This is a very thorny question, with no clear cut right answers. I have enjoyed all the perspectives offered here.

A few things to consider: Emily Dickinson wanted her poems burned when she died. I'm glad they weren't. The Web And The Rock and You Can't Go Home Again were both assembled out of copious manuscripts left by Thomas Wolfe at the time of his death. I'm glad they were crafted into those two novels.

When a person's wishes are known, I'd like to see them respected. (To use Maure's field of music as an example, I was one happy and satisfied boy the day I was able to hand a double length CD copy of Jimi Hendrix's First Rays of the New Rising Sun, [the package and title he intended for them to be heard and experienced in] to the guy behind the counter. It was a long time coming, but worth the wait.)

If those wishes aren't known, I'm almost always on the side of maximum exposure. I want to see, hear and read it all, or at least have the opportunity to do so.

What a great debate. Maure, you make a very compelling argument, but I think that writers are not always the most qualified person to judge the merits of their own work. In fact, they often have an overly negative or critical view of their work due to feelings of inadquacy, depression, poor self esteem or what have you. I'm a writer myself, so I know how this is.

I've got to agree with Clover. Your post crystallized a lot of different things I had in mind, but couldn't quite get out of my head and into the computer. You said it best.

Jeff
______________________________
ye gods and little fishes!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Maure:
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.

---

There are a few complications here though. If the author truly didn't want his works to ever be read by anyone else, why didn't they destroy the things themselves? People who know human psychology very well (which authors often do) know that labeling a box "Do not open! Burn without reading! This means you!" is probably the best way to make sure someone does open the box and read the contents. If Kafka's will had said "Please, oh please, publish my books" I'd put money on the executors simply filing the works away as tripe if they even bothered to keep it at all. Many artists are in conflict with themselves (and that's before you even get to the ones who are not of sound mind in general). If they kept the works whole and in good condition then some part of them at least probably wanted someone else to read them, even if it wasn't for the general public.

Sticky wicket.

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

Post-mortem publication without the author's will can never be OK. It can be a good thing, it can be a favor to Humanity, but it can't be OK, because you would consider the publishing over the author's will. You may (and on the cases when the author's states clearly "don't publish me", you would totally) be betraying him. Which is not a bad thing on itself. It's a matter of what you care more. Like every treason...

And some authors (professional or non yet, like me) create to deal with personal issues, not for public. If s/he dies before s/he can dispose of his/her work that doesn't mean s/he intended to eventually publish the work.

Personally, I'm glad the author's will has not been respected. I can deal with that treason.

-- --
Keep dreaming

quote:

---

Originally posted by GMZoe:
*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.'

---

*GMZoe*, personally, I consider it nearly the same thing -- except that a body of work is the creator's sole creation, whereas a child is the product of more than one person...

______________________________
eurydice underground: a miscellany

[This message was edited by GMZoe on November 20, 2002 at 09:54 AM.]

(by the by, I don't use my real name on the board)
(Various reasons for that, including that since I'm the guy who bans people, and at least one person has shown excessive reaction to it, I'd rather not be looked up in a phone book and signed up for telemarketer lists or worse)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Maure:
*GMZoe*, personally, I consider it nearly the same thing -- except that a body of work is the creator's sole creation, whereas a child is the product of more than one person...

---

yep, I just put forward the observation before, but didn't comment on it. But many reactions seem analagous - if a work is dependant of an authors decision to it's fate or not. Pro-Life, Pro-Choice. There are difference of course, but once you notice a correlation it becomes an even more fascinating subject...

Jello, aka Aron,

I still have to disagree vehemently. No one, other than the writer himself, can know what was the writer's most secret desire. If the writer's will is ignored (or lack of will, when unfinished or private materials are published because the author never expressly said not to do), and the excuse is that someone thinks that deep down he really wanted them published, what a terrible precedent that would set. Can you imagine? "Oh, Douglas Adams wrote this book when he was 14, and made absolutely no attempt ever to have it published, but deep down, I know he wanted it to be. To the presses! Spread the word -- Adams has a new book!!"

I agree that sometimes, it would mean great losses for fans, or great works that are denied to the world, because an author did not say, "Publish this!" expressly. But you know what? The world doesn't have a right to take it without permission. And only the creator ought to be able to give that permission.

______________________________
eurydice underground: a miscellany

quote:

---

Originally posted by GMZoe:
(by the by, I don't use my real name on the board)
(Various reasons for that, including that since I'm the guy who bans people, and at least one person has shown excessive reaction to it, I'd rather not be looked up in a phone book and signed up for telemarketer lists or worse)

---

Ooo, sorry, should have thought about that.

______________________________
eurydice underground: a miscellany

So
for those who believe it is wrong to publish post mortem against the authors wishes, what should we expect from a potential buyer of the book? Is it their responsibility to research an author's last wishes if a book is published post mortem, or is that asking too much? Is ignorance of the subject an acceptable attitude then?
ok, those are pushing it a bit, so let me take a step back. You've read the discussion. You now know that a few authors specifically stated they didn't want their stuff published. Are you still ok with buying a Kafka book knowing this, or will you now avoid buying his works because of your new knowledge?

Another example of a son living off his dad's cash cow is Brian Herbert and his miserable Dune books.

I don't have a problem with postmortem publication. As long as the public knows that it's an unfinished work, or wasn't intended for publication, I don't see the harm. Such material might be different or rawer than the author's other stuff, but hey, you can't wake a guy up at 3 in the morning and expect him to look gorgeous. Caveat emptor.

1. If I die before my wife and if I have left anything worth publishing she may do so.

2. If I die after my wife and if I left anything worth publishing my children may do so.

3. If my entire family is dead and someone finds a box of box of my works they feel is worth publishing they may do so.

4. If anyone wants to use my unpublished outlines, notes, post-its or whatever and publish using my name they may do so as long as it's made clear to readers what is being offered.

5. If anyone uses my name to sell their own work please remember, I will be back and I will haunt you!

Glad we got that straightened out.

John Paul Allen

<I>"The best time for me was just before the screaming stopped and their voices hit that pitch." - Jeffrey Michael Roberts, Gifted Trust</I>

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZoneSeek:
Another example of a son living off his dad's cash cow is Brian Herbert and his miserable Dune books.

---

but Brian worked with his father on Dune before Frank died. I suspect, though I have no proof, that it would've been ok with Frank because of that

I'm sure Frank doesn't mind, but Brian still pisses me off because the House Atreides/Harkonnen/Corrino books are so sucky. At least Chris Tolkien isn't pretending to write more Middle-Earth stories, he's just doing what he says he's doing, presenting his dad's notes and stuff, if anyone's interested in that kind of literary voyeurism. Which I'm not, though I'm an LotR fan.

Writers are a little exhibitionistic, for lack of a better word. Writers write for an audience. If I wrote anything that I didn't want anyone else to see, then I'd burn it, it's easy enough. The act of writing itself implies a potential audience, communication. Or else it's just intellectual masturbation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by GMZoe:
So
for those who believe it is wrong to publish post mortem against the authors wishes, what should we expect from a potential buyer of the book? Is it their responsibility to research an author's last wishes if a book is published post mortem, or is that asking too much? Is ignorance of the subject an acceptable attitude then?
ok, those are pushing it a bit, so let me take a step back. You've read the discussion. You now know that a few authors specifically stated they didn't want their stuff published. Are you still ok with buying a Kafka book knowing this, or will you now avoid buying his works because of your new knowledge?

---

As a reader you are entitled to assume the book was published with the author's consent. If you know that it wasn't, I suppose you shouldn't read it. But the real wrong here was done by the person publishing it in the first place.

lordvader

Certainly the world would be poorer without Kafka's work, but the real question is: is it entitled to it? If he hadn't written his stories in the first place, would the world have had the right, assuming it was possible, to force him to? I don't think there's any real way in which publishing against the wishes of a deceased author harms the author himself, but what it boils down to is disrespect for the writer's creative rights. Writers should have the right to write what they want and to not write what they want; similarly, they should have the right to publish or not publish. So what if writing for the sake of writing, rather than for an audience, is intellectual masturbation? Writers have a right to their paper and ink wanks. And in any case, if the writing's good, "intellectual masturbation" is a bit of a hollow attack, and if it isn't good, why would you want it published anyway?


ae

Aelysium: i thought it was interesting that you used the term "entitled" in the sense of "is the world entitlted to read so-and-so's work." Is the world really entitled to read anyone's work? To me, entitlement is a tricky business--many people out there who read great works aren't particularly good readers. Should they be entitled to read them if they're not going to make the effort to read them in a way that does them justice?

This may sound like a pedantic aside, but i think there's something to it.

The more i think about post-mortem publication from a perspective of "does the world deserve to see these works of beauty, whether or not the author intended it," the more i think that perhaps all written work should be published and made available. The reason is this: just because something is published doesn't mean that people will read it. Perhaps the people who should read certain works never do....

On the other hand, as a writer, i certainly wouldn't want some of my dirty laundry aired. But what if someone finds merit in my fragments? What if someone reads my work and is moved to think in ways he/she never thought before? Doesn't the impact of my work then outweigh my self-conscious desire to remain unseen?

Sorry this is so rambling. Just trying to get my thoughts down in a place where they might generate some interest.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aelysium:
If he hadn't _written_ his stories in the first place, would the world have had the right, assuming it was possible, to force him to?

---

Aelysium, I think you're on to something. The whole point of writing is for what is written to be read. That's why we have a writing system. The act of putting the pen to the paper is for the sole purpose of transmitting an idea. Even if it isn't intended for anybody's eyes but the author's... it's still giving life to a thought. If a person doesn't want anybody else to see it, they don't write it down.

Going back to Cobain... he knew what the media was like before he shot himself. I think if he truly wanted to keep his journals secret, he would have destroyed them.

I agree with whoever said it earlier that writers are a bit of exhibitionists. Just look at the popularity of live journals. I had a roommate who would leave her journal lying open on the coffetable. I never read it, cause I didn't really like her and didn't care what was going on in her life (call me what you want, you didn't have to live with her). But there it is. Writing is committed with the supposition that it will be read. Otherwise, why write?

amy

*****************************
ARTHUR: By what name are you known?
AMY: There are some who call me... 'Amy'?
ARTHUR: Greetings, Amy of Doom.
*****************************

Was that really Aelysiums point, Amy? I thought it was that it was up to the author regardless of it's any good or not. And that it doesn't need to have been intended for publication. Like Aelysium said:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aelysium:
Writers should have the right to write what they want and to not write what they want; similarly, they should have the right to publish or not publish. So what if writing for the sake of writing, rather than for an audience, is intellectual masturbation? Writers have a right to their paper and ink wanks.

---

I agree with that and think that the world at large can never be entitled to read a persons work if said person would not have wanted it to.

lordvader

journals and personal letters are an invaluable source of information in piecing together artistic intent. When i can go to the archive, and read through someone's notes, then i can learn what the author or artist intended for people to get out of the works. For me, artistic intent is far more valuable than any outside analysis, or "critical" viewpoint. hell, being able to touch the actual pages they wrote or drew on is a bit of a high of it's own... in a way, it's the closest you can ever come to talking to people who are dead...

in many ways i agree with Maure. if they don't want it published, don't publish it. i have not, and will not, buy or read Salmon of Doubt for just that reason.

but it has to be kept. put it in an archive somewhere, so that those who are motivated enough can go and find it. sometimes, without those notes or journals, the true message is lost through time, and many works - literary and pictorial - have been destroyed because they were not properly understood. and sometimes, reputations have been rescued because someone was able to go back and re-construct artistic intent. imagine trying to read Kerouac if you had no idea what the guy was about. his stuff would be lost, and an entire generation's expressions lost with it.

in terms of Cobain, i don't think his journals should have been published. kept, available to be read, but not put into wide circulation because that's not what he wanted. my personal beef with this subject is that Ms. Love is a money-grubbing freak who doesn't care about him being better understood - let's face it, if you like his music, you already have a gut level understanding of where he was comming from. she's all about the money, and i think that is why some fans hated her decision. she "sold him out" when he wasn't around to defend himself.

but having said all of that, the concept of "intellectual property" is an incredibly modern idea, and one that would have been alien to people living little more than 100 years ago...