A few weeks back reader Neil Vogler pointed me to an article in the Guardian that addresses an interesting question about authorship, intent, and propriety.
Recently, several different posthumous book projects have been announced, some even that are against the deceased author’s wishes.
How do we feel about this? Should an author be able to dictate what works are and aren’t published, even after death? Should we abide by their decisions? Or does the public deserve to have a full airing of an author’s work?
Bane of Anubis says
If the author’s wishes are concretely known, his will should always be abided – otherwise, leave it to the judgment of the estate – never leave it to a publisher, agent, etc., no matter how closely tied to the author they may be.
Lisa Dez says
If you adhere to the idea that the material is the creative property of the author, then the moral thing to do—obviously—is to abide by their wishes. In reality, the decision is up to whoever legally owns that property after the death of the author.
If anything of mine is published posthumously that I expressly asked not be, I will be haunting those responsible. I promise.
Nathan Bransford says
BofA-
Well, no publisher or agent could make the decision because unless the author willed their rights to the publisher or agent (not likely!), so unless it’s in the public domain the decision rests with the estate.
RW says
It’s hard to accept this basic fact of life, but all of us eventually must — we should have no reasonable expectation of controlling what anybody else does on this earth after we leave it. Use your time here accordingly.
Which in this case means you should burn what you don’t want read.
Gina Black says
Interesting question and one which I have thought about, being the daughter of an artist.
Death is the ultimate loss of control. If the author didn’t destroy a piece of work then what will happen to it will happen. It’s up to the heirs to abide by wishes or do what they think is best all around, which usually involves some sort of preservation effort. Publication is probably the ultimate preservation effort.
But I don’t think it has anything to do with what the public deserves.
SJDuvall says
I definitely think that if it is against the author’s wishes, then it should not be published. It doesn’t matter how badly the public wants to see it. And I would hope that the author’s estate would respect their wishes, but, sadly, you can’t trust everyone.
Mira says
Well, this may be an upopular opinion, but I think once someone is dead, they’re dead.
I don’t believe the dead should be entitled to own property.
If they didn’t destroy it, it’s fair game.
Publish away.
After all, publishing their work can’t hurt, embarrass or upset them. Know why? Because they are dead.
The idea that anyone can own anything is just a social construct anyway.
Besides, how do we know what they really, truly wanted? Maybe they secretly wanted to be published, but couldn’t say so.
Publish away.
Mira says
I have the opposite problem.
I have repeatedly requested that people not read what I write while I’m alive.
But they keep doing it.
Like you. You’re reading this right now. Stop it. Stop it. Stop, stop, stop reading this.
You didn’t stop. You’re still reading. I can tell.
I’m suing.
Justus M. Bowman says
If a writer kept a journal and wrote “don’t publish this journal after my death” at the beginning of it, obviously no one should publish the journal after his death. But there’s no way for the deceased to enforce his command; whether we like it or not, his work’s fate is decided by the integrity of humanity.
PurpleClover says
(N – Hope you’re having a good Wednesday)
Hmm…this is a toughie for me. One of my favorite poets is Emily Dickinson (hence, my blogger name is the title of one of her poems). However, only a few of her works were published while she was alive. She was a very private person and I don’t think she intended for her works to be pub’d after her death. BUT her younger sister decided to publish them once she discovered them.
I’d hate to think what kind of art we would have missed out on if she had refused to have her works published posthumously. However, she never did say (at least it isn’t mentioned). One can only assume she probably would have been opposed.
On the other hand, a writer should have the right to privacy if they specifically have said they want their journals concealed. If that is the case I think it would only be proper to respect their wishes. At least for a time? Maybe there could be a 50 year limit on how long they are protected?? haha.
I say a “limit” because if many poets and writers had said “no”, I think society could have suffered for it.
Good question! I still don’t know where I stand!
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist! says
OK, this begs a huge question: why would an author write a book or a play in the first place if they NEVER want it read or published??? Just wondering out loud.
J. F. Constantine says
As a person who is trained in the legal business, it is (as some have said here) the heir’s right to decide.
Morally, I agree with the people who have said if the author didn’t want something published, then it shouldn’t be.
Selfishly, as a reader, I have read the letters of the late, great John Steinbeck, published in a volume by his late widow after his death. I don’t know if Mr. Steinbeck wanted that or not, but I suspect he never wrote all those letters thinking they would someday be published for public comsumption. I know from reading about him that he was always non-plussed by people’s reactions to him as “famous” person. But, reading his letters has been a source of inspiration and encouragement to me, so, selfishly, I love reading them. I have also loved reading his published journals (he kept while writing his great books – Grapes of Wrath, etc.).
Someone in this string said something about destroying stuff if you don’t want it read posthumously, and I think that’s the answer. You don’t want your heirs to have it published? Shred the sucker and delete it off your hard drive. 🙂
J.F.
Ben Dutton says
It’s a tough one. I think it depends on the work. I don’t think Roland Barthe’s diary should have been published (far too personal) but then the novels by Roberto Bolano should be, because he was a writer to whom the publishing deal came late and who had been working for all those years that nobody published him. When my first novel was published this year I was in the interesting position of having two other complete novels, both of which I’d tried to sell and been unsuccessful with. They might see the light of day now.
Later this year sees Nabokov’s novel, The Original of Laura, that he never wanted published. I love Nabokov, and I’m hesitant about this. I don’t know whether to read it for completions sake or not. I know his son has agonised over this decision for such a long time. If I compare this situation to the Bolano, then I don’t feel the Nabokov should be published but the Bolano should. Just as I think the Foster Wallace should be. These are men who died young and who had not finished their writing careers. These books would have seen the light of day at some point, maybe not in the form they will now be printed, but would still come out.
NP says
I think a deceased author’s works should be treated as anything else in his or her estate.
I don’t think the public necessarily needs to see everything from an author. I keep a private journal that I would never want published, and I’ve made that known to my husband.
Joel Q says
In today’s society this is more of a “legal” question, despite what the author might have wanted and expressed. If there is money to be made, some people will fight for it.
But one good reason to publish is the possible quality writing left by the dead… A Confederacy of Dunces for instances.
sophie says
Its a dreadful thought. I’d prefer not to be remembered rather than remembered for the wrong thing.
Mim says
I can see both sides of this. As a fan I would love to read the works both finished and unfinished of authors that I love, but I have read some works that were published posthumously and they really weren’t up to the author’s usual standard. Obviously they weren’t ready to be published, or possibly never intended for publication.
As a writer, I wouldn’t want anything published, that wasn’t ready to go out. I wouldn’t want my journals, or my emails or letters published later on. I’m a very private person, and just don’t think it’s anyone’s business.
So I guess my answer would ultimately be no–especially if it is written specifically in the will or such. But there’s not much a dead person can do about it either.
Elaine 'still writing' Smith says
Trust – Should anyone encourage another to break such a promise?
Motivation – there would probably be motives inside any motives offered to explain why
If the author specified what they wanted to happen, I would hope their wishes would be respected.
Jennifer Wright says
I started thinking about this after I read Lisey’s Story by Stephen King, and sadly, I can understand both sides. There is the writer in me who thinks about certain creative endeavors of mine and is mortified by the thought of those getting out into the wider world; there is also the fan in me who wants to read everything my favorite authors have ever written.
In the end, I would say if it is expressly against the author’s wishes, it shouldn’t be published. That being said, it is the author’s responsibility to make those wishes known through a will. I don’t want little cousin what’s-her-name saying that one day, out of the blue, her famous author aunt said she didn’t want some work published, and that work not be published from that one hearsay statement alone. Opinions change.
Cyndi says
Hmmm, tough question.
I read Donald Jack’s last Bartholomew Bandy book that was released posthumously. I believe it was his wife and editor who decided to publish it. I don’t know if the author had expressed his wishes about it or not. The book was in a state of revision when he died, and there were a lot of loose ends. Characters introduced in the first half whose roles were never fulfilled, etc… It was definitely not up to par with the previous books in the series. That would be my worst fear if my unfinished work was pubbed after I died.
On the other hand, Robert Jordan knew he wouldn’t live long enough to finish the last installment of the Wheel of Time series and made very specific arrangements with his editor and family about how the book should be finished. He also chose another author to finish the writing from his notes.
I think if the author expressed certain wishes, they should be respected.
Loren Eaton says
The author has every right to control his work. After all, he made it.
Natalie N. says
As writers we try so very hard to get published in the first place. Why would you then say, “no, don’t publish me!”???
I would hope that my works get published before I’m dead, but if they don’t, then at least my heirs will get something from my labors.
I say, publish away! I’m sure I’ll have better things to do after I’m dead than worry about if someone is publishing something I wrote while I was alive.
RW says
DIMA, I know how it could happen. It happened to me once!
I had a couple too many to drink one time and I decided to text my old girlfriend and remind her that if I should ever pass away unexpectedly (that very night for example, like she even cares) then her job was to get to my apartment (I let her keep the key, because we’re still friends) and throw away all my gentleman’s special interest magazines and also my journals before my mom finds them and gets a nasty shock. But in the process of drunk texting her, I ended up accidentally writing a rough draft one of those cellphone novels they can’t get enough of in Japan. It’s OK if you like that kind of thing, but it’s not really ready for anyone to see yet.
So I deleted it off my phone, but how do I get my ex girlfriend to delete the messages on her phone? She might try to publish it! Though, that would at least prove she still really loves me, right?
allegory19 says
I don’t know. At first I was thinking – no, don’t publish it if it’s against the author’s wishes – but then I started to think – why did they write it if they didn’t want anyone to read it? Why didn’t they destroy it?
I think the literary and/or artistic world would suffer if we didn’t have the works of folks such as Emily Dickinson, Jane Austen and Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)to name a few around, but does that make it right to publish material against their wishes? – I dunno.
I guess for me it comes down to the reasoning for why the author didn’t want their work published. I would hope that whoever was the executor of the estate would take that into consideration when deciding.
Diana says
If the deceased author’s will expressly says something about previously unpublished works remaining unpublished, then it should be honored. Especially if the author cantankerously penalizes anyone who tries to go against those wishes.
If there wasn’t a clear statement about such preferences, then the works are part of the estate and the property of the beneficiary who can do whatever he or she wants with it.
Sometimes, though, there is a reason something wasn’t published…
Patrice says
Nathan,
While we’re on this topic, I’ve wondered: how is it that John Godey is your client? Maybe I missed an earlier blog entry, but I am truly curious.
allegory19 says
Oh, and TIME recently had an article on the history of posthumous literature if anyone is interested:
https://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1883896,00.html
Patrice says
While we’re on the topic, I’ve wondered: How is it that John Godey is your client?
BA Boucher says
If John Kennedy Toole’s mom had left his manuscript alone, we’d never would’ve gotten A Confederacy of DuncesSometimes it just works out
Patrice says
oops
Nathan Bransford says
patrice-
One of the parts of my jobs is representing some of Curtis Brown’s literary estates, such as Winston Churchill, Lawrence and Gerald Durrell, etc. John Godey is one of those, and I sold the mass market movie tie-in rights to THE TAKING OF PELHAM ONE TWO THREE to Berkley and the audio to Random House.
JES says
One of the reasons this question is so messy is because it’s bound up with the (apparently) contradictory notions of celebrity and art. (As others have said, one way or the other, it’s also an issue of privacy vs. “need to know.”)
I can think of numerous examples in which the interests of culture were advanced by posthumous publication, and pretty much as many examples in which those interests were harmed. In the latter case, stuff was published because of some ghoulish interest in scandal.
Would those of us who say “Don’t publish against the wishes of the deceased” say, as glibly, “Destroy the paintings of an artist who didn’t want them preserved”? or “Don’t record a song whose songwriter didn’t want it recorded”? or are we sensitive to it because it’s *our* art?
I don’t know the answer, myself. Which is why I said “we” in that paragraph.
Jeanie W says
I think the decision whether to publish or not belongs with the living. If you want to retain control of your work, you have to stay alive forever. (Good luck with that.)
That said, I don’t believe it’s appropriate to publish private journals that contain information that may be hurtful to living persons. You should wait until all parties are dead before making such writing public.
Patrice says
The lawyer in me should have thought that through. Of course, I figured that about Churchill, but seeing Pelham appear in print after all these years threw me off. Thanks.
reader says
I’m actually looking forward to David Foster Wallace’s posthumously published book as he is one of my favorite writers.
I wonder why a person would “Will” their work to not be published? I’m guessing it’s because they don’t have the right to defend/explain it? But writers always face a loss of control in this manner, of people giving bad reviews, or the book not finding an audience.
I say, when I’m dead, do what you want. Unless it was something that would hurt someone else (a tell-all memoir) why would I care?
Anonymous says
Ugh…I think that noone has the right to take something that has been refused. Even if you have a feeling I wouldn’t like you to take it…and I never said for explicitly…you shouldn’t take it. This is something we all learned at our mother’s knees, right?
Bleh. I can understand the fans perspective, but its seriously disrespectful to the artist to publish this stuff.
If someone published the rough drafts of stories I have on my computer without asking I’d be MORTIFIED. The reason I sweat blood polishing is because I want my work to be the best work I’ve yet produced!
If I had expressed this to someone, I’d be mortified and feel terribly violated. If I were DEAD and this happened — so I was powerless to prevent it…well. There would be a vengeful ghost on someone’s case, that’s for sure.
PatriciaW says
No. The author had his/her reasons.
But if the work is already published, and it’s simply a matter of selling new rights, then the executor of the estate should handle it.
Kristin Laughtin says
Absolutely not. Just because I write doesn’t mean I want all of my writings to be read. If I have made it clear that I don’t want something published, I wouldn’t want someone to go against my wishes. Mira raises a good point by saying the work can’t embarass the dead author, but it still seems rude to go against what they wanted. Why should we respect any of the dead’s wishes, if that we’re going to disregard this one? Why should we care about what happens to their estate, or their family, or anything else, if they’re not around to object or feel offended?
As for RW’s comment that anything you should burn anything you don’t want read/published–that works fine if you’re expecting your death, but if you’re killed suddenly, it does you no good. And if the thing being published is something like a diary, that’s personal and private. I shouldn’t have to burn it to force others to respect my privacy. Perhaps, like Mira said, waiting 50 years would be acceptable. Long enough that nobody/very few who knew the author personally would see the work. (This applies more to personal writings than plays or novels, though, IMHO.)
To Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist!–Some people, even professionals, write things solely for their own enjoyment, never intending for others’ eyes to see them.
reader says
Also, I was certain today’s blog would feature the new Kindle dx, with a larger screen for newspapers and such… 🙂
Anonymous says
This subject is quite paradoxical by nature. An author may not wish for publishing of his work after his death and it’s justified because of his own private reason, but he should not forget that whatever he writes is for his readers and fans, a family he keeps on building throughout his writing career. Therefore, authors should write only what they feel is appropriate to reveal to the public. However, resolving the current issue, publishers should respect the wishes of dead authors and not publish their works without approval.
(Come on, everyone gets the last dying cigar!).
Kristan says
On the one hand, I think it’s always best and most respectful to follow a dead person’s wishes (at least about things that belong to them, including their bodies) BUT on the other hand, let’s face it, they’re dead, so it’s not like it can negatively affect them.
(Example: I might want my diaries destroyed unread after my death, but honestly, if someone reads them, what difference could it possibly make to me?)
jimnduncan says
This makes me wonder why people would want to publish posthumous works that were specifically against the author’s wishes. Does the reading public feel they are owed the privelege of reading it? Simply because people want to read it, it should be published? Different story of course if the author didn’t specify. But I would never buy a novel published against the author’s wishes. Smacks of disrespect to me. The only reason I can think an estate would do this is for money. Why else would you basically be giving the author the finger and publishing their work anyway? They can veil it in all the “public deserves to see this great work,” they want, but the fact remains that it would be very disrespectful to do so. We don’t deserve to read it. We aren’t owed anything. There is no obligation. If the author said no, then it should be no.
Claudette says
Are people right to publish something they know a deceased author wouldn’t want made public? NO. But, that probably won’t stop a lot of folks. Which is exactly why I don’t journal. I couldn’t journal about just the mundane events in my life, but would be compelled to include intensly personal thoughts, and accounts of personal events, as well. Now, imagine I die and some family member decides to publish because they feel I can’t be hurt by the contents. But, what about other individuals mentioned in the journal? The bottom line is you can’t control events if you’re dead, so if there’s something you wouldn’t want made public, don’t write it in the first place.
Ashley says
People keep asking why someone wrote something if they didn’t want it to be published.
For journals there is an obvious answer, it’s private thoughts, it isn’t meant to be published.
For anything else. Maybe they write only for themselves as a hobby, or just family and friends. Or maybe, they do want to be published, but not until the book is ready. I have a completed draft of my novel, and I’d be horrified if anyone read it.
Just because it’s written doesn’t mean it’s done. It still needs to go through editing to be finished. Who but the author can say when a work is complete and ready to be passed to their agent and their editor?
Joe Finder (thriller writer) wrote, “…you’ll probably read over what you’ve written and spend the rest of the day obsessing, and praying that you do not die before you can completely rewrite or destroy what you have written…”
I laughed after reading that, because I understood exactly what he meant.
If a writer leaves explicit directions not to publish any of his unpublished works, it should never be done. We may have had less of a few greats, but that work is clearly not what they wanted us to remember them by.
And yes, I know they are dead, and legally their wishes mean nothing.
RW says
The concept of “burning” the work, by the way, is becoming less of an issue. How many of us have “private letters” that in fact exist in electronic form? It lasts forever and has been backed up on god knows what server, always recoverable, always searchable. How many of us have half-starts, weak drafts and embarrassing abandoned projects in electronic form? And how many of us engaging in this kind of dialogue with the assumption of anonymity when in all likelihood the tools to link the anon comments back to our real identities will become more and more commonplace over time?
Lisa Hendrix says
If I didn’t send a piece to my agent, it wasn’t ready to be sent and is never to see the light of day.
And I just made that very, very clear to my family. I’m not famous enough to worry about my “literary legacy” at this point, but you never know.
The one exception might be if I had a nearly complete ms, the last in a series, and died unexpectedly. Then it would be find to have someone step in and finish the book for the sake of the readers and the complete story cycle. But some mucky old stand-alone that I put away, or something that I was noodling around with but wasn’t even approaching ready? No way.
Jen P says
If the author explicitly asked for work not to be published after their death, then it should not be.
If they explicitly requested NOT to be an organ donor, the next-of-kin can’t ignore that and approve the release of body parts.
And more often than not, a kidney might be of greater single benefit IMO.
ryan field says
When you’re dead, they usually do whatever they want.
Rob Crompton says
I believe the author’s wishes should be respected. I think of the great Irish novelist, Flann O’Brien, who published “At Swim-Two-Birds”, “The Dalkey Archive”, “The Third Policeman” and “The Poor Mouth” during his lifetime. He also wrote a regular column for one of the Dublin newspapers but never published any of this vast output in book form.
Soon after his death,however, collections of his newspaper columns began to appear in the bookshops and it was all a huge let-down. Rather spoiled a great writer’s image for me. It should all have been left as O’Brien left it – to wrap up the fish and chips.
The trouble is, who is best placed to say whether this was worthwhile?
adrcremer says
I’m of two minds on this topic. In the immediacy of death and loss, I’d be inclined to follow whatever the author’s wishes were.
However, in my “day job” I teach history and with that hat on, I mourn anything lost to the archival record. Numerous pieces of essential evidence about historical figures’ character and life stories would have been lost if all their personal papers had been destroyed, as according to his/her wishes.
In the long view, I’d prefer at least some form of preservation if not full-on publication