Should unfinished posthumous novels be published?

[OtterBooks]

I, for one, welcome the opportunity to not read another one of his books.

[Shimarenda]

I am of the opinion that it depends on the state of the material. If there is enough for the author's intent and style to be clear, I think publishing an edition with prefatory explanation is fine. For example, I'm glad to have gotten the chance to to read The Children of Hurin. While it may have not reached a state by Tolkien's death that he thought was ready to publish, the wealth of material and variant versions yielded a credible version for an editor to work from. (I find it amusing that Christopher Tolkien seems to have done for his dad what his dad did for the Anglo-Saxons.)

[bhartman36]

I've got mixed feelings about this. There are (supposedly) a lot of works by Salinger that he didn't want released, and I wouldn't be upset if they got released so I could read them (to say nothing of his "underpublished" works getting published). From an academic standpoint, it might also be instructive to read unfinished works.

On the other hand, disrespecting the wishes of a dead man -- especially when you're taking control of his creative work and basically whoring it out -- is not cool.

[Penforhire]

Definitely mixed feelings to me a well. Nice for fans to gt any scrap they can. But I imagine most authors don't want the public to see their unfinished work. The typical rough quality of unfinished drafts would be a blow to most authors' egos, a disrespect to the dead.

Unfinished work is commonly presented to a very select groups. Seems like most writer's groups, where we critique each others' work, are carefully chosen and Vegas rules apply ("what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas").

[HarryT]

Of course, sometimes unfinished books are ALREADY published at the time that the author dies. The classic example (no pun intended) is "The Mystery of Edwin Drood" by Charles Dickens. This was being published in monthly instalments in a magazine. 12 instalments were planned; only 6 had been published at the time of Dickens's death, and unfortunately he left no outline for the remainder of the book. Several people have written "endings" to the book.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

I, for one, welcome the opportunity to not read another one of his books.

[astrangerhere]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

On the other hand, disrespecting the wishes of a dead man -- especially when you're taking control of his creative work and basically whoring it out -- is not cool.

I tend to agree. There was a time when people didn't have to worry about whether or not this would be an issue.

On the one hand, I think Christopher Tolkien did a great job with his father's works (though, that i know of, he did not request otherwise). But on the other hand, I am grateful that Charles Schultz did not leave anything behind as his kis are willing to sell anything he ever touched to the highest bidder. And thats the problem - you can never be assured of someones movitvations. Chris Tolkien spent years working on his father's works. But you never know if thats always going to be the case. Often, you can see a money grab for what its worth, but were I an author with any talent, I'd want control over this.

This is why you leave the duties of destruction to your lawyer. We have a professional as well as legal responsibility to adhere to your wishes after death.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by astrangerhere

This is why you leave the duties of destruction to your lawyer. We have a professional as well as legal responsibility to adhere to your wishes after death.

Agreed. If your work is important enough to finish... or to be left unfinished if you cannot finish it... leave legal instructions that specify details. If you don't do that... it can be considered to have not been that important to you, and those who follow can do anything they want with it.

[RainingLemur]

I think it depends on what the wishes of the author are. If they say "Burn it all/throw it away/etc." then it shouldn't be published. If there's no indication as to what the author wanted for unfinished works...I would think that it would be up to next of kin (if applicable), lawyer, or whomever they had designated to handle these things.

[JDK1962]

I agree with those who say "publish and let the reader decide." A quick look at my bookshelf shows:

-- (The Love of) The Last Tycoon [Fitzgerald], which I've loved for many many years.
-- A Moveable Feast [Hemingway], ditto. Haven't checked out the recent competing re-working.
-- 21 [O'Brian]. All things being equal, probably not worth the purchase, but I had the opportunity to throw the dice on it.
-- The (previously mentioned) Steig Larsson trilogy. I really wish there was some way that I could direct the revenue to his common-law partner, rather than his relations, but oh well. Can't fight Swedish law.
-- Pirate Latitudes [Crichton]. Well, *I* could tell why it was sitting in his computer when he died, rather than with his publisher. Cardboard characters walking through a plot (yes, I know that many would describe ALL of Crichton like that).

I know I'd pay good money to be allowed to wander through Douglas Adams' unfinished work (yes, I know that's what "The Salmon of Doubt" is supposed to be, but I'd rather wander on my own, thanks.)

Originally Posted by Andanzas

Fortunately, Max Brod didn't respect this last wish, and now we can read Kafka's works.

Yeah, that's the first thing I thought about when I saw the title of this thread. Thank you Franz Kafka for your "diaries, manuscripts, letters" and thank you Max Brod for contradicting Kafka's last wishes.

Originally Posted by RainingLemur

I think it depends on what the wishes of the author are. If they say "Burn it all/throw it away/etc." then it shouldn't be published. If there's no indication as to what the author wanted for unfinished works...I would think that it would be up to next of kin (if applicable), lawyer, or whomever they had designated to handle these things.

I understand what you are saying, but consider what a loss to the world if Brod had followed Kafka's instructions.


Both of John Kennedy Toole's novels, A Confederacy of Dunces and The Neon Bible were not published until after his death.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

I understand what you are saying, but consider what a loss to the world if Brod had followed Kafka's instructions.


Both of John Kennedy Toole's novels, A Confederacy of Dunces and The Neon Bible were not published until after his death.

This brings up some interesting points. Why should death have anything to do with an author's rights? And by extension should life? If someone asks an author to read what they have written should the author be compelled to comply?

Are we now to envision a completely digital world where everything that is thought is published? This book had some relevant themes in it, although I found the actual story to be a bit lacking,

MetaGame
http://www.amazon.com/MetaGame-ebook/dp/B003LSTK7C

[Andrew H.]

In general, I agree with publishing it if is seems like there is an interested market.

As to how successful this will be, I think that, in addition to factors like completeness and the existence of an outline that have already been mentioned, it depends on what kind of writer the author is.

Specifically, if a writer is known for particularly distinctive writing style, finishing his works based on his notes may not be a good idea at all. "Lolita II, based on an outline by Nabokov" would probably be a big mistake.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

I'm actually dismayed that so little consideration is being given to a free individual's rights, wishes and final requests.

Are creators considered mere robots, tools for the majority, built to spit out entertainment works on demand, and to be ignored as completely as the tiniest bug caught under a flyswatter when they make a request of their own? Is there no protection for an individual from the whims of others? Is there no reason to protect an individual's privacy, if it takes the form of a written word or created image that they created solely for themselves, and do not wish to show to anyone save their God? Is rifling the property of the dead as acceptable as the crone taking down Scrooge's bedcurtains now? Are we so petty as to believe that entertainment for the masses is really more important than a person's ultimate privacy?

If so, this has become a much sadder place in which to live.

[DiapDealer]

Are creators considered mere robots, tools for the majority, built to spit out entertainment works on demand, and to be ignored as completely as the tiniest bug caught under a flyswatter when they make a request of their own? Is there no protection for an individual from the whims of others? Is there no reason to protect an individual's privacy, if it takes the form of a written word or created image that they created solely for themselves, and do not wish to show to anyone save their God? Are we so petty as to believe that entertainment for the masses is really more important than a person's ultimate privacy?

The answer is, no.

But the onus is also squarely on the author (while they're alive) to ensure that their final wishes can't be trampled on by greedy publishers/relatives. If it's important enough to you... take care of business and set it up though a lawyer.

I wish declaring your wishes to a friend or loved one were enough... but you know what they say about wishing.