Should unfinished posthumous novels be published?

[GlennD]

There's a lot of discussion about authors who have died recently. Would you put some kind of time limitation on protecting posthumous works? For example, if a previously unknown play by Shakespeare were to be found, should that play never be published because Shakespeare didn't publish it during his lifetime?

Kafka has been mentioned, what about Anne Frank? I'm sure you could create a large list of material that has been published posthumously, that the world would be poorer without.

And what about every piece of work written before the printing press was invented? Did Aristotle give his permission to mass produce his works? Homer? And what about other arts? The Egyptian tomb painters clearly never intended their work to see the light of day (literally!).

I'm not trying to argue away the rights of writers; I'm not a writer and I don't have a horse in this race. I'm just saying that we'd be missing a lot of literature if you stricly adhered to a 'no posthumous publication of written works' rule.

[JDK1962]

Not sure anyone's been arguing for "no posthumous publication of written works." The argument is around the wishes of the writer. There have been plenty of writers with terminal medical conditions who labored to finish a final work before death and failed to do so; someone else picked up the torch and did the final writing and/or editing, and no doubt the original author would be grateful.

There are other authors (O'Toole springs to mind) who try to find a publisher and fail, and only after death is their work published. Would such authors object? Probably not, but is it really a legal/ethical issue? They created property which passed to an heir, and the heir made a choice about what is now their property.

It's such an individual thing that I don't think anyone can simply make a blanket statement that "the author would [never|always] want their unpublished work to be published," or correctly state that any such publishing is never anything other than greedy heirs exploiting a corpse.

The stark reality is that the unpublished work of the vast majority of authors has little real value while they're alive, and even less when they're dead. Really significant fame and/or literary merit is the only thing that changes that statement. It's a problem that would probably be nice to have, and is extremely easy to solve with a little forethought.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by GlennD

I'm not trying to argue away the rights of writers; I'm not a writer and I don't have a horse in this race. I'm just saying that we'd be missing a lot of literature if you stricly adhered to a 'no posthumous publication of written works' rule.

Then maybe it should be lost. That's what makes the works we get that much more precious.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Then maybe it should be lost. That's what makes the works we get that much more precious.

I can't agree with that at all. Writers generally write to be published. I would think (not claiming to know) that most writers would prefer posthumous publication to having their work simply fade away, never to be read by anyone.

[JDK1962]

Originally Posted by carld

I can't agree with that at all. Writers generally write to be published. I would think (not claiming to know) that most writers would prefer posthumous publication to having their work simply fade away, never to be read by anyone.

No, no, Steven's right! In fact, let's take it even further...upon an author's death, we remove all copies of their work from bookstores and libraries! That will make the memory of their work even more precious!

No, no, wait...let's implant small explosive devices in every copy of a book sold, and upon the author's death, we set them all off remotely, thus removing their work from existence completely! Then the memory of what was will be even sweeter!

No, wait! We use cortical lesions to remove even the memory of the author's work! Every reader will have to register with the copyright police, then upon the author's death, all readers have to report for memory modification!

I think I need to lie down...

But seriously, 1+ to carld's comment.

[Hellmark]

What I have to think about is, why create if merely to not have any trace of it? I am an artist, and I understand the concept of creating for yourself, but at the same time I do not understand why have something destroyed.

[Penforhire]

We are talking about unfinished works. If something was shopped around to publishers then that's a different kettle of fish. Many of us are embarassed by our work in progress or our own slush piles. I want no trace of my slush picked over by fans (assuming I had any, lol) after my death. You want more then have me cryogenically frozen and defrost when you want me to type (thinking of Dark Star).

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Decided against this comment.

Originally Posted by JDK1962

No, no, Steven's right! In fact, let's take it even further...upon an author's death, we remove all copies of their work from bookstores and libraries! That will make the memory of their work even more precious!

If I chose to ignore you, your unseen comments would be the most precious of all... :P

[JDK1962]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

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.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by astrangerhere

It is his by definition. It does not cease to be his just because he pulled it out of his head and put it on paper. You don't have the right to consume that material until he says you do.

Well you will first have to define what his means, I assume it's important since you bolded it, are you referring to an individual? Individuals don't exist. Where is copyright then?

It's funny that you have that To kill a mockingbird quote there, because I think it applies to your quote and my response to your quote, it's ironic because that is one of the books on my do not read list (books that I refused to read in the past) Perhaps I will read it now.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

What I have to think about is, why create if merely to not have any trace of it? I am an artist, and I understand the concept of creating for yourself, but at the same time I do not understand why have something destroyed.

To build something new from the ashes of the old.

I've thrown tons of stuff in the bin over the years, but I wouldn't call that destruction, more like disregarding or disowning.

This topic has become the right or non-right to privacy? It's a tough call but I'm in favor of non-privacy, just put it all out there everytime!

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by JDK1962

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."

Then you did misunderstand. I was challenging the various commentary that suggested the public had more of a right to decide the issue than the creator. The creator may indeed intend his work to be made available posthumously... but I maintain that it is the creator's decision, and in the case of no information from the creator, I do not automatically believe that work should be released. I'd like to see a lot more consideration given to such acts, and the decision coming down on an ethical, rather than a profit-driven motive.

True, it means some works we presently hold dear would not have gotten to us. But I believe the upholding of personal and societal ethics is more important than the loss of a creative work.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Well you will first have to define what his means, I assume it's important since you bolded it, are you referring to an individual? Individuals don't exist. Where is copyright then?

It's funny that you have that To kill a mockingbird quote there, because I think it applies to your quote and my response to your quote, it's ironic because that is one of the books on my do not read list (books that I refused to read in the past) Perhaps I will read it now.

You really need to get back on your medication giggles.

[astrangerhere]

Originally Posted by kennyc

You really need to get back on your medication giggles.

Heh, see, I just wasn't going to grace it with a reply at all. Though yours made me chuckle a bit.

[khalleron]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Then you did misunderstand. I was challenging the various commentary that suggested the public had more of a right to decide the issue than the creator. The creator may indeed intend his work to be made available posthumously... but I maintain that it is the creator's decision, and in the case of no information from the creator, I do not automatically believe that work should be released. I'd like to see a lot more consideration given to such acts, and the decision coming down on an ethical, rather than a profit-driven motive.

True, it means some works we presently hold dear would not have gotten to us. But I believe the upholding of personal and societal ethics is more important than the loss of a creative work.

And I heartily disagree - the dead have no rights because they're, well, dead.

People contest wills all the time. That's why we have courts, to uphold justice, not some dictatorship from the grave.

If your ethics holds that dead people are more important than living ones, I could not disagree with you more.

Anyone who embarks on a creative field inherently has a duty to humanity and to his/her culture. If their culture is enhanced by that creator's work, than that society is absolutely entitled to it.

I think burning a work of art, even if the creator wishes it, is a crime against humanity. A creator is never the best judge of a work's value, society at large and future generations are.

I say let the culture decide what is of value to it or not.