fiction than Cobain's personal journals. Why? Is it fiction vs nonfiction; art vs money; something we're used to having around vs something that just came out?

Jello: "If the author didn't want his works published but they seem to have some merit then they should be preserved for a time (say 50 to 100 yearsish)" This makes some sense in the idea of waiting for the copyright to expire (as an example of legal precedant for this)

Circus: "What kind of standard should the literary/publishing community use to determine whether something is worthwhile?" That is an Extremely tricky area even for living authors

"but how does one determine what qualifies as art"
I use Scott McCloud's version from Understanding Comics which is extremely liberal, and under which almost everything is art.

How about: If an author desires their work to be destroyed, honor that. If they simply don't want it to be published, I can see allowing that while copyright stands... but now I'm thinking about what right the family (new copyright holders) has to publish nonetheless and have wandering into both meandering thoughts and meandering sentances la la la ok I leave for a bit.

Can't remember if anything I just wrote was worthwhile.... ah well

I don't think it's ever ok, really -- unless the work was intended by the author to be published, and he died before the actual publishing date. Early work, while interesting to us, shouldn't be published if the author never intended for it to be published. If a work is incomplete upon the author's death, I don't think it should be published either -- it's not what the author intended as an end result to have published, especially if it's a first draft incomplete work. I think it's particularly vile to publish private diaries. There is a reason the diaries were private. Similarly, I don't think private correspondence should be published. Again, it was private. I don't think that fans' curiosity or interest in an author is a valid reason to raid the author's private life.

I see more of this in music, myself. For example, John Coltrane's every note is owned by Verve, and if he tape recorded himself in the bathroom, they'd publish it as a deluxe edition "lost" recording. I don't think it's right, if it wasn't an express wish of the artist.

Maure

______________________________
eurydice underground: a miscellany

Anna Frank wrote a diary, which at first was only for herself. Later, when she was hidden, and heard someone asking refugess to keep thier journals as a testimony of war for the future, she edited her own diary, cuttin gparagraphs here and there, in order for them to be "publishable". That's the version that got published and has been read for many years. Some years ago, the whole REAL diary got published. I've read both versions thousands of times. The paragraphs that got uct by Anna were mostly concerning some statements towards her family -hich she thought it would not be right to be read by strangers, such as when she wa sangry with her mother and so- and some paragraphs about sexuality and intimate relationsihps.
I love the "uncut" version, because it feels more real, more touching. An dit owuld hav ebeen a shame if it had never seen the light.
Similarly, many great Spanish poets kept their works secret and requested them to be burned, but the family saw they were great poems, and published them.
When Charlotte Brontë found Emily's poems and told her thye were great, she tried to convince her to get them published, but EMily refused and prdered them to be burned. Howevere, both Charlotte and Anne convinced her and the three published thier poems together.

I think the key point should be, if the thing is worth publishing, either from a literary point of view, or documentary or historically point of view, then it should be. There might be many reasons why an author won't want to have his creations published -maybe he feels embarrassed about them, maybe he feels they're not good enough, maybe that they're worthless. But what an author sees as worthless, may still be a work of art for many others, and might still be interesting for students and readers: eg a book whose author thought was crap, can tell you a lot about the author's quality standards, creative processes, ideas on what a novel should be... It is interesting anyway to see the unfinished work sof someone, and to know what he thought about it.
So, when publishing something by a dead person, one should ask "Is this really interesting, do readers really HAVE to read this?". Of course everyone feels entitled to answer this question, especially publishers who'll get great earnings from the. Maybe if the benefits from postume works were entirely for a charity or NGO...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Medusa:
what about people using the name of a famous author after they have passed?

Like V.C. Andrews. I remember how when she died, her family took it upon themselves to take advantage of the popularity of her books, and to continue publishing them in her name. Now THAT pissed me off. I used to read her books when I was much younger, and enjoyed the dark sinsiter quality to them. But the 'new' ones are all flash and no substance, thus pulling the name down with them.

Does this ever happen to other passed writers? I've heard of people assuming the names of dead family members who were writers, or inheriting them through the will, but all of this sounds so strange to me.

---

After Lovecraft died August Derleth went through his journals and found some plot ideas. He wrote stories from these ideas. There are two paperbacks of these stories published by Carroll and Graf and the bad thing is Lovecraft is the only name on the cover when in reality he did not write any of the stories at all.

I have to disagree with you. I think that what an author chooses to do with his work is sacrosanct. Whether people would find it interesting or touching or whatever should have no bearing on the matter. It shouldn't be for someone else to decide. If you are the creator, then you have the right to release your works into the public. I think it's very important to recognize that only the creator should have that right.

Maure

______________________________
eurydice underground: a miscellany

*blinks*
This is very interesting. Your post, Maure, if placed in a different thread, could easily be about abortion rights. Instead of being about 'my body' it has to do with 'my body of work.'

Equally valid... possibly even more so in this context; I can imagine situations where a biological father would have a legitimate interest (against an abortion), but I have much greater difficulty imagining situations where the post-mortem wishes of a creator should not be the deciding consideration with regard to their creative estate.