Gabriel García Márquez: Sons publish novel that late author wanted destroyed(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Gabriel García Márquez: Sons publish novel that late author wanted destroyed
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68488756.amp
292 comments
Really shocking to see so many comments here arguing we have a right to see/read/hear private, unpublished work that a deceased artist left clear instructions to destroy in the event of their death. Do we get to look at your personal journals, browser history and hidden photo gallery once you kick the bucket? Or is it only artists who must relinquish their privacy and last wishes to satisfy the morbid curiosity of the general public?
In this specific case the authors state of mind is important to consider. Being far along in dementia his will and thoughts are not necessarily reliably indicative of their unimpaired will and thoughts. His children struggled with his instructions and as they reflected over a non trivial period of time and reread the work they felt he had made a mistake, which is plausible given advanced dementia, and falls within the realm of their judgement as his caretaker. I think this is an entirely legitimate decision on their part, and not really up to us to second guess.
There’s also the point parallel comments make that public figures private works are often of general interest. The will and desires of the deceased carry weight - but it decreases over time as they are in fact dead. If we found Julius Caesar’s private diary with admonitions to not read it, would we honor that?
There’s also the point parallel comments make that public figures private works are often of general interest. The will and desires of the deceased carry weight - but it decreases over time as they are in fact dead. If we found Julius Caesar’s private diary with admonitions to not read it, would we honor that?
This is not a life or death decision, or that Gabo left his house to a cult: this is an unnecessary cash grab from his kids to go against his father memory.
Even if he was out of his proper mind, choosing not to publish was the elegant thing to do. They already milked their father for years, now they should earn their own money.
Giving away the novel to a national university for academic discussion would also be more elegant than this.
Even if he was out of his proper mind, choosing not to publish was the elegant thing to do. They already milked their father for years, now they should earn their own money.
Giving away the novel to a national university for academic discussion would also be more elegant than this.
"Giving away the novel to a national university for academic discussion"
Except a national university will almost certainly buy a copy, so your desired academic discussion will be unimpeded.
Except a national university will almost certainly buy a copy, so your desired academic discussion will be unimpeded.
I think the profit motive is the dividing line for me.
If they think it's important to release the work, they shouldn't be profiting from it.
If they think it's important to release the work, they shouldn't be profiting from it.
I agree and take it a bit further with buildings and such being designed historical places and all the restrictions that comes with.
Fine, great, they were once something awesome - but do we really need to rob every future generation of that building or use? It must forever be a memory of distant past?
Fine, great, they were once something awesome - but do we really need to rob every future generation of that building or use? It must forever be a memory of distant past?
> In this specific case the authors state of mind is important to consider. Being far along in dementia his will and thoughts are not necessarily reliably indicative of their unimpaired will and thoughts
An argument can be made to the effect that he could not give his full consent given that he probably lost his capacities to make an informed decision.
A moral quandary nonetheless.
An argument can be made to the effect that he could not give his full consent given that he probably lost his capacities to make an informed decision.
A moral quandary nonetheless.
"If we found Julius Caesar’s private diary with admonitions to not read it, would we honor that?"
Judging by modern morals, Julius Caesar would be guilty of multiple genocidal war crimes. His private diaries would be rather evidence.
"that public figures private works are often of general interest."
This argument is basically, that if only enough people want something, they get the right. Which is not something I am a huge fan about. And Garcia was no Imperator, deciding the fate of millions, but a private writer.
And the argument about dementia, if he would have been so far away in dementia, while making the decision, I do not think his sons would have judged so harshly about themself:
"We did think about it for about three seconds - was it a betrayal to my parents, to my father's [wishes]?
"And we decided, yes, it was a betrayal. But that's what children are for."
I think this is mainly a internal familiy thing if his sons decide to publish and ignore their fathers wish. But I probably won't read it.
And it is a different case with Kafka:
"Before author Franz Kafka died from tuberculosis in 1924, he told friend Max Brod to burn all of his work. However, between 1925 and 1935 Brod published his collection of works including The Trial, The Castle and Amerika."
Because he told his friend Brod before, that he will ask him to destroy his works once he dies - and Brod told him clearly, that if he will do that, he will refuse and publish it anyway. So rather a kafkaesk joke all in all and no betrayal. If Kafka really would have wanted someone destroy his works, he could have asked someone else.
Judging by modern morals, Julius Caesar would be guilty of multiple genocidal war crimes. His private diaries would be rather evidence.
"that public figures private works are often of general interest."
This argument is basically, that if only enough people want something, they get the right. Which is not something I am a huge fan about. And Garcia was no Imperator, deciding the fate of millions, but a private writer.
And the argument about dementia, if he would have been so far away in dementia, while making the decision, I do not think his sons would have judged so harshly about themself:
"We did think about it for about three seconds - was it a betrayal to my parents, to my father's [wishes]?
"And we decided, yes, it was a betrayal. But that's what children are for."
I think this is mainly a internal familiy thing if his sons decide to publish and ignore their fathers wish. But I probably won't read it.
And it is a different case with Kafka:
"Before author Franz Kafka died from tuberculosis in 1924, he told friend Max Brod to burn all of his work. However, between 1925 and 1935 Brod published his collection of works including The Trial, The Castle and Amerika."
Because he told his friend Brod before, that he will ask him to destroy his works once he dies - and Brod told him clearly, that if he will do that, he will refuse and publish it anyway. So rather a kafkaesk joke all in all and no betrayal. If Kafka really would have wanted someone destroy his works, he could have asked someone else.
Wow, so you just need to be old enough, and then people like you will come along and declare that you're no longer cognitively able to decide anything, and therefore everything you said is moot? Disrespectful paragraphs like yours are one of the reasons why I would prefer the ability to die on demand, inst4ead of being subjected to whatever other people deem appropriate because I am supposedly no longer able to decide for my own. I'd really prefer to go, instead of being subjected to people like you.
Dementia made my Richard Dawkins idolizing, ethnically Jewish grandfather convert to Christianity at the end of his life… because his girlfriend’s family was that way. He had 4 strokes over a 2 year period and lived the last 4 years of his life as a smiley vegetable with advanced Alzheimer’s. The prior 76 years had been spent as a cynic who would go on hour long rants about the damage religion had done to the world. It was such an odd situation that I had to correct the record at his funeral.
Dementia is no joke. It becomes quite clear when people start losing their judgement. But from your reaction, it seems you have some misconceptions. My mother had dementia (and other problems). When it became too hard for her to bear, she indeed chose euthanasia, a choice she had made long before she started suffering from it, and died with dignity, surrounded by her loved ones. It is an opportunity I truly wish to be available to everyone who suffers from a deterioting condition.
My uncle has dementia and he wants to spend all his money on getting his car washed (he cannot drive anymore). Should his children honor his wishes or try to use his money for his own good?
I think you are being too aggressive in your cause for personal freedom and justice. I mean, I do understand where you are coming from but perhaps saying "I'd really prefer to go, instead of being subjected to people like you" goes a bit too far.
I think you are being too aggressive in your cause for personal freedom and justice. I mean, I do understand where you are coming from but perhaps saying "I'd really prefer to go, instead of being subjected to people like you" goes a bit too far.
I have a disability. Independence is a much more important topic to me then for most people that have independence as a given. Even though you might not like my attitude, I feel that way. The day I loose my independence, and other people are allowed to decide for me, I'd prefer to end it there. I realize this might feel very strange to you, but as said, you probably dont know what it means to fight for your independence and to be allowed to take your own decisions.
As someone with a disability as well, and who has had family members fall apart with dementia, I don't think this is a very good take.
Do you understand that most people, even in a stable state of mind, can't reasonably decide to just "end it there"? Let alone someone with advanced dementia... Maybe one day if society stops putting so much value on empty life and we can peacefully end it when it's time, but that day is likely far away.
Do you understand that most people, even in a stable state of mind, can't reasonably decide to just "end it there"? Let alone someone with advanced dementia... Maybe one day if society stops putting so much value on empty life and we can peacefully end it when it's time, but that day is likely far away.
I think your uncle's case is a bit different of that from a world-famous author who has writings that he didn't publish, who wants those not published after he's gone.
As others have pointed out, if his children really thought this was important for his legacy and he only had the destructive wish due to dementia, they could have made the writings available without profiting from that.
As others have pointed out, if his children really thought this was important for his legacy and he only had the destructive wish due to dementia, they could have made the writings available without profiting from that.
From the article:
>We did think about it for about three seconds - was it a betrayal to my parents, to my father's [wishes]? And we decided, yes, it was a betrayal. But that's what children are for.
>We did think about it for about three seconds - was it a betrayal to my parents, to my father's [wishes]? And we decided, yes, it was a betrayal. But that's what children are for.
The law generally frowns on "dead hand control" of real and personal property that's been passed on to successors. Society is believed to be better off if living people actually own what they own.
The classic legal example is the Rule Against Perpetuities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities), which limits how much control a will or trust instrument can exert over real property. You wouldn't believe the lengths people have historically gone to make sure their notion of "the right thing" happens for many years after they die.
As a sibling commenter said, if you don't want people to truly own your personal property when you die, then you should destroy it. Or consider giving it to someone else.
The classic legal example is the Rule Against Perpetuities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities), which limits how much control a will or trust instrument can exert over real property. You wouldn't believe the lengths people have historically gone to make sure their notion of "the right thing" happens for many years after they die.
As a sibling commenter said, if you don't want people to truly own your personal property when you die, then you should destroy it. Or consider giving it to someone else.
"if you don't want people to truly own your personal property when you die, then you should destroy it. "
If I want to use something while I'm alive but don't want others to have/see/use/know about it, what's the best way to handle this? The problem here is that no one knows when they're going to die, or if they'll be lucid enough when they're close to take care of things like that.
If I want to use something while I'm alive but don't want others to have/see/use/know about it, what's the best way to handle this? The problem here is that no one knows when they're going to die, or if they'll be lucid enough when they're close to take care of things like that.
I think the most rational course of action would be to accept that this is impossible and to try not to worry about future events that you, by definition, will not be present to have feelings about.
Should we act this way with regards to all future events? Should I for example vote for leaders whom I believe will make decisions which make things better during my lifetime only to get much worse in the far future after I'll probably have died? If I have a disabled family member who will likely outlive me, should I ignore the fact that they will continue to require care after my death, when planning my financial affairs?
Those are actions you can take with expected outcomes, not impossible desires. The equivalent in this case would be destroying your work when you're alive, or asking your executor to destroy it with the understanding that your desires may be disregarded.
You might think that making sure your children will be cared for after you are dead is an impossible desire. You might think that leaving a will specifying your intentions for unpublished work is an action with an expected outcome. The line between actions with expected outcomes and impossible desires seems hard to establish.
Making sure your children will be cared for after you are dead is also impossible, but at least there are well-established legal processes to make an attempt. I think it's actually pretty easy to establish that line.
Disability and the need for care by others are not always the same thing. Please don't imply in your writing that everyone "disabled" needs care and financial support by family members, that is pretty much generalised patronisation. I have a disability, but nobody needs to take care of me, and I have my own (sufficient) income.
He didn't imply that
There is no ideal solution to this; if this is important to you, find someone (a person or a company) to handle your final wishes when you die.
But that agreement should be a private one, not something that the society should be enforcing. My 2c.
But that agreement should be a private one, not something that the society should be enforcing. My 2c.
I don't personally have this desire, so I haven't thought much about it.
I guess for online stuff make sure all means of access are behind passwords that will be lost when you die.
For physical property, seems like a hard problem unless you booby trap your stuff, which is illegal and inconsiderate -- not to mention that it will likely accelerate your own demise.
I guess for online stuff make sure all means of access are behind passwords that will be lost when you die.
For physical property, seems like a hard problem unless you booby trap your stuff, which is illegal and inconsiderate -- not to mention that it will likely accelerate your own demise.
Simple, use a dead man's switch. The simplest form being some kind of data access which can be set to expire, and the expiration date can only be extended by you.
Simple for the audience on HN perhaps but not for the non-technical everyday person.
A conveyor belt with a button that needs to be held down for the belt to run, is a dead man's switch
A Google Drive folder which has a sharing policy set to expire in 30 days, is a dead man's switch
You don't need to be technical to use a dead man's switch.
A Google Drive folder which has a sharing policy set to expire in 30 days, is a dead man's switch
You don't need to be technical to use a dead man's switch.
For context, waqfs, an Islamic financial instrument [1], are hypothesised to have contributed to the end of the Islamic golden age. So many assets were tied up by the dead.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waqf
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waqf
> Do we get to look at your personal journals, browser history and hidden photo gallery once you kick the bucket?
It's not up to me as I'll be dead.
We should keep in mind that our wishes may or may not be respected and plan accordingly. Get rid of journals that can't be read by anyone else, set your browser to forget its history, encrypt the hidden photo gallery.
It's not up to me as I'll be dead.
We should keep in mind that our wishes may or may not be respected and plan accordingly. Get rid of journals that can't be read by anyone else, set your browser to forget its history, encrypt the hidden photo gallery.
> Do we get to look at your personal journals, browser history and hidden photo gallery once you kick the bucket?
No clue, but it certainly won’t be up to me. When I’m dead that’ll all be up to the ones left behind. What point is there in satisfying the wishes of someone that’s already dead? They won’t care any more.
No clue, but it certainly won’t be up to me. When I’m dead that’ll all be up to the ones left behind. What point is there in satisfying the wishes of someone that’s already dead? They won’t care any more.
> What point is there in satisfying the wishes of someone that’s already dead?
I'd say the law is a good reference for that. Some countries legislate inheritance and related topics different from others. Some let the person decide exactly what happens with their inheritance and under which conditions, others have more generic rules to go to the next of kin and don't have the concept of wishes.
I'd say the law is a good reference for that. Some countries legislate inheritance and related topics different from others. Some let the person decide exactly what happens with their inheritance and under which conditions, others have more generic rules to go to the next of kin and don't have the concept of wishes.
Not to be too aloof, but if the future doesn't care about the past, why should the past care about the future?
"Does not care" is not the case here. Folks usually do care about the wishes of their ancestors and take those into account. But when there is a clear conflict between the wishes of the living and the wishes of the dead, the living win. This is normal and healthy and does not indicate indifference. My 2c.
considering how fast we're speed running climate change I don't even think the present cares about the future...
There's no symmetry there. The future can be changed. The past can't.
> What point is there in satisfying the wishes of someone that's already dead?
Well, that's why wills exist.
If you decided to split your wealth between your grandchildren when you passed away, should that wish be discarded now because you're dead so who cares?
Well, that's why wills exist.
If you decided to split your wealth between your grandchildren when you passed away, should that wish be discarded now because you're dead so who cares?
[deleted]
>What point is there in satisfying the wishes of someone that’s already dead?
Because you're (hopefully!) not an asshole of a human being?
If the dying wish of a man costs you nothing to execute, why not? Men are brought into this world regardless of their wishes, can't men at least exit this plane of existence according to their wishes?
Because you're (hopefully!) not an asshole of a human being?
If the dying wish of a man costs you nothing to execute, why not? Men are brought into this world regardless of their wishes, can't men at least exit this plane of existence according to their wishes?
> If the dying wish of a man costs you nothing to execute, why not?
That’s not a very good argument in the case in question. The sons made money by publishing the book.
That’s not a very good argument in the case in question. The sons made money by publishing the book.
> If the dying wish of a man costs you nothing to execute, why not?
Sure, but this is for the satisfaction and closure of the living, not for the dead. The dead aren’t satisfied, or anything else really.
Sure, but this is for the satisfaction and closure of the living, not for the dead. The dead aren’t satisfied, or anything else really.
> What point is there in satisfying the wishes of someone that’s already dead?
Because the concept of honor should transcend death, come on.
Because the concept of honor should transcend death, come on.
Should I get to register my intention to always vote for a particular political party and have those votes counted in every election regardless of whether I'm still alive?
What exactly is honor and who's honor are we talking about?
Would you say that honor is worth more than now having the works of Kafka available for all of humanity to read?
What would human kind have gained from not having read The Metamorphosis or The Trial and so many others?
What would human kind have gained from not having read The Metamorphosis or The Trial and so many others?
>Would you say that honor is worth more than now having the works of Kafka available for all of humanity to read?
I made this argument in this thread, but come to think of it there's an opposite argument too:
If honor was worth more, Kafka's works describing life as a hellish landscape of bureucratic indifference, betrayal, control, and alienation, wouldn't have been as descriptive of the state of humanity.
>What would human kind have gained from not having read The Metamorphosis or The Trial and so many others?
If they have gained honor, that would have been worth 1000 Trials and Metamorphosis.
If they haven't, and just read them violating Kafka's request, they'd be the person The Trial and Metamorphosis protested about, just another cog in the machinery of humilliation and degradation.
I made this argument in this thread, but come to think of it there's an opposite argument too:
If honor was worth more, Kafka's works describing life as a hellish landscape of bureucratic indifference, betrayal, control, and alienation, wouldn't have been as descriptive of the state of humanity.
>What would human kind have gained from not having read The Metamorphosis or The Trial and so many others?
If they have gained honor, that would have been worth 1000 Trials and Metamorphosis.
If they haven't, and just read them violating Kafka's request, they'd be the person The Trial and Metamorphosis protested about, just another cog in the machinery of humilliation and degradation.
[deleted]
I did not know much context about the specifics, and I just informed myself, and I have to see I entirely disagree with you.
Betrayal, control and alienation are exactly what informs Kafka's request. Faith (in his friend, in art) and openness are what inspired his friend not to obey Kafka's wish born out of that alienation and shame.
Bureaucracy never enters into this at all. There is no humiliation, Kafka is considered to be one of the greatest writers ever.
First of all, the request was in a letter. His friend (they were friends for decades) found the letter, it's not like he agreed beforehand. Secondly this friend was a writer himself. No one knows more the embarrassment and shame that can come from looking at one's own art as much as another artist, but this is just inherently the nature of making art, and what are friends for if not to shake us out of that wrong view that we get from our perspective being too close?
Frankly I think you're making lofty claims for their own sake. This is not a matter of "humanity gaining honor", it was a matter of a man believing in his friend's art, and the rest of us benefiting from that "betrayal".
Betrayal, control and alienation are exactly what informs Kafka's request. Faith (in his friend, in art) and openness are what inspired his friend not to obey Kafka's wish born out of that alienation and shame.
Bureaucracy never enters into this at all. There is no humiliation, Kafka is considered to be one of the greatest writers ever.
First of all, the request was in a letter. His friend (they were friends for decades) found the letter, it's not like he agreed beforehand. Secondly this friend was a writer himself. No one knows more the embarrassment and shame that can come from looking at one's own art as much as another artist, but this is just inherently the nature of making art, and what are friends for if not to shake us out of that wrong view that we get from our perspective being too close?
Frankly I think you're making lofty claims for their own sake. This is not a matter of "humanity gaining honor", it was a matter of a man believing in his friend's art, and the rest of us benefiting from that "betrayal".
>they'd be the person The Trial and Metamorphosis protested about
Nailed it!
Nailed it!
Thanks for restoring my faith in HN today. Sometimes I read the most absurd takes here and wonder if it is me that is wrong or crazy.
Dead people cannot be wronged. When someone dies, all obligations to that person are invalidated.
Promises are promises. The only fair argument the heirs could do is to claim the father didn't understand his decision to not wanting to publish the script.
Yes, but if there’s only one party that can be wronged by breaking the promise (e.g. feeling bad you broke a promise to your dead father), it becomes a bit different.
Sure, most people would feel terrible about doing that. But you would keep that promise out of respect, not because the dead are hurt by breaking it.
Sure, most people would feel terrible about doing that. But you would keep that promise out of respect, not because the dead are hurt by breaking it.
Promises to non-entities aren’t promises anymore.
Uh-huh. So it might be OK to, for example, construct an animatronic human centipede out of fresh corpses? Or perhaps not?
It can be argued that is a crime to destroy the works of one of the greatest writers in the world. Some people might also argue that such works belong to humanity more than they belong to the artist and that the "greater public good" trumps personal wishes.
If you discover a lost manuscript of Shakespeare along with the note: "These papers must be burnt!", would you do it?
I am not arguing in either direction, I am trying to say that things are not so simple and there might be some nuances. Vincent Van Gogh was mentally ill for a long period. Would you destroy his works if you find out that he expressed his wishes in that direction?
If you discover a lost manuscript of Shakespeare along with the note: "These papers must be burnt!", would you do it?
I am not arguing in either direction, I am trying to say that things are not so simple and there might be some nuances. Vincent Van Gogh was mentally ill for a long period. Would you destroy his works if you find out that he expressed his wishes in that direction?
It is not a crime to destroy unfinished work the author wanted to be destroyed upon his death. It really really is not a crime, no matter how much you want to read it. Unless the document itself is proof of crime or something similar ... which this one is not.
>Do we get to look at your personal journals, browser history and hidden photo gallery once you kick the bucket?
Once we kick the bucket yes. Just ask us then, and you'll see that we don't mind. And even if we did, you still get to do it, provided you have access.
Do you think your kids wont, if they find them? Or if you're a public figure, that the world at large wont?
Not to mention that a work of art of a great novelist (as opposed to the private journals of some random person) might be of more benefit to the world than following the instructions in their will.
Once we kick the bucket yes. Just ask us then, and you'll see that we don't mind. And even if we did, you still get to do it, provided you have access.
Do you think your kids wont, if they find them? Or if you're a public figure, that the world at large wont?
Not to mention that a work of art of a great novelist (as opposed to the private journals of some random person) might be of more benefit to the world than following the instructions in their will.
I absolutely understand what you're saying. And you might be right in this particular case. But there's a difference between the "you" you have in mind here and figures of literally world-historical significance.
I doubt the "morbid curiosity of the general public" could ever succeed as a justification on ethical grounds, but as a literature scholar, I can say that there are usually other purposes in view. At some point, the work of an author like García Márquez becomes an important part of the world-wide human record and historians who study that record are not doing so out of morbid anything. In this case, we're trying to understand the evolution of one of the most important authors (and associated literary movements) in the twentieth century.
I've seen these kinds of decisions being made on the scholarly side (opening archives, publishing letters, etc.). I can tell you they aren't made lightly, and one of the ways we tend to adjudicate these dilemmas is by weighing the "privacy and last wishes" of an individual against the desire of the broader culture to understand itself and its history. Sometimes that latter claim isn't strong enough. But sometimes it really is.
I doubt the "morbid curiosity of the general public" could ever succeed as a justification on ethical grounds, but as a literature scholar, I can say that there are usually other purposes in view. At some point, the work of an author like García Márquez becomes an important part of the world-wide human record and historians who study that record are not doing so out of morbid anything. In this case, we're trying to understand the evolution of one of the most important authors (and associated literary movements) in the twentieth century.
I've seen these kinds of decisions being made on the scholarly side (opening archives, publishing letters, etc.). I can tell you they aren't made lightly, and one of the ways we tend to adjudicate these dilemmas is by weighing the "privacy and last wishes" of an individual against the desire of the broader culture to understand itself and its history. Sometimes that latter claim isn't strong enough. But sometimes it really is.
It's especially true because of this line that could have easily come out of a Marquez novel:
> "And we decided, yes, it was a betrayal. But that's what children are for."
> "And we decided, yes, it was a betrayal. But that's what children are for."
If you want to look at my stuff when I die and you can convince my next of kin to do so, go nuts.
The point is not whether it's okay to look at someone's private documents after they're dead. The point is whether you should honor the wishes of someone you care about who has died, after they've told you their wishes while still alive. Do you have any obligation to your friends or family after they have died, and what does your answer to this say about you? I think it's a different question, and a different answer, and that's the actual case we should be talking about.
Personally, I think only an absolute bastard would agree to what a dying person asked them to do—or not to do, in this case—and then go back on it after they died.
Personally, I think only an absolute bastard would agree to what a dying person asked them to do—or not to do, in this case—and then go back on it after they died.
> Do we get to look at your personal journals, browser history and hidden photo gallery once you kick the bucket?
If it is of significance to the living world, then yes, it'll be published. Anne Frank's dairy is an example of that.
Is it the right thing to do? I'll leave the question for an ethicist.
If it is of significance to the living world, then yes, it'll be published. Anne Frank's dairy is an example of that.
Is it the right thing to do? I'll leave the question for an ethicist.
> Anne Frank's dairy is an example of that.
From Wikipedia’s page on Anne Frank[1]:
> Otto, the only survivor of the Frank family, returned to Amsterdam after the war to find that Anne's diary had been saved by his female secretaries, Miep Gies and Bep Voskuijl. He decided to fulfil his daughter's greatest wish to become a writer. He published her diary in 1947.
Her diary was published because her father had reason to believe it was something she would have approved of. In Márquez’s case we’re talking about going against the author’s expressed wishes. The situations are polar opposites.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Frank
From Wikipedia’s page on Anne Frank[1]:
> Otto, the only survivor of the Frank family, returned to Amsterdam after the war to find that Anne's diary had been saved by his female secretaries, Miep Gies and Bep Voskuijl. He decided to fulfil his daughter's greatest wish to become a writer. He published her diary in 1947.
Her diary was published because her father had reason to believe it was something she would have approved of. In Márquez’s case we’re talking about going against the author’s expressed wishes. The situations are polar opposites.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Frank
My bad. I did not realize that she rescented her early wish that "she would never allow anyone to read it" [1]
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Frank
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Frank
We only have Otto Frank's word for it that this is what she would have wanted. And he is known not to have had respect for her legacy in every way, for example editing the diary to remove criticism of himself.
Also, 'wanting to be a writer' does not necessarily mean that you would have wanted to have a specifically private piece of writing published.
Also, 'wanting to be a writer' does not necessarily mean that you would have wanted to have a specifically private piece of writing published.
Even if he's a liar and she didn't even want to be a writer, at least he left a plausible reason why it might be what she would want. In the absence of her actual wishes, that's the best we can do and, given the impact that the journal has had on the world, I find it hard to believe that anyone would not want that work published.
This, on the other hand, is someone going against explicitly stated wishes. It's not a very comparable situation.
This, on the other hand, is someone going against explicitly stated wishes. It's not a very comparable situation.
Her diary is not needed and it was a money grab by a dude that understood that. How the fuck you name a diary as helpful for humanity?
The “dude” was her father, who published it because he “decided to fulfil his daughter's greatest wish to become a writer”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Frank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Frank
> How the fuck you name a diary as helpful for humanity?
Tell me you've never read Anne Frank's diary, without telling me you've never read Anne Frank's diary.
Tell me you've never read Anne Frank's diary, without telling me you've never read Anne Frank's diary.
He's dead. Now the thing that matters is, what other people think and want. Especially his executors. Almost by definition.
He wanted it destroyed? He could have done it himself.
Don't put weird things in your will. Do them before you die. At least then, you know they got done. And get to see them get done!
All these people who leave things to their granddaughter or whatever, jewelry, the family dingus, just give it now! Enjoy their thanks, see them enjoy it.
He wanted it destroyed? He could have done it himself.
Don't put weird things in your will. Do them before you die. At least then, you know they got done. And get to see them get done!
All these people who leave things to their granddaughter or whatever, jewelry, the family dingus, just give it now! Enjoy their thanks, see them enjoy it.
I'm going to go ahead and say that the direct family, who was entrusted with the rights to the book, are in a better position to decide if this is ok or not than random person on the internet who only heard about this issue today.
Assuming they weren't estranged or anything, they obviously knew their father and understood his wishes better than any of us.
Assuming they weren't estranged or anything, they obviously knew their father and understood his wishes better than any of us.
>Really shocking to see so many comments here arguing we have a right to see/read/hear private, unpublished work that a deceased artist left
ok, but then there wouldn't really be any Kafka if instructions to destroy writing was reliably carried out.
ok, but then there wouldn't really be any Kafka if instructions to destroy writing was reliably carried out.
Look he is no more so he won't be offended. It is his family that is doing this. Unless some other similarly close family member objects I don't see a big issue.
Exactly this!
Replace "novel" with "nude pictures" and the moral side of this becomes much more obvious.
It doesn't matter if he had dementia. It doesn't matter if people appreciate the novel or if his kids feel that "it's important to release it". The novel was his creation and he specifically did not want it released.
Unsurprisingly though, money outweighs his requests.
Replace "novel" with "nude pictures" and the moral side of this becomes much more obvious.
It doesn't matter if he had dementia. It doesn't matter if people appreciate the novel or if his kids feel that "it's important to release it". The novel was his creation and he specifically did not want it released.
Unsurprisingly though, money outweighs his requests.
Great points, and truly not in sarcasm. In the US, photos of intimate moments are plastered publicly on the internet by many.
Though, I doubt the line is always straightforward. There must have been reasons (hopefully not solely profit driven…). For example, Kafka. Granted I read, skimmed really, in an article that while his instructions were to destroy his writings, that he wanted them published.
Though, I doubt the line is always straightforward. There must have been reasons (hopefully not solely profit driven…). For example, Kafka. Granted I read, skimmed really, in an article that while his instructions were to destroy his writings, that he wanted them published.
>Do we get to look at your personal journals, browser history and hidden photo gallery once you kick the bucket?
Of course not, yet no one will donate to my non profit “refill all of the excavated Pompeii cavities” project. There is a sort of arbitrary and hypocritical “dead” vs “even more dead” position that people take with their misgiven concepts of “history”
Of course not, yet no one will donate to my non profit “refill all of the excavated Pompeii cavities” project. There is a sort of arbitrary and hypocritical “dead” vs “even more dead” position that people take with their misgiven concepts of “history”
The entitlement is indeed shocking. I don’t get why its so hard to simply do what someone asked to be done with their own property.
It's not hard and I understand your point, but you have no control over what happens after you die. You know that your wishes may or may not be respected, so destroy/encrypt what you don't want to be seen by others while you can.
In any case, it's only a problem for the living. Dead you won't be bothered by it.
In any case, it's only a problem for the living. Dead you won't be bothered by it.
I find it more entitled to expect that "property" is a concept that transcends society's needs. Personally I require that my private collection of Picassos is burned upon my death.
> transcends society's needs.
There's no need here. Only want.
There's no need here. Only want.
> Do we get to look at your personal journals, browser history and hidden photo gallery once you kick the bucket?
Once you are dead, you are dead, it's the same as if you never existed in the first place. I completely fail to understand how my wishes are relevant after I no longer exist.
What shame or embarrassment can I feel when I'm dead? Promise me on my death bed my secrets will never be revealed and the second I'm gone, share them and it won't change the peace of mind I had. Likewise the state of my mind at the moment of death is irrelevant because I'll be dead.
It's bizarre to me to see you are so troubled by this. Do you care what happens after your dead? Do you care what's happening on a planet so distant and foreign you do not even know it exists or what it's inhabitants are like? The world after you are dead will be far more foreign to you than such a world that exists today.
In time all humans will be dead. In time all evidence of this planet will be erased. If alien life should come across some rock with Gabriel García Márquez last writing and note saying "do not read" are found should that alien life honor that request? What moral system are you deriving these beliefs from?
Once you are dead, you are dead, it's the same as if you never existed in the first place. I completely fail to understand how my wishes are relevant after I no longer exist.
What shame or embarrassment can I feel when I'm dead? Promise me on my death bed my secrets will never be revealed and the second I'm gone, share them and it won't change the peace of mind I had. Likewise the state of my mind at the moment of death is irrelevant because I'll be dead.
It's bizarre to me to see you are so troubled by this. Do you care what happens after your dead? Do you care what's happening on a planet so distant and foreign you do not even know it exists or what it's inhabitants are like? The world after you are dead will be far more foreign to you than such a world that exists today.
In time all humans will be dead. In time all evidence of this planet will be erased. If alien life should come across some rock with Gabriel García Márquez last writing and note saying "do not read" are found should that alien life honor that request? What moral system are you deriving these beliefs from?
Yes. There's less expectation of privacy for public and famous people.
Human knowledge and progress > privacy of famous people
> Do we get to look at your personal journals, browser history and hidden photo gallery once you kick the bucket?
I think many here would argue yes
I think many here would argue yes
[deleted]
Yes, you do. If my siblings put all my stuff online I wouldn't care. When I am dead I am dead and it is their choice.
If he had dementia at the time, then they probably had power of attorney at the time. This places the decision entirely within all 3 of their moral, ethical, and legals rights to make that decision. Not just a legal technicality but really their right, like an internal family discussion that no one else has any right to even opine on.
And then after death, the executor has that same right. Twice over, it's their call, not ours. It's more wrong for us to say they are wrong than it is for them to say their fathers will is wrong.
I would go even further and say you have very few to maybe zero rights after death. We do some things out of respect for each other but really I don't see how it can be claimed as any sort of actual right. Once you're gone, whatever's left behind is for other people to do what they will with. It's not yours any more. If you want something not to exist, destroy it yourself or don't create it yourself in the first place. That is probably the limit of anyone's reasonable right to control something. You can ask, and if someone chooses, maybe they comply, but I think you really should only expect to be able to ask, and live with the eventual no as the answer, or even a yes and then failure to deliver.
(Not speaking as a lawyer. I'm sure there are all kinds of legal things that make wills and contracts into legally more binding documents, but that is artificial legal construct, I'm talking about right & wrong & reason. And besides, if one wants to take the legality seriously, then they obviously had the legal right to do this since they did, and so no problem.)
And then after death, the executor has that same right. Twice over, it's their call, not ours. It's more wrong for us to say they are wrong than it is for them to say their fathers will is wrong.
I would go even further and say you have very few to maybe zero rights after death. We do some things out of respect for each other but really I don't see how it can be claimed as any sort of actual right. Once you're gone, whatever's left behind is for other people to do what they will with. It's not yours any more. If you want something not to exist, destroy it yourself or don't create it yourself in the first place. That is probably the limit of anyone's reasonable right to control something. You can ask, and if someone chooses, maybe they comply, but I think you really should only expect to be able to ask, and live with the eventual no as the answer, or even a yes and then failure to deliver.
(Not speaking as a lawyer. I'm sure there are all kinds of legal things that make wills and contracts into legally more binding documents, but that is artificial legal construct, I'm talking about right & wrong & reason. And besides, if one wants to take the legality seriously, then they obviously had the legal right to do this since they did, and so no problem.)
If you want something destroyed, you should destroy it yourself while you're still alive.
When you die, you and your fears/desires cease to exist.
Honestly, yeah, as far as I'm concerned you've got a right to anything I leave behind. Maybe with some caveats like "...once everyone who knew me is dead" or "...excluding the obvious things like passwords and private keys giving access to other peoples' stuff". Otherwise the world descends into a necrocracy of random rules established by dead people a century ago and upheld in perpetuity.
It is not private materials; it is just unfinished work. Lots of unfinished works by different artists found places in museums, where we can better understand their art, their methods and learn from them.
I'll be too dead to care either way.
> Really shocking to see so many comments here arguing we have a right to see/read/hear private, unpublished work that a deceased artist left clear instructions to destroy in the event of their death.
What's so shocking about it? When you are dead, you have no rights or property. It all belongs to whomever you left it to.
If marquez didn't want his work published, he should have destroyed it himself rather than leaving up to someone else. As others have mentioned, kafka did the same thing. Left instructions for his publisher to destroy his works after his death.
> Do we get to look at your personal journals, browser history and hidden photo gallery once you kick the bucket?
Who cares? If you are so paranoid about it, destroy your personal journal while you are alive. Otherwise, whoever gets it after your death can do whatever they want with it.
What's so shocking about it? When you are dead, you have no rights or property. It all belongs to whomever you left it to.
If marquez didn't want his work published, he should have destroyed it himself rather than leaving up to someone else. As others have mentioned, kafka did the same thing. Left instructions for his publisher to destroy his works after his death.
> Do we get to look at your personal journals, browser history and hidden photo gallery once you kick the bucket?
Who cares? If you are so paranoid about it, destroy your personal journal while you are alive. Otherwise, whoever gets it after your death can do whatever they want with it.
We respect artists enough to give them intellectual property rights that persist even after the death of the artist, but we don't respect the artist's desires about what to do with that property. You can accept or dislike this, but none of it is a natural law: it's a set of somewhat arbitrary legal decisions that we made as a society. We could make different decisions.
Dead artists copyrights go to their estate, and the estate may choose to donate the works to the public domain if it so chooses - just as the artist could have when they were alive, since they have the same rights.
Is it about respect?
I thought it was just about money.
Respect could be shown through the production of fan fiction, that isn't compatible with IP.
I thought it was just about money.
Respect could be shown through the production of fan fiction, that isn't compatible with IP.
> We respect artists enough to give them intellectual property rights that persist even after the death of the artist
It isn't their rights. They are dead. It's a very simple concept. The rights belong to whoever gets the property. Also intellectual property rights isn't about respecting artists. It's about protecting corporate rights since most intellectual property is owned by mega-corporations and not the artists who created them.
> but we don't respect the artist's desires about what to do with that property.
Who is 'we'? The only person who has a say in the matter is whoever gets the property after the artist's death.
> but none of it is a natural law: it's a set of somewhat arbitrary legal decisions that we made as a society.
I know. That's my point. But regardless, it doesn't change the fact that the artist is dead and has no rights.
Should the sons have respected marquez's wish? Maybe. But then again, the sons probably knew their father better than you did. And marquez must have left the works to his sons for a reason.
It isn't their rights. They are dead. It's a very simple concept. The rights belong to whoever gets the property. Also intellectual property rights isn't about respecting artists. It's about protecting corporate rights since most intellectual property is owned by mega-corporations and not the artists who created them.
> but we don't respect the artist's desires about what to do with that property.
Who is 'we'? The only person who has a say in the matter is whoever gets the property after the artist's death.
> but none of it is a natural law: it's a set of somewhat arbitrary legal decisions that we made as a society.
I know. That's my point. But regardless, it doesn't change the fact that the artist is dead and has no rights.
Should the sons have respected marquez's wish? Maybe. But then again, the sons probably knew their father better than you did. And marquez must have left the works to his sons for a reason.
>Also intellectual property rights isn't about respecting artists. It's about protecting corporate rights since most intellectual property is owned by mega-corporations and not the artists who created them.
I think that really depends on what theory of copyright you have operating in your society, many European societies have a theory of copyright that is about respecting artist's moral rights to own what they have created.
I think that really depends on what theory of copyright you have operating in your society, many European societies have a theory of copyright that is about respecting artist's moral rights to own what they have created.
> I think that really depends on what theory of copyright you have operating in your society, many European societies have a theory of copyright that is about respecting artist's moral rights to own what they have created.
If that was the case, nobody in europe would be reading much of franz kafka's works nor anne frank's diary.
If that was the case, nobody in europe would be reading much of franz kafka's works nor anne frank's diary.
I of course know better than anyone the joy of making a snide rhetorical cut but in this case I was referring to the legal understanding of what the purpose of copyright is in various societies and epigrammatic wit is not enough to obscure a clearly written law.
But good try!
But good try!
"And marquez must have left the works to his sons for a reason."
As far as I understood it, he was still working on it. And he did not wanted the sketch to be published.
"But then again, the sons probably knew their father better than you did."
Probably. But I would not rule out the possibility, that they have selfish reasons like fame and money.
As far as I understood it, he was still working on it. And he did not wanted the sketch to be published.
"But then again, the sons probably knew their father better than you did."
Probably. But I would not rule out the possibility, that they have selfish reasons like fame and money.
Do we get to look at your personal journals, browser history and hidden photo gallery once you kick the bucket?
I hope so. If the radical "privacy and security" advocates truly had their way, the only "history" left from the current era will be "carefully curated" and thus obviously biased. No one should have the "right to be forgotten".
I hope so. If the radical "privacy and security" advocates truly had their way, the only "history" left from the current era will be "carefully curated" and thus obviously biased. No one should have the "right to be forgotten".
The dead are no more. We respect them not for themselves, but for the living relatives. If thee are okay with it, ravage the corpse for all I care. The electrical charged ham, that made it special is just ham now.
The irony here is that - as Marquez highlighted in many occasions - he was deeply influenced by Kafka (probably his single biggest literary influence).
And Kafka as mentioned in this thread is probably the most well-known example of an author who wanted most of his work destroyed (he literally wanted it burned) but was betrayed by his executor of will.
So I wonder, given his legendary playful personality and the fact that he must have been aware of the Kafka example, if Marquez knew how this will end up, and made it so the unpublished novel will turn out to be filled with allusions of literary ghosts hunting down those who betray them and how those who are reading the book are deranged bastards for poking the corpse of the writer.
And Kafka as mentioned in this thread is probably the most well-known example of an author who wanted most of his work destroyed (he literally wanted it burned) but was betrayed by his executor of will.
So I wonder, given his legendary playful personality and the fact that he must have been aware of the Kafka example, if Marquez knew how this will end up, and made it so the unpublished novel will turn out to be filled with allusions of literary ghosts hunting down those who betray them and how those who are reading the book are deranged bastards for poking the corpse of the writer.
That's interesting. I find Kafka so arid and GM so colourful I would never have guessed this fact.
You could say their style almost stereotypically and to a comical level reflected their environment, race, personality and occupation which was as polar opposite from each other as you can be: Central European introverted Jewish actuary vs Latin American extroverted leftest journalist writing satirical columns.
But their imagination certainly seemed to come from the same place as many who read them noticed without even being aware that one influenced the other.
But their imagination certainly seemed to come from the same place as many who read them noticed without even being aware that one influenced the other.
I don't think it should be surprising, I'd say good artists often enjoy a wide variety of styles, and it's not unusual for their favorite artists to be their complete opposite, perhaps that's precisely why they're their favorites.
Iirc Paul Thomas Anderson has said he's a fan of Michael Bay.
Iirc Paul Thomas Anderson has said he's a fan of Michael Bay.
[deleted]
"but was betrayed by his executor of will."
That was no betrayal.
Because Brod told Kafka before, that he will refuse this last wish to burn everything, and instead publish it all, should he be tasked with it. Kafka still ordered him with his last wish - knowing the person said he will refuse. That's rather a kafkaesk joke to me.
If Kafka really would have wanted to burn it all his works - he could have a) do it himself b) ask someone who would not outright refuse
That was no betrayal.
Because Brod told Kafka before, that he will refuse this last wish to burn everything, and instead publish it all, should he be tasked with it. Kafka still ordered him with his last wish - knowing the person said he will refuse. That's rather a kafkaesk joke to me.
If Kafka really would have wanted to burn it all his works - he could have a) do it himself b) ask someone who would not outright refuse
It's not unusual for authors to express a desire for their unpublished works to be destroyed. Kafka wanted all his unpublished works to be destroyed - consider these are most of his known works now, we're quite lucky his executor, Max Brod, defied his wishes.
Virgil's Aeneid is the most famous example that I know...
"According to tradition, Virgil traveled to Greece around 19 BC to revise the Aeneid. After meeting Augustus in Athens and deciding to return home, Virgil caught a fever while visiting a town near Megara. Virgil crossed to Italy by ship, weakened with disease, and died in Brundisium harbour on 21 September 19 BC, leaving a wish that the manuscript of the Aeneid was to be burned. Augustus ordered Virgil's literary executors, Lucius Varius Rufus and Plotius Tucca, to disregard that wish, instead ordering the Aeneid to be published with as few editorial changes as possible. As a result, the existing text of the Aeneid may contain faults which Virgil was planning to correct before publication. However, the only obvious imperfections are a few lines of verse that are metrically unfinished (i.e., not a complete line of dactylic hexameter). Other alleged "imperfections" are subject to scholarly debate."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeneid#Virgil's_death,_and_edi...
"According to tradition, Virgil traveled to Greece around 19 BC to revise the Aeneid. After meeting Augustus in Athens and deciding to return home, Virgil caught a fever while visiting a town near Megara. Virgil crossed to Italy by ship, weakened with disease, and died in Brundisium harbour on 21 September 19 BC, leaving a wish that the manuscript of the Aeneid was to be burned. Augustus ordered Virgil's literary executors, Lucius Varius Rufus and Plotius Tucca, to disregard that wish, instead ordering the Aeneid to be published with as few editorial changes as possible. As a result, the existing text of the Aeneid may contain faults which Virgil was planning to correct before publication. However, the only obvious imperfections are a few lines of verse that are metrically unfinished (i.e., not a complete line of dactylic hexameter). Other alleged "imperfections" are subject to scholarly debate."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeneid#Virgil's_death,_and_edi...
It was the first example I thought of, as well.
I don't really mean this as an accusation, but I suspect these death-bed demands are simply a pose. Not that they are essentially insincere, but rather a final gesture of conscientiousness that should be ignored.
What is lost to the world by retaining the imperfect, incomplete?
I don't really mean this as an accusation, but I suspect these death-bed demands are simply a pose. Not that they are essentially insincere, but rather a final gesture of conscientiousness that should be ignored.
What is lost to the world by retaining the imperfect, incomplete?
I think a better explanation is that authors and other creators of public works are concerned with how they will be perceived.
Otherwise, they wouldn't spend months and years meticulously editing and improving their works before release.
It's uncomfortable, embarrassing even, to have your unfinished work consumed and reviewed as if it were finished, and as if it were an accurate measure of your intentions and talent.
Otherwise, they wouldn't spend months and years meticulously editing and improving their works before release.
It's uncomfortable, embarrassing even, to have your unfinished work consumed and reviewed as if it were finished, and as if it were an accurate measure of your intentions and talent.
> It's uncomfortable, embarrassing even, to have your unfinished work consumed and reviewed as if it were finished
Yes, but when the unfinished work is published, it is well known that it was incomplete.
That said, I can understand the author not wanting it to be published. If is a shitty thing to publish it against the author's will when they are alive, it is equally shitty to do it when they have died.
Yes, but when the unfinished work is published, it is well known that it was incomplete.
That said, I can understand the author not wanting it to be published. If is a shitty thing to publish it against the author's will when they are alive, it is equally shitty to do it when they have died.
I’m not sure about that. Presumably after they’ve died the only person that didn’t want it published has gone, so with only people left that want it punished, is that really such a bad thing?
> If is a shitty thing to publish it against the author's will when they are alive, it is equally shitty to do it when they have died.
It's definitely not _equally_ shitty. It's arguable whether it's shitty at all. For an action to be a shitty thing to do, someone must suffer as a result.
I can see a couple of ways to argue that the author's beneficiaries might suffer, and perhaps even that the author themself might suffer depending on your religious beliefs.
But surely it's not anywhere close to _equally_ shitty.
I am firmly on the side of releasing everything. Great works of art are so incredibly valuable (to the culture) that the chance of finding one that might have been missed trumps these other concerns.
GP mentioned that most of Kafka's best works would have been destroyed if his stated wishes were honored (it is debatable whether these were his actual wishes).
A web search turns up that Monet destroyed a lot of his works before he passed.
How many Aeneid's are we 'missing' because the author was successful in destroying their unfinished work?
It's definitely not _equally_ shitty. It's arguable whether it's shitty at all. For an action to be a shitty thing to do, someone must suffer as a result.
I can see a couple of ways to argue that the author's beneficiaries might suffer, and perhaps even that the author themself might suffer depending on your religious beliefs.
But surely it's not anywhere close to _equally_ shitty.
I am firmly on the side of releasing everything. Great works of art are so incredibly valuable (to the culture) that the chance of finding one that might have been missed trumps these other concerns.
GP mentioned that most of Kafka's best works would have been destroyed if his stated wishes were honored (it is debatable whether these were his actual wishes).
A web search turns up that Monet destroyed a lot of his works before he passed.
How many Aeneid's are we 'missing' because the author was successful in destroying their unfinished work?
> For an action to be a shitty thing to do, someone must suffer as a result
Does somebody suffer if you urinate on the grave of a random person who died a hundred years ago? Is it a shitty thing to do?
Does somebody suffer if you urinate on the grave of a random person who died a hundred years ago? Is it a shitty thing to do?
> Does somebody suffer if you urinate on the grave of a random person who died a hundred years ago?
If the intent is to insult a group of people or that person’s descendants, yes. If not, honestly, no. Which is why we generally chase drunk teenagers out of graveyards instead of jailing them.
If the intent is to insult a group of people or that person’s descendants, yes. If not, honestly, no. Which is why we generally chase drunk teenagers out of graveyards instead of jailing them.
Nobody suffers, but it might be indicative that somebody is a shitty _person_ who might maliciously or carelessly cause harm in other ways. (Obviously intent matters here, because would we ever consider it "shitty" to unknowingly urinate on an unmarked grave?)
It is a shitty thing to do, but there is nothing particularly special about the fact that it is a grave, or that there is a particular person involved.
Society suffers, because people do not wish to be subjected to the sight and smells associated with urination.
A cemetery is usually something of a public park, of sorts. Urinating on a random grave is around the same order of shittiness as urinating on any part of a public park meant to be appreciated or contemplated by people.
If the grave of the random person matters a lot to you, ask yourself, would it matter if the headstone were not there? Would it matter if you did not know there was a grave there?
Every time you urinate on the ground, you are urinating on the remains of millions of people.
With every breath you take, you are inhaling the remains of everyone who has ever been cremated longer ago than it took for their burn gases to homogeneously mix in into the atmosphere (which really does not take very long).
Society suffers, because people do not wish to be subjected to the sight and smells associated with urination.
A cemetery is usually something of a public park, of sorts. Urinating on a random grave is around the same order of shittiness as urinating on any part of a public park meant to be appreciated or contemplated by people.
If the grave of the random person matters a lot to you, ask yourself, would it matter if the headstone were not there? Would it matter if you did not know there was a grave there?
Every time you urinate on the ground, you are urinating on the remains of millions of people.
With every breath you take, you are inhaling the remains of everyone who has ever been cremated longer ago than it took for their burn gases to homogeneously mix in into the atmosphere (which really does not take very long).
Society as a whole suffers because of the disrespect shown. Every person committing the act you describe edges society marginally closer to a world in which little respect is shown at all.
(I acknowledge this is specious!)
(I acknowledge this is specious!)
> Yes, but when the unfinished work is published, it is well known that it was incomplete.
Just as a rose by any other name is still a rose, shit is still shit no matter how you frame it, and unfortunately shit tends to stick better than roses.
Just as a rose by any other name is still a rose, shit is still shit no matter how you frame it, and unfortunately shit tends to stick better than roses.
I think the more likely explanation is that they care about the work itself. If I were to write a book that no one else would ever read, I would still want it to be as good as can be.
I wonder how many devs on here publish their feature branches prior to merge? Do they push up all the WIPs too?
I wonder how many devs on here publish their feature branches prior to merge? Do they push up all the WIPs too?
Presumably the image that the dead person was attempting cultivate about themselves and their work.
>most famous
>It is unlikely that Marcus Aurelius ever intended the writings to be published.
It is lore that one of his jesters burned himself to save the writings from a fire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations
>It is unlikely that Marcus Aurelius ever intended the writings to be published.
It is lore that one of his jesters burned himself to save the writings from a fire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations
> It's not unusual for authors to express a desire for their unpublished works to be destroyed. Kafka wanted all his unpublished works to be destroyed - consider these are most of his known works now, we're quite lucky his executor, Max Brod, defied his wishes.
Are we lucky, or was Kafka unlucky?
I find the lack of respect about authors' wishes very shocking.
Are we lucky, or was Kafka unlucky?
I find the lack of respect about authors' wishes very shocking.
Why? They’re dead. Not trying to be flippant, I honestly don’t get why the deceased’s desires should be elevated over the living’s. It’s a moral choice I don’t agree with and don’t entirely understand.
This is less about the deceased's desires over that of the living and more about creative control. Any creator will want to polish their work. It's already difficult enough to articulate and express the source of inspiration, and even polished, the material expression almost never matches its source.
I can see both views. On the one hand, authors aren't always the best judges of their own work and executors can hire someone who may do a good job of polishing. On the other hand, there are unfinished works that are relatively mediocre (True at First Light) or just clearly unfinished (The Last Tycoon).
Of course, a movie studio is almost certain to finish off a movie if a director dies and may remove them for other reasons.
Of course, a movie studio is almost certain to finish off a movie if a director dies and may remove them for other reasons.
It’s true, a good editor or producer collaborates with the creative to get it across the finish line, flawed as it is.
It works better if there is mutual respect.
My point though is when generalizing and reframing this about the deceased vs living, more often than not, it is no longer about respecting (even respectfully disagreeing) with the creative and more about disrespecting the deceased.
It works better if there is mutual respect.
My point though is when generalizing and reframing this about the deceased vs living, more often than not, it is no longer about respecting (even respectfully disagreeing) with the creative and more about disrespecting the deceased.
>It’s true, a good editor or producer collaborates with the creative to get it across the finish line, flawed as it is.
If it's a studio film, they may well fire the director and hire a new one. And, of course, screenwriters are casually script doctored with or without their consent.
If it's a studio film, they may well fire the director and hire a new one. And, of course, screenwriters are casually script doctored with or without their consent.
Sure, because it is funded by a commercial concern and they are in the business of selling entertainment.
With books, the balance of power isn’t so skewed to the publisher, though I suppose it depends on what it is.
I don’t know what circumstances Tolkien’s unfinished work was released, though it seems like his son toiled away at them for years.
With books, the balance of power isn’t so skewed to the publisher, though I suppose it depends on what it is.
I don’t know what circumstances Tolkien’s unfinished work was released, though it seems like his son toiled away at them for years.
True, and there's typically far less money (or big expenses) involved with books.
I always assumed Christopher Tolkien had some sort of "do with them what you think best" agreement with his father although I don't actually know. Not that there's anything particularly special in written word beyond Tolkien's originals.
I always assumed Christopher Tolkien had some sort of "do with them what you think best" agreement with his father although I don't actually know. Not that there's anything particularly special in written word beyond Tolkien's originals.
Well, I guess that we all need to stop listening to Schubert's unfinished symphony.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._8_(Schubert)#Earl...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._8_(Schubert)#Earl...
I've published two novels, and I have tons of notes for all kinds of things, and frankly while there is lots I have written that I don't want to publish until/unless I rework it, and some things I don't want to publish at all, I couldn't give a shit what gets published after I'm dead other than to the extent it'd harm or embarrass anyone I care about. I don't think I have anything that'd harm anyone, but I do have things that might embarrass some. Like love poems written in my youth that has sentimental value for me, but might be embarrassing to my present or then girlfriend, for example.
Frankly, all I'd ask of a literary executor would be that they 1) humor my requests while I'm alive, 2) respect the wishes of my family. Other than that, whether they actually follow through on my wishes? Put it this way, if I find myself in an afterlife, as an atheist, I doubt whether my executor stuck my wishes will be high on my list of things to care about. And without an afterlife it's not as if I'd be able to care. Or know,
Frankly, all I'd ask of a literary executor would be that they 1) humor my requests while I'm alive, 2) respect the wishes of my family. Other than that, whether they actually follow through on my wishes? Put it this way, if I find myself in an afterlife, as an atheist, I doubt whether my executor stuck my wishes will be high on my list of things to care about. And without an afterlife it's not as if I'd be able to care. Or know,
[deleted]
…but destroying it deprives a future creative from putting in the polishing touches. Shoulders of giants and all.
Do I have permission to desecrate your corpse? You are dead after all.
I'm donating my body to art, so sure.
Do what Steven Wright plans and donate your body to science fiction.
I don't see why not. My body is no different from my other possessions
Are you fine with desecrating the bodies of others against their wishes?
Not GP but: Dead bodies? Sure, they're dead. Everything meaningful and special about them is gone.
Ok so you’d be fine with having sex with a dead child’s corpse then? You seem like quite a guy.
I mean they’re dead right? Everything meaningful and special about them is gone.
I mean they’re dead right? Everything meaningful and special about them is gone.
I hope you remember the night when you made the pedonecrophila strawman argument fondly, but I trust you won’t.
I mean, it was a response to people saying it was ok to desecrate a corpse because they’re dead and won’t know about it. So where do these people draw the line? If it’s OK to desecrate a corpse but necrophilia is “too far” then what is their argument?
The corpse doesn’t know if it was desecrated nor does it know if it was subject to necrophilia. So if desecrating a corpse is “ok” according to the above commentators, why is necrophilia not ok too? And if necrophilia is not ok, then perhaps there’s a flaw in their argument.
That is, some things are morally wrong, even if there is no apparent “victim” as the victim is dead.
The corpse doesn’t know if it was desecrated nor does it know if it was subject to necrophilia. So if desecrating a corpse is “ok” according to the above commentators, why is necrophilia not ok too? And if necrophilia is not ok, then perhaps there’s a flaw in their argument.
That is, some things are morally wrong, even if there is no apparent “victim” as the victim is dead.
Does this apply to inheritance too? Why should we care what happens to our kids once we die?
While we’re alive, we care. When we’re dead, it’s up to our children to care. Inheritance wishes are generally respected, but also can and do get overridden. I’m not saying that an author’s wishes shouldn’t be taken into account, the living still care about how they felt while they were alive, but it shouldn’t be the one and only priority that gets respected. Again, the dead can’t care anymore. Only the living can.
That really depends upon your beliefs and understanding of the cosmos. Not everyone agrees with that.
To be fair, I have practiced shaivasana (“corpse pose”), specifically including “corpse don’t care” as a response to existential anguish arising and passing. But I also know quite a good bit about what it means to regret and long for second chances or a path not taken. I think it is quite rare for anyone (regardless of beliefs) to die without regrets. If you are able to pull that off for yourself, I’m glad for you.
To be fair, I have practiced shaivasana (“corpse pose”), specifically including “corpse don’t care” as a response to existential anguish arising and passing. But I also know quite a good bit about what it means to regret and long for second chances or a path not taken. I think it is quite rare for anyone (regardless of beliefs) to die without regrets. If you are able to pull that off for yourself, I’m glad for you.
It’s interesting you bring up kids.
In a belief system where there is a Creator, and the Creator is a Mother, all of Creation are her children. Thus, as humans, raising and nurturing a child is as much of an act of creation as art, music, etc. And conversely, our artistic creations tend to develop a life of its own.
In a belief system where there is a Creator, and the Creator is a Mother, all of Creation are her children. Thus, as humans, raising and nurturing a child is as much of an act of creation as art, music, etc. And conversely, our artistic creations tend to develop a life of its own.
But but... our copyright lords at the Mouse's castle have decreed that copyright lasts 75 years after the author's death.
That means it's illegal to not respect the dead person's wishes. The copyright is theirs, not their descendant's.
That means it's illegal to not respect the dead person's wishes. The copyright is theirs, not their descendant's.
Copyright lasts for that period, but it doesn't continue to belong to the dead person.
They weren't deceased when they expressed the desire. You usually don't know when, exactly, you're going to die. Nobody would argue, I hope, with "I'm going on a trip, don't publish anything I'm not done with until I get back and finish it." This just happens to be a very long, one-way trip.
That said, I do think once someone is dead, there's some argument whether you have to respect that. But I at least understand the desire.
That said, I do think once someone is dead, there's some argument whether you have to respect that. But I at least understand the desire.
Because other people's wishes - especially about their own stuff - are to be respected?
Aside from "they're dead, how can it hurt them" factor, there's the point that if an author well and truly wants a given work out of the public eye, they can destroy it themselves when they're alive.
Usually we’re talking about things like the author’s private notes and rough drafts, which they may well wish to keep around while they are alive (because they are useful).
He put them in the care of Brod, who had told him that he would refuse to burn them. If he really wanted the work burned he wouldn't have put it in the hands of his biggest fan.
yes, this even is not a good example in this thread. both of them familiar with this process. Kafka just played same tricks at his end of life.
One interesting case, an outsider artist, is Henry Darger "In the Realms of the Unreal"
> In the Realms of the Unreal is a 15,145-page work bound in fifteen immense, densely typed volumes (with three of them consisting of several hundred illustrations, scroll-like watercolor paintings on paper derived from magazines and coloring books) created over six decades. Darger illustrated his stories using a technique of traced images cut from magazines and catalogues, arranged in large panoramic landscapes and painted in watercolors, some as large as 30 feet wide and painted on both sides. He wrote himself into the narrative as the children's protector.[3]: 64
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Darger#In_the_Realms_of_...
> In the Realms of the Unreal is a 15,145-page work bound in fifteen immense, densely typed volumes (with three of them consisting of several hundred illustrations, scroll-like watercolor paintings on paper derived from magazines and coloring books) created over six decades. Darger illustrated his stories using a technique of traced images cut from magazines and catalogues, arranged in large panoramic landscapes and painted in watercolors, some as large as 30 feet wide and painted on both sides. He wrote himself into the narrative as the children's protector.[3]: 64
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Darger#In_the_Realms_of_...
Add Chopin to the, ahem, list: https://youtu.be/x93pwAvUkAA
Brahms was successful at destroying large parts of his work product [0]. Kuhlau was too [1], thought he didn't intend to—his house burned down.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Brahms#Works ("...once claimed to have destroyed 20 string quartets before he issued his official First in 1873...")
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Kuhlau
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Brahms#Works ("...once claimed to have destroyed 20 string quartets before he issued his official First in 1873...")
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Kuhlau
Since this is HN, what are the legal, game theoretic, and technical means to ensure that your will is executed to the letter?
Bind the executor to a contract before hand? Perhaps have two additional watchdog entities setup to sue if the executor disobeys? Have a smart contract oracle escrow on the blockchain to automatically pay out to the law firm for suit if the number of ISBNs associated with your name increases?
Bind the executor to a contract before hand? Perhaps have two additional watchdog entities setup to sue if the executor disobeys? Have a smart contract oracle escrow on the blockchain to automatically pay out to the law firm for suit if the number of ISBNs associated with your name increases?
Roberto Bolaño wanted 2666 to be 5 split novels
As someone who deals with art and artists on the regular, the thing most people don’t realize is how much our perception of them and their art is built on top of an illusion. It’s the artist’s job to create an illusion of a cohesive narrative. Sometimes that gets into artists’ heads and they’re overly afraid of breaking down that narrative, but sometimes that fear is absolutely justified. It’s a hard judgment call that unfortunately gets even more confused by the prospect of making straight bank
[deleted]
Ugh I'm sorry to do this to you but I'd like to learn more about that world if you're up to a paid consult. Contact info in my profile.
Michelangelo burned as many of his sketches as possible days before his death in a similar attempt, some biographers believe, to control his posthumous reputation.
[deleted]
Reminds me of Go Set a Watchman.
After Dr. Seuss died, they started publishing his unpublished stuff. "Daisy-Head Mayzie" is the one that comes to mind. At a certain point in my life I used to think that was bad, but to be honest I feel like it's naive to think we have any control of our legacy after we die.
I think it's best to publish these things, but treat them as more archival biographical than anything else, like a journal. I honestly don't think "Daisy-Head Mayzie" is bad, or even the worst thing with Dr. Seuss' name on it, and it's an interesting look into his opinions on becoming famous. I'm glad it was published, even if he wouldn't be.
I think it's best to publish these things, but treat them as more archival biographical than anything else, like a journal. I honestly don't think "Daisy-Head Mayzie" is bad, or even the worst thing with Dr. Seuss' name on it, and it's an interesting look into his opinions on becoming famous. I'm glad it was published, even if he wouldn't be.
They probably wanted to publish the work but couldn't do it, so they left it up to chance. If one really wants to destroy their work, they throw it into the fire like James Joyce did with Stephen Hero, or what became Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Fortunately his wife Nora was quick enough to save it, helped by his sister. I tried to read it but only made it to chapter three.
Terry Pratchett had a plan for things he was working on at the time of his death:
> Pratchett told Neil Gaiman that anything that he had been working on at the time of his death should be destroyed by a steamroller. On 25 August 2017, his assistant Rob Wilkins fulfilled this wish by crushing Pratchett's hard drive under a steamroller at the Great Dorset Steam Fair.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Pratchett#Unfinished_tex...
> Pratchett told Neil Gaiman that anything that he had been working on at the time of his death should be destroyed by a steamroller. On 25 August 2017, his assistant Rob Wilkins fulfilled this wish by crushing Pratchett's hard drive under a steamroller at the Great Dorset Steam Fair.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Pratchett#Unfinished_tex...
Good call. You can hardly find cases where the heirs of great authors didn't simply leech off the estate, normally with little to no regard to artistic integrity.
Christopher Tolkien is, as always, the exception that proves this rule.
Considering that the creation process heavily involved Christopher in that their father-son story time inspired a large part of it, one could probably qualify him as a coauthor in terms of non-financial attachment to the works.
And Frank Zappa's family, with the exception of his son Dweezil...
Must be a revenge for giving him that name
Heh. One of Dweezils sisters is "Moon Unit"...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Zappa
(Oh, and Dweezil is the one who's trying very hard to maintain his father's legacy, the rest of the family is cashing in and selling out at every opportunity.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Zappa
(Oh, and Dweezil is the one who's trying very hard to maintain his father's legacy, the rest of the family is cashing in and selling out at every opportunity.)
This could be fixed by making IP become public domain on the author's death instead of an asset to the estate. Make the heirs earn their own livings.
I think that was the right call. Pratchett's works after the Alzheimer onset weren't bad by any means, but they became very formulaic and didn't have the creativity of his best books. They're not helped by Moist van Lipwig being imo his most boring protagonist.
I don't love Moist the way I do Sam Vimes, but the last handful of Industrial Revolution-themed Discworld novels are among my favorites. Maybe it's because I'm a software developer who trained in economics, but the discussions of monetary systems and public policy in satire is much appreciated.
I really liked the first Moist von Lipwig book. The second one is ok. The third (Raising Steam) is just...bad. It's not funny, it's not anything. You can absolutely tell that Pratchett was losing his abilities.
To me it felt like he was hurrying to kind of tie a bow on Discworld and settle at least some of the longer-term plot threads he'd been playing with, similar to The Shepherd's Crown (which is better). The train theme of the book felt apropos, because he was loading a bunch of his characters on the express train to a reasonably happy ending.
...and maybe in a few centuries or perhaps even decades, we'll have someone recover something interesting from that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37857417
That's too bad. Kinda selfish in a way.
I felt a spark of rage when I read this. It's even more selfish to demand content from an artist.
How so?
It's what's more important? Doing fan service for fans who will revere your grocery list because it brings them joy? Or leaving behind a body of work you're really proud of and is widely respected?
I make it black and white but it's not obvious to me you always want to publish things just because some people will devour them.
I make it black and white but it's not obvious to me you always want to publish things just because some people will devour them.
> It's what's more important? Doing fan service for fans who will revere your grocery list because it brings them joy? Or leaving behind a body of work you're really proud of and is widely respected?
Since you'll be dead and utterly unaffected either way, I'd go with pleasing the fans. Also, it's really a freebie for your legacy if it's understood that it was written under the influence of dementia and published posthumously.
On the other hand, if I thought it would be depressing or unpleasant to fans more than please them, I would want it destroyed.
But that's what I'd do. Terry Pratchett had every right to make his own decision on this. Even with dementia, that's 100% his call. (Of course, his assistant should make sure he was fairly consistent on this point, when most lucid.)
Since you'll be dead and utterly unaffected either way, I'd go with pleasing the fans. Also, it's really a freebie for your legacy if it's understood that it was written under the influence of dementia and published posthumously.
On the other hand, if I thought it would be depressing or unpleasant to fans more than please them, I would want it destroyed.
But that's what I'd do. Terry Pratchett had every right to make his own decision on this. Even with dementia, that's 100% his call. (Of course, his assistant should make sure he was fairly consistent on this point, when most lucid.)
I get where you're coming from in a way. But speaking personally, the idea of people peeking at my creations before I'm ready for them to is anathema. Like, some fundamental violation of the self.
I think it's perfectly fine for last wishes to be a little selfish.
My father was an artist, also suffering from some dementia, and towards the end he went through huge stacks of his work and put much of it aside and told me to throw those away.
But I noticed that a number of the ones he wanted me to throw away were works he had signed. So when he made them, he had been proud of them. My thinking was similar to Marquez's sons: why should I trust his opinion now rather than his opinion then?
So I put them aside and labeled them as "rejected" rather than throwing them away. They will always be listed as "rejected" but I still think they were worth keeping.
But I noticed that a number of the ones he wanted me to throw away were works he had signed. So when he made them, he had been proud of them. My thinking was similar to Marquez's sons: why should I trust his opinion now rather than his opinion then?
So I put them aside and labeled them as "rejected" rather than throwing them away. They will always be listed as "rejected" but I still think they were worth keeping.
If he really wanted it destroyed, he'd have destroyed it.
Kafka wanted the same, if his will wasn't violated, we wouldn't know Kafka's novels, just a few stories here and there (who didn't make a spash anyway, so they'd vanish without works like the Trial and the Tower to drive interest to them). Though one could argue that how Kafka's wish was treated was itself Kafkaesque. We didn't liberate the works from his death wishes, we stomped on Kafka once more.
The real moral of the story is: delete your browser history.
Kafka wanted the same, if his will wasn't violated, we wouldn't know Kafka's novels, just a few stories here and there (who didn't make a spash anyway, so they'd vanish without works like the Trial and the Tower to drive interest to them). Though one could argue that how Kafka's wish was treated was itself Kafkaesque. We didn't liberate the works from his death wishes, we stomped on Kafka once more.
The real moral of the story is: delete your browser history.
>If he really wanted it destroyed, he'd have destroyed it.
Maybe he wanted to keep working on it and if it had reached a standard that he found acceptable, he would have published it, and if he had died before then, he didn't want it published"
Maybe he wanted to keep working on it and if it had reached a standard that he found acceptable, he would have published it, and if he had died before then, he didn't want it published"
There's a free article on NPR about this:
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/06/1236246186/gabriel-garcia-mar...
There's also a related story about the author at the time of his death (April 17, 2014):
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7606131 (160 comments)
Gabriel García Márquez, Literary Pioneer, Dies at 87 (nytimes.com)
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/06/1236246186/gabriel-garcia-mar...
There's also a related story about the author at the time of his death (April 17, 2014):
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7606131 (160 comments)
Gabriel García Márquez, Literary Pioneer, Dies at 87 (nytimes.com)
I find myself utterly torn on stuff like this. I don't know about in this particular case but I think about cases like Ottilie Assing who had her entire (meticulously preserved) collection of letters destroyed on her death. There were countless historical treasures in there that were entirely lost to history. Correspondence with important contemporary people, and entire stories that will just never be known. Frederick Douglass is probably the most significant figure involved, but she corresponded with countless leaders in the abolition, feminism, and religious freedom movements, including leaders of states.
The humanity behind the romantics was so obscured because of their careful crafting of their images, and a loss like that is impossible to even fathom. I'm sure she was in her opinion protecting people, but from this futuristic vantage point where we recognize the humanity in people, the human connection and loss from such willful destruction is painful to contemplate, and everybody involved is long dead.
If a friend of mine asked me to destroy their unpublished work I would, but I would probably hate myself for doing it.
The humanity behind the romantics was so obscured because of their careful crafting of their images, and a loss like that is impossible to even fathom. I'm sure she was in her opinion protecting people, but from this futuristic vantage point where we recognize the humanity in people, the human connection and loss from such willful destruction is painful to contemplate, and everybody involved is long dead.
If a friend of mine asked me to destroy their unpublished work I would, but I would probably hate myself for doing it.
Lets say you could take someone's remains and boot them up in a laptop and peruse all their memories from when they were living. Accept for a minute this piece of science fiction, but let's say the technology was there, it would just be about respecting or not the dead person's privacy. The ethics to me sound similar, if wishes are clearly known or can be inferred by a standard of reasonableness (like in the case of memories), I think the person's privacy trumps society's curiosity.
Thanks this is a great thought experiment! It does seem like a great reductio ad absurdum since the collection of papers/correspondence is merely a subset of the life's worth of memories. I find myself being repulsed at this intrusion/invasion of privacy, so I am (as I suspected) very torn and inconsistent on this one.
I think more than curiosity, in a case like this, it's the matter of the artistic merit. I don't think the sons would have published this if they didn't feel it was worth doing so.
Good Black Mirror premise tho.
Good Black Mirror premise tho.
This reminds me of the amazing Kentucky Route Zero game, which references a bunch of magical realism authors like Marquez.
Careful there.
Could be another masterpiece... or it could be one of the 3480 new "Dune" novels allegedly written from Frank Herbert's notes. Quality stuff, that.
Could be another masterpiece... or it could be one of the 3480 new "Dune" novels allegedly written from Frank Herbert's notes. Quality stuff, that.
I’m conflicted about this. On one hand, I adore his books and I’m sure this would be great, even if he didn’t think so himself. Reviews I’ve read suggest it’s good, though not as good as his best work.
But I feel like I’m being disloyal if I read something he explicitly wanted no one to read. On balance I think I’ll skip it. I got plenty of other books to read anyway.
But I feel like I’m being disloyal if I read something he explicitly wanted no one to read. On balance I think I’ll skip it. I got plenty of other books to read anyway.
Would you refuse to unearth an ancient roman villa just because we have a papyrus of an emperor saying he hated its design?
There is a question about at which point personal belongings become part of history, i.e. get museumified, but we all know that at some point we stop thinking of those private endeavors as secrets to keep forever and they become part of public history.
There is a question about at which point personal belongings become part of history, i.e. get museumified, but we all know that at some point we stop thinking of those private endeavors as secrets to keep forever and they become part of public history.
Conversely why would I financially support the decision to go against this man's wishes for his own work?
Why should a dead person's wishes bind the actions of living people?
Because it's nice to live in a society where the living isn't tramatised by the knowledge of what happens to your legacy after you die.
For example, it could be argued that the best way to dispose of corpses is composting and not cemeteries or cremation. With that in mind, should the state not impose that everyone is composted?
Even though I personally wouldn't care if that's the ultimate fate of my body, lots of people DO care about that. There would be a harm done to society if something like this was forced on the remains of their loved ones.
So the round about answer is, because it's a nice thing to do that makes people feel good and that has value.
The fact that we are having this discussion sort of underlines the issue with going against the wishes of the dead. It makes people uncomfortable and upset.
That being said, it probably wouldn't feel nearly as ghoulish if Garcia was dead for more than a couple of years. The reason it feels uncomfortable is her family is going against her wishes to publish his book ostensibly for the money. That feels a little like grave robbing. (Which, again, could be viewed in the same light. Why does grave robbing matter?)
For example, it could be argued that the best way to dispose of corpses is composting and not cemeteries or cremation. With that in mind, should the state not impose that everyone is composted?
Even though I personally wouldn't care if that's the ultimate fate of my body, lots of people DO care about that. There would be a harm done to society if something like this was forced on the remains of their loved ones.
So the round about answer is, because it's a nice thing to do that makes people feel good and that has value.
The fact that we are having this discussion sort of underlines the issue with going against the wishes of the dead. It makes people uncomfortable and upset.
That being said, it probably wouldn't feel nearly as ghoulish if Garcia was dead for more than a couple of years. The reason it feels uncomfortable is her family is going against her wishes to publish his book ostensibly for the money. That feels a little like grave robbing. (Which, again, could be viewed in the same light. Why does grave robbing matter?)
Because it will put those who are still living at ease. Dying is a touchy topic already, and the expectation of having one's wishes honored after one's death can inform decisions while still alive.
Also yeah. Disrespecting a perfectly reasonable wish of a deceased and tainting their legacy is just a deeply dishonorable thing and I will actively shun people who do so.
Also yeah. Disrespecting a perfectly reasonable wish of a deceased and tainting their legacy is just a deeply dishonorable thing and I will actively shun people who do so.
someone's legacy != someone's curated image
A writer's works is definitely their legacy.
Also the unpublished works
Most definitely not if you have them destroyed like T.P.
What was even your point about "someone's curated image"? Was that supposed to go somewhere or are you planning to impart pieces of your wisdom one statement at a time, hoping people will extrapolate some sort of argument in the most charitable manner?
I really cannot be bothered, especially since it seems like we're just splitting hairs here and arguing about definitions.
What was even your point about "someone's curated image"? Was that supposed to go somewhere or are you planning to impart pieces of your wisdom one statement at a time, hoping people will extrapolate some sort of argument in the most charitable manner?
I really cannot be bothered, especially since it seems like we're just splitting hairs here and arguing about definitions.
Your legacy is by definition everything that you leave behind. If you wrote a book that went unpublished and you didn't completely destroy it then it's part of your legacy by default and it doesn't "taint" it if it gets rediscovered. What might get "tainted" is the public image you wanted to uphold, which is made of a subset (usually small) of your legacy.
The point is that refusing to publish a work because it might "taint" someone's legacy is the same as refusing to public a historical academic paper because some new findings you discovered might "taint" some medieval king's legacy. You're not tainting anything, you're just uncovering more truth and more details which will be useful to future people to reach their own conclusions.
The point is that refusing to publish a work because it might "taint" someone's legacy is the same as refusing to public a historical academic paper because some new findings you discovered might "taint" some medieval king's legacy. You're not tainting anything, you're just uncovering more truth and more details which will be useful to future people to reach their own conclusions.
Some king's correspondence is very much not the same thing as literary works produced by a writer. That's a completely disingenuous argument. These things document historical fact. They're generally not art.
However adding to an artist's/writer's oeuvre without their consent is no better than changing the works themselves. You might as well be painting over things or change passages willy-nilly.
Additionally our social contract mandates that relatives and other trustees faithfully execute any reasonable last wishes of the deceased. If my sons disrespected my wishes like that, they might as well write "fuck you dad" in my epitaph. Historians years later are bound by no such thing and their insults would mean very little.
However adding to an artist's/writer's oeuvre without their consent is no better than changing the works themselves. You might as well be painting over things or change passages willy-nilly.
Additionally our social contract mandates that relatives and other trustees faithfully execute any reasonable last wishes of the deceased. If my sons disrespected my wishes like that, they might as well write "fuck you dad" in my epitaph. Historians years later are bound by no such thing and their insults would mean very little.
>Some king's correspondence is very much not the same thing as literary works produced by a writer.
It is in the context of being a historical fact.
>You might as well be painting over things or change passages willy-nilly.
Non sequitur. Adding a book to a bibliography does not change the content of the books that have come before.
You seem to confuse historical importance with artistic importance. If I only want to read Marquez's good books I will not read this last unofficial one. If I am a student writing a PhD dissertation about him I absolutely want every single fact I can get my hands on. Original sketches are extremely important in every subfield of history: from poetry to literature to music to painting. Many things we have from past artists are private and yet fundamental for understanding their life and their craft.
It is in the context of being a historical fact.
>You might as well be painting over things or change passages willy-nilly.
Non sequitur. Adding a book to a bibliography does not change the content of the books that have come before.
You seem to confuse historical importance with artistic importance. If I only want to read Marquez's good books I will not read this last unofficial one. If I am a student writing a PhD dissertation about him I absolutely want every single fact I can get my hands on. Original sketches are extremely important in every subfield of history: from poetry to literature to music to painting. Many things we have from past artists are private and yet fundamental for understanding their life and their craft.
out of respect? Paraphrasing Chesterton, tradition is refusing to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.
If I respect an author enough to spend hours of my life reading her work, why should I discard her opinion the moment she dies? If you're going to honor one thing about a person it probably ought to be their will.
If I respect an author enough to spend hours of my life reading her work, why should I discard her opinion the moment she dies? If you're going to honor one thing about a person it probably ought to be their will.
Is the profession of a historian inherently immoral then? How many things we know and how many of them are of crucial historical importance that were not supposed to be known?
Idea is that historians don’t deal with recently deceased and they are not digging into their close relatives or friends.
I do wish my close ones to obey my will. I don’t care about some random person 50 years later after I die.
I will also obey the will of my relatives and close ones to show that I respect the will so when it is my turn to go away others will treat me as I treated others.
I do wish my close ones to obey my will. I don’t care about some random person 50 years later after I die.
I will also obey the will of my relatives and close ones to show that I respect the will so when it is my turn to go away others will treat me as I treated others.
>Idea is that historians don’t deal with recently deceased
Cold War historians exist and have to deal with people both recently deceased or still alive. Should Cold War history research be locked away for a century or more?
Cold War historians exist and have to deal with people both recently deceased or still alive. Should Cold War history research be locked away for a century or more?
> Why should a dead person's wishes bind the actions of living people?
Let's start by looting rich dead people fortune the day they die: Steve Jobs money could have been used to reduce the US national debt!
Let's start by looting rich dead people fortune the day they die: Steve Jobs money could have been used to reduce the US national debt!
It's a funny sentiment but I don't think Steve Jobs' entire fortune would put the smallest dent into the national debt. A quick google indicates he was worth about 8 billion, while the national debt in 2011 was around 15 trillion. 15 trillion minus 8 billion is still basically 15 trillion...
Would still have paid for a lot of university debt, food-stamp, or Medicare...
Because you want to read it? There's no other reason. Personally I think once you're dead you don't get to decide anything any more. That's just life.
Nobody is forcing you to buy it. I will though. Also this book will make its way into libraries and eventually become public domain.
Legit question: Would you read it if it were free but still against the creator's wishes?
Nope. The entire thing seems deeply disrespectful and there are enough other books to keep me entertained for several lifetimes.
I heard about this on NPR this morning (which is looks like someone already posted the link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39633900), and it sounds like the sons justification was that the book was good and the issues was that Gabriel García Márquez's wasn't in the right mind to recognize his own work anymore.
Is this a valuable literary work that deserves to be published? How would we even go about deciding such a thing, without breaking the deceased's will anyways?
Or, is this just the estate saying, "The money from the previous books is drying up! We can either get real jobs, or go against dad's wishes for free money." In which case, screw that.
But even if you agree with the latter, given the complexity of the former, I feel like the fix there is that the rules for publishing works of the deceased should be different, e.g. it is immediately in the public domain so that there is no (or at least less) financial incentive since the original author has already decided not to profit from it. That would at least let us address the former questions more clearly and with reverence.
"When he said it doesn't make sense he didn't realize it didn't make sense to him anymore."
Is this a valuable literary work that deserves to be published? How would we even go about deciding such a thing, without breaking the deceased's will anyways?
Or, is this just the estate saying, "The money from the previous books is drying up! We can either get real jobs, or go against dad's wishes for free money." In which case, screw that.
But even if you agree with the latter, given the complexity of the former, I feel like the fix there is that the rules for publishing works of the deceased should be different, e.g. it is immediately in the public domain so that there is no (or at least less) financial incentive since the original author has already decided not to profit from it. That would at least let us address the former questions more clearly and with reverence.
> I feel like the fix there is that the rules for publishing works of the deceased should be different, e.g. it is immediately in the public domain so that there is no (or at least less) financial incentive since the original author has already decided not to profit from it.
sometimes the plan is for the children/successors to benefit from the works. Some do ask for things to be published after they're gone
sometimes the plan is for the children/successors to benefit from the works. Some do ask for things to be published after they're gone
Yeah, I get it. There's a lot of complexity. I considered including something about "when the author has explicitly said not to release it" which draws up even more complexity in this case because the children argued 'Dad wasn't in the right mind.' So does that make it OK?
But honestly, for my part anyways, I'm not sure any of that matters.
I'm a big fan of creativity. It's probably the most valuable thing people have and it ought to be protected and rewarded.
That's why this is even a dilemma for me because I would be disappointed to see a good creative work lost forever just because they didn't see the value of their own work.
But that's also why I'm against that kind of inheritance. Children, especially those who have the luxury and of good upbringing, should be encouraged to pursue their own creativity and produce their own value, rather than riding on the coattails of their forebears.
But honestly, for my part anyways, I'm not sure any of that matters.
I'm a big fan of creativity. It's probably the most valuable thing people have and it ought to be protected and rewarded.
That's why this is even a dilemma for me because I would be disappointed to see a good creative work lost forever just because they didn't see the value of their own work.
But that's also why I'm against that kind of inheritance. Children, especially those who have the luxury and of good upbringing, should be encouraged to pursue their own creativity and produce their own value, rather than riding on the coattails of their forebears.
Emily Dickinson likely intended that all of her works be destroyed after her death. Her sister disregarded her will and saw them published instead.
This is an ancient conflict. IIUC, Kafka wanted his work destroyed. I think about half his published material is posthumous because his friends couldn't bring themselves to comply with his wishes and, in fact, believed it was important for the world to read it.
>believed it was important for the world to read it
Sure, if you also ignore the obvious economic reasons attached to it.
Sure, if you also ignore the obvious economic reasons attached to it.
Economy is not a zero sum game. There's no reason why both sides can't benefit from it.
Or maybe his incentives were not purely economical? Why should I have to assume that?
Because there's a thing called "the public domain" and they didn't opt for that.
I don't know what the "public domain" discourse was in the 1920s, if was considered even an option. But there are other things you relinquish by giving it to public domain, not only money.
The guy died in 1968. He slowly released the material among the course of 44 years; after his death, many of these documents remain unreleased. Kind of a weird behavior for somebody acting under the premise that "it was important for the world to read it".
He then left everything in hands of his secretary, who proceeded to, among other things:
* Sell plenty of Kafka's letters and postcards to private entities.
* Attempting to smuggle (out) some manuscripts without filing photocopies to the Archives of the National Library of Israel, which is required by law and is also, again, kind of a weird behavior for somebody acting under the premise that "it was important for the world to read it".
* Auctioned an original manuscript of The Trial, fetching about 2 million USD.
I couldn't find evidence of one single piece of material that was willingly donated to a museum or similar entity by either Max Brod or Esther Hoffe during the 83 years (!) they had it under their possession.
Even squinting very very very hard at the situation, it's hard for me to not see "the obvious economic reasons attached to it".
>But there are other things you relinquish by giving it to public domain
Like what?
He then left everything in hands of his secretary, who proceeded to, among other things:
* Sell plenty of Kafka's letters and postcards to private entities.
* Attempting to smuggle (out) some manuscripts without filing photocopies to the Archives of the National Library of Israel, which is required by law and is also, again, kind of a weird behavior for somebody acting under the premise that "it was important for the world to read it".
* Auctioned an original manuscript of The Trial, fetching about 2 million USD.
I couldn't find evidence of one single piece of material that was willingly donated to a museum or similar entity by either Max Brod or Esther Hoffe during the 83 years (!) they had it under their possession.
Even squinting very very very hard at the situation, it's hard for me to not see "the obvious economic reasons attached to it".
>But there are other things you relinquish by giving it to public domain
Like what?
Thank you for taking the time to add more information!
What you relinquish when you release something into public domain is control over how publishes and possibly who edits it.
What you relinquish when you release something into public domain is control over how publishes and possibly who edits it.
[deleted]
Kafka was virtually unknown during his lifetime. It's unlikely that there was any expectation of profit. They probably just liked the writings and thought it would be a shame to destroy them.
I was just about to post!
I believe the world would not have been a better place without these books.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Brod#Publication_of_Kafk...
I believe the world would not have been a better place without these books.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Brod#Publication_of_Kafk...
This is how I look at it: a lot of artists say that once a work is "out there", it really belongs to the audience. Also, people start to get funny POVs when they get older. He may have been living with a bunch of contradictory energies.
Did Pale King tarnish DFW's reputation? (Maybe a bad example, his demons did a bit of that) DFW's short stories and earlier novels seem to have stood well on their own and survived the publishing of the incomplete Pale King.
Did Pale King tarnish DFW's reputation? (Maybe a bad example, his demons did a bit of that) DFW's short stories and earlier novels seem to have stood well on their own and survived the publishing of the incomplete Pale King.
> once a work is "out there", it really belongs to the audience.
I wouldn't call a draft of an unpublished novel on a personal hard drive, "out there".
I wouldn't call a draft of an unpublished novel on a personal hard drive, "out there".
> But I feel like I’m being disloyal if I read something he explicitly wanted no one to read.
He won't mind.
He won't mind.
> "We did think about it for about three seconds - was it a betrayal to my parents, to my father's [wishes]?
> "And we decided, yes, it was a betrayal. But that's what children are for."
Haha, fucking brilliant. I love this. Certainly the children of the man. I think this is a good thing they have done. There is no harm done to the man, since he no longer exists. Truly philosophical descendants of Diogenes of Sinope.
> "And we decided, yes, it was a betrayal. But that's what children are for."
Haha, fucking brilliant. I love this. Certainly the children of the man. I think this is a good thing they have done. There is no harm done to the man, since he no longer exists. Truly philosophical descendants of Diogenes of Sinope.
I think Gabriel Garcia Marquez would have been fully on board with that thinking.
You mean that Diogenes of Sinope?
Garnering all this attention and going through all this trouble? For money? Over stuff that wasn't even his but just "given to him"?
No way!
Garnering all this attention and going through all this trouble? For money? Over stuff that wasn't even his but just "given to him"?
No way!
Personally I think it is right to respect the reasonable wishes of the recently deceased, but there’s a time limit on everything. Eventually, the deceased pass into history and become fair game. There’s no sharp boundary, but 10 years isn’t that long.
[deleted]
If you don’t accept the risk of your children running amok with your personal, artistic, cultural, or spiritual legacy, don’t have children.
I don’t absolve his children of making the decision they did, but I also don’t possess their lived experience and would hesitate to make generalizations about all generational privacy concerns on the basis of a single person of interest, however famous.
I don’t absolve his children of making the decision they did, but I also don’t possess their lived experience and would hesitate to make generalizations about all generational privacy concerns on the basis of a single person of interest, however famous.
> Of course it's not a trashy romance novel, it is an amazing work of art
Quote by the editor. Highlights a problem to me. Since Marquez is so famous, they feel the need to put this novel on a pedestal, even though it might just be "okay". Which of course is okay in itself.
I also think the sons contradict themselves when they say that their father lost the intellectual power to judge if the book should be published, yet didn't he also write it during this time? So I understand it like Marquez was aware of his mental problems and that's why he decided not to publish.
Quote by the editor. Highlights a problem to me. Since Marquez is so famous, they feel the need to put this novel on a pedestal, even though it might just be "okay". Which of course is okay in itself.
I also think the sons contradict themselves when they say that their father lost the intellectual power to judge if the book should be published, yet didn't he also write it during this time? So I understand it like Marquez was aware of his mental problems and that's why he decided not to publish.
[deleted]
An interesting take on the topic from our philosopher friends at https://hiphination.org/complete-season-one-episodes/episode...
These days we don't know if that's true or if is just a marketing ploy to publish some unfinished book.
[deleted]
We are often our own harshest critics.
I think you should have someone you trust to gauge the quality of your work and let them make the call.
Because like people here have pointed out, some authors wanted their works destroyed when they died, but for some that is the work we most know them by.
I think you should have someone you trust to gauge the quality of your work and let them make the call.
Because like people here have pointed out, some authors wanted their works destroyed when they died, but for some that is the work we most know them by.
100 years of solitude was a book that left such an imprint on me. I read it nearly 25 years ago, and it was many years after reading the book that I finally started to understand it, but glad that I read it.. a true masterpiece!
For a publicly known figure, a committee needs to be assembled, filled with one loved direct nuclear family member, mostly to object to everything and the rest of be still mostly distant cousins, aunts/unckes, etc.. And a to piss most of you off, i would demand a religious entity that of the Christian faith and that person's entire presence is to protect the deceased honor, even if the dead had none in life. Why it should be this convoluted? Because i want those unpublished whatever too, precisely because thats the subject matter that made the dead one famous. But since we're robbing his grave, I'd want to make myself feel good by appearing to care about "honor". Which you'd be crapping on in the next sentence.
I can't remember if it was Warhol or Zappa who strictly enjoined (with no legal force) his heirs/descendants/family from putting his image/words on coffee mugs and it happened anyway.
[deleted]
What if he did want it published, and this is just marketing?
See also (but no comments there, as we merged the thread hither):
Gabriel García Márquez Wanted to Destroy His Last Novel. It's Being Published - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39630173
Gabriel García Márquez Wanted to Destroy His Last Novel. It's Being Published - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39630173
A disgrace. I will never buy or even read these. None of us should.
Good call.
How is this ethical?
Craven, talentless children of one of the world's greatest (deceased) authors publish part of his work against his will. Wonder why . . .
Disgusting.
Disgusting.
There’s the famous story about the scholars who broke into Beethoven’s tomb hoping to rescue some lost pieces that were buried with him. When they opened it, they found him furiously erasing the manuscripts.
“What are you doing?” the horrified scholars asked.
“Leave me alone,” Beethoven replied. “I’m decomposing.”
“What are you doing?” the horrified scholars asked.
“Leave me alone,” Beethoven replied. “I’m decomposing.”
That was a good one.
[deleted]
Life belongs to the living. If he really wanted his last novel destroyed, he should have done it himself while he was still able to do so.
"Life belongs to the living, and he who lives must be prepared for changes." - Goethe
[deleted]
lagt_t(1)
wly_cdgr(1)
why is this on Hacker News?
From the Guidelines on what to submit:
"On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."
"On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."