If an author wants heirs to destroy any partially completed work on his death

[wtmusic]

and they publish it instead, would you have any ethical problem with reading it?

Referring specifically to Nabokov's incomplete The Original of Laura, which was recently released for publication by his son Dmitry 32 years after the author's death.

Though I love Nabokov's work and am curious as hell, it feels too much like an invasion of privacy.

[ezgoingrl]

1. I would definitely have a problem

reading it. It feels very tabloid-ish knowing the author didn't want it published.

[Mojambo]

2. No. n/t

[gateley]

3. In my belief system, I'd think that Nabokov would want you to read it if you

would enjoy it.

[wtmusic]

5. Why do believe Nabokov would feel that way

when he was clear he didn't want anyone to read it?

[gateley]

15. I just think that when I'm gone, things that meant something to me here probably

won't have the same heft "there". And if there isn't a "there", then it doesn't matter either way. Speaking for myself, only, and my current belief system.

[wtmusic]

26. I guess we're addressing the "respect for the dead" issue

Here's another angle: what if someone you cared about very much had a terminal illness, and requested that on death his/her ashes were spread in a favorite location. This person's heirs blew it off for convenience. Would that bug you?

[gateley]

27. Yeah, that would bother me -- the heirs' attitude more than the

"change of venue" for the ashes.

[bluestateguy]

4. There are rumors that JD Salinger has vaults full of unpublished work

We shall see. He's 90 years old now.

[BlooInBloo]

6. Not if one of Prince's kids does it.

[Journeyman]

7. How could I deny myself the whole of Kafka? . . .

During his lifetime, Franz Kafka published only a few short stories and never finished any of his novels (with the possible exception of The Metamorphosis, which some consider to be a short novel). Prior to his death, Kafka wrote to his friend and literary executor Max Brod:

"Dearest Max, my last request: Everything I leave behind me ... in the way of diaries, manuscripts, letters (my own and others'), sketches, and so on, to be burned unread."

[Thickasabrick]

9. Wierd....we both thought of Kafka at the exact same time. nt

[wtmusic]

10. That's the argument that Dmitry is using

and I have to admit there is merit to it.

What if Kafka were still alive, and someone stole an incomplete manuscript and published it?

[Thickasabrick]

8. Kafka wanted all his stuff burned. I'm glad they didn't do it. nt

[NuttyFluffers]

11. yes and no. but mostly no.n/t

[Davis_X_Machina]

12. Vergil begged Plotius and Tucca...

...to burn the MS of the Aeneid, they told him they would, and took it right to the publisher.

I shudder to think of the loss if they had done the right thing.

[Coyote_Bandit]

13. We do it all the time with other forms of expression

Studio outtakes and unreleased recordings of musicians. Film directors outtakes. Photos, paintings and other visual art. Personal letters and correspondence. All this stuff is often released posthumously - and commercially.

[dysfunctional press]

14. i have no problem with it.

the dead are gone. they no longer exist.
you can't 'invade the privacy' of something that doesn't exist.

[Toasterlad]

16. Certainly Have No Problem With Reading It, And No Problem Publishing It If It's Any Good.

I don't spend a lot of time worried about the wishes of people who no longer exist. If it's not specified in a will, then the inheritors can do whatever they wish with it, no matter what the author may have wanted while alive. If it IS specified in the will, then I'd imagine the executor is legally bound to follow the instructions; if not, then he/she too, should be free to do as they wish.

Long before my mother died, she had a conversation with all of her children detailing exactly what kind of arrangements she wanted for her funeral service, etc. It was a very long and detailed discussion, with exactly what kind of program it was to be, who was to be invited, and so on. At the end of this lengthy discussion, she very sensibly said, "And of course, none of this really matters, because you're going to do what you want anyway."

We chose to pretty much follow her wishes, but because it suited OUR purposes to do so. We knew what she knew: that while the living can give all sorts of thought to what they want the world to be like after they die, once they DO die, their stake in the world is exactly nil. They will not be the slightest bit concerned if some or all of their wishes are not honored. Because they CAN'T. Because they're DEAD.

[XemaSab]

17. "Confederacy of Dunces"

was published posthumously.

Make of this what you will. :shrug:

[Vickers]

21. He actively shopped that around, and the rejection drove him to suicide.

Big difference.

One of my favorite novels, btw.

:thumbsup:

[Warpy]

18. Not really, unless the work had been substantially altered

from the author's work. I'd want to read Nabokov, not some third rate ghostwriter who was working from chapter outlines, in other words.

If authors truly wanted their work destroyed, they'd have done it themselves as their health declined.

[1]

19. if an author wanted to destroy any partially completed work on his death...

why wouldn't he just destroy it himself?

the fact that he leaves it around tells me he was not really serious about wanting it gone.


therefore, i have no problem with it being published...

[SpookyCat]

20. No and I can't wait to read this.

Nabakov is dead, but his work is his legacy. I would hate to be denied one last piece by one of the best writers in the English language.

I do hope that if it is truly unfinished that it be left unfinished. Middle of a chapter, middle of a sentence, I think it should be left that way.

Actually, if it is quite rough, it could be a very interesting insight into the artists mind. His words didn't burst full form they were crafted, and I would love a chance to get a glimpse of that. That could be a bit of teaching beyond the grave. Oh, that would be wonderful!

[Ex Lurker]

22. if you want something destroyed, do it yourself

don't count on someone doing it after you're gone.

[Withywindle]

23. Hell no.

I'd cherish it.

There are only two good reasons I can think of that an author would want work destroyed upon his/her death:

1) S/he thought it wasn't very good.

OK. I respect that. But as someone who has worked as an editor and also as a professional writer who has been edited, I know very well that writers are not necessarily the best judge of what our best work is. Neither are critics or editors. History is at least half-decent at it, though. Give history a chance!

2) It's potentially upsetting to real-life loved ones.

I actually respect this more than (1). But the truth is, all writers draw on their lives and people they know to some extent, even out-there science fiction writers. That's still no excuse for destroying the work. That's just, at best, an excuse for waiting a few decades to publish it.

Historically-sensitive material? Priority number ONE to not destroy. The only way future generations will ever really grasp the reality of past times is by reading contemporary accounts that are alive and vivid (fiction/memoir doesn't matter so much a few hundred years on).

[wtmusic]

25. IMO there's a third reason

and that is it just wasn't ready yet.

There will be many people who will read The Original of Laura and think it's a piece of crap (the current consensus), without knowing the details of publication. It was handwritten on 138 index cards.

Your arguments are convincing as well, and something tells me it wasn't all that critical to Nabokov Sr. Unless his death came very suddenly it wouldn't take much to throw all those cards into a fireplace.

[Withywindle]

29. There is something coy about it, isn't there?

Even an ailing writer is perfectly capable of tossing unwanted manuscripts into the furnace or at least touching a lighter to them if s/he is truly serious. (Or, in the modern age, throwing the hard drive out the window from a high place). I would expect a discerning literary executor to override all such ravings of mine in my dotage. :)

[RedCappedBandit]

24. Perhaps there's a reason they didn't destory the work themself. nt

[petronius]

28. If I was the heir and I made that promise I would keep it, although I would

try to talk the author out of it (various caveats about whether the author was in his right mind, etc, apply here). Otherwise, I would have no problem reading the work...

[dysfunctional press]

30. in my opinion, promises made are meaningless after death.

i probably wouldn't make a very good executor.
(but don't tell my parents)