View Single Post
Old 04-20-2011, 05:27 PM   #54
JDK1962
Groupie
JDK1962 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JDK1962 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JDK1962 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JDK1962 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JDK1962 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JDK1962 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JDK1962 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JDK1962 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JDK1962 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JDK1962 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JDK1962 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
JDK1962's Avatar
 
Posts: 154
Karma: 2054094
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Boulder, CO
Device: Kindle Voyage, Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 (for PDFs)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan View Post
If I chose to ignore you, your unseen comments would be the most precious of all... :P
Please do, if you like. Based on what I've read thus far, I doubt that we'll ever do anything other than annoy one another.

My position in this thread is that, in the very rare cases where it's an issue, it's up to the author, or--in the absence of direction--their heirs, to decide on the question posed by the title of this thread. Writing is a form of (intellectual) property, and the law seems pretty settled. Whether such publication is tasteful or appropriate is a more individual decision. Plenty of anecdotal evidence (I think) on both sides. Once can always chose not to partake, and personally, I like having that choice.

Your position (forgive me if I've misunderstood) appears to be a blanket "if it was unfinished/unsold/unpublished at time of death, then it's off limits." It's the black and white nature of your position that puzzles me, especially in the face of (a) existing law and (b) counter-examples where there would be little or no dispute that it was what the author wanted. I'm simply not seeing the logical/ethical framework that you're coming from.

So yes, I was poking fun at your position that, somehow, we'd all be better off not having that last work from a beloved author.

If limited to the situation described by the Kafka example (writer says destroy, executor disregards), then OK, yours seems a perfectly legitimate point of view. But applied more broadly, it seems like tilting at a windmill: it boils down to you not liking what people legally do and trying to dress it up like it's the only reasonable and ethical position that respects the writer and artistic integrity.
JDK1962 is offline   Reply With Quote