Literary Life After Death

[vovat]

So, here's a question that came to mind about a week ago, and I'm finally getting around to asking it. What do you think when writers stipulate that they want their works destroyed when they die, and is it right or wrong for someone else to go against their wishes (as happened with Kafka, if I remember correctly)? I can understand the latter being an ethical problem, but perhaps it's my socialist tendencies that make me think that, just maybe, an author shouldn't be ALLOWED to have his or her work destroyed. Yeah, I know that the right to distribute your work also includes the right NOT to do so, but we all know that authors aren't always good judges of their own work, and this could result in the world being deprived of some valuable writing. And really, if they're alive and don't want to know the public's reaction, that's one thing. But once they're dead, what's the issue? Maybe if you believe in an afterlife, there's the danger that the author's ghost will be hanging around, reading bad reviews, and thinking, "See, THAT'S why I never released it during my lifetime!" But, well, I don't; and if it turns out I'm wrong, the spirits of the dead have plenty of time to get over it. I'd be interested in knowing what you readers think, though. I'll also ask a related question: What do you think of other writers continuing the work of a deceased author? I can't say I'm opposed to it (I guess I really CAN'T be after admitting Snufferbux is one of my favorite Oz characters, can I?), and while I do think the later authors can rarely recapture the same magic, sometimes a continuation by someone is better than nothing at all. That depends on the quality, though.

Comments

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

I'm still sad that Cassandra Austen destroyed all her sister's letters that she thought were Too Improper. They were probably delightfully snarky, and wouldn't hurt anybody's feelings TODAY. The ones that survived are all pretty good, still, but I hate the thought of all that well-said snark that is since lost to history....

A lot of post-humus publications aren't nearly as good as the work the authors specifically said were ready for publication and all (my first experience with this was Laura Ingalls Wilder's "The First Four Years"-- would she even have CALLED it that if she'd finished it? It's a boring title-- which obviously to me even as a kid didn't sparkle with life like the rest of the books). But I'd hate to think of these half-baked works destroyed COMPLETELY. There's still a lot of interesting stuff there, especially from a historical perspective. It's like juvenilia, which is also a lot of fun to read even when it's bad, assuming you're interested in the author.

I do believe in life after death, and I believe that dead authors won't CARE anymore that some of their stuff wasn't perfect!

But I suppose their wishes ought to be respected if their unpublished notes reveal that, like, they had a nefarious plot to take over the world. Their relatives may not like that to be broadcast.

As for other authors continuing a deceased author's work, I suppose it depends. Don't ask me what it depends on. Whether or not it's any good!

[vovat.livejournal.com]

I think you've hit on another matter of importance, which is that posthumously published works really do need to include notes to the effect that they were never actually completed to the author's satisfaction. They're generally more of academic interest than anything else, but I think it can be short-sighted to discard such things entirely. You never know who's going to be interested in you after you die. And hey, if nobody is, then I guess it's just as good as destroyed.

But I suppose their wishes ought to be respected if their unpublished notes reveal that, like, they had a nefarious plot to take over the world. Their relatives may not like that to be broadcast.

True, but I have a feeling that sort of stuff might eventually come out anyway, as that's how these things tend to work.

[spookydiblover.livejournal.com]

If you are still interested in checking out my demo, here's the link to download it: http://www.mediafire.com/?uz4ezt51ode

Hope you enjoy!

[yosef.livejournal.com]

I feel like someone should destroy their works on their own if they care enough to instruct someone else to do it. I'm not against their heirs keeping stuff private, but I just hate the idea of stuff being destroyed, since there's pretty much no way to undo that. Even with heavy access restrictions, I think it'd be better for something to go into an archive so that perhaps at some point in the future, people can study and look at the stuff. I guess archiving something hinges on whether or not this stuff is anything anyone wants to look at though.

As for the other question, I also feel like something is better than nothing, at least in the case of the Oz books. I feel the same about some of my favorite TV shows that go on past their prime. Sure a lot of the episodes aren't that good in the end, but they still at least made SOME really good ones in the waning years.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think total destruction of materials is just too final. How do you know we won't need them someday?

[ozma914.livejournal.com]

I hate the idea of any creative project being destroyed forever, but it's the creator's personal property and his right to do with it as he wishes. I'd hate to live in a place where some "Creativity Czar" told me what I could and couldn't do with my work.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

To play devil's advocate, though, can it really be considered your work after you're dead? What about when it falls into the public domain (not that that's likely to happen anymore, thanks to the efforts of Disney)?

[ozma914.livejournal.com]

Baum's work is still Baum's work, even if other people have based their own work off of his creations. If he'd elected to burn all his materials it would have been a tragedy -- but his choice. Individual liberties are too precious to suggest he not be allowed to do what he chooses with his own creations during his life, and it's while the creator is still alive that I was thinking about. After they die the rights to that creation should be according to his will or, barring a will, handed over to his closest relatives.

However, if the creator chooses not to destroy the material, and it lasts long enough to fall into the public domain, then I'm fine with it being distributed widely to contribute to the arts. (Obviously I would be, since I've been planning an Oz book myself!)