Comments on: Personhood

By: Carrie

Carrie — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:23:23 +0000

Ah. If we’re not talking about cases where the author left instructions in a will, then how do we know the author wanted the partial works destroyed? This makes a difference.

By: felix

felix — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 01:20:19 +0000

In the case of The Original of Laura, we’re almost certainly not talking about an Aeneid-class great work, or even really a work at all — as I understand it, it’s a thirty page first draft fragment. (Actually, according to wikipedia, it’s fifty pages of index cards). That’s not just unfinished, that’s hardly even begun. It would be interesting to scholars, but no normal person’s ever going to read it.

By: BT

BT — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:18:39 +0000

Of course, authors can condition bequests in their will upon the recipient’s destruction of any unfinished work. But I think, in the absence of something specific like that in a will, works should be preserved. For me, the reason for the inverse relationship between the author’s stature and the respect for their wishes is due to the benefit society derives from their work. The “greater” the author, the greater the reason to preserve their work for posterity.

By: felix

felix — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:01:15 +0000

i have a serious answer to this question and it’s brilliant but the margins of my free time at work are too small to contain it

By: felix

felix — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:40:16 +0000

The text has always been centered for me. On all computers I use

sarah

saaaaaaarrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaahhhh

saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh

fix it fix it

By: Carrie

Carrie — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:05:10 +0000

Huh. Now the text is left-justified.

By: Carrie

Carrie — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:04:52 +0000

Nevertheless, isn’t the wish of an author due some respect, not because authors have good judgment about such things (indeed, they may not) but simply because they are the property owners? Proprietor of the work, by god (to quote Stephen King). If I get to decide who gets my jewelry when I die, hell, if I get to decide who cares for my KID when I die, even if some of my heirs and assigns disagree, shouldn’t I get to decide what happens to my work?

It is ironic that the more respected the author’s work is, the less respected his or her wishes with regards to that work are likely to be.

By: BT

BT — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:45:16 +0000

Obviously its a judgment call for the heirs of the author. Absent some extraordinary reason — the work is of an extremely poor quality even for a draft or is patently offensive — I think the work should be preserved. Authors are their worst critics and are often tormented by their own insecurity. Further, people on their deathbeds are not able to look at the matter rationally. Most importantly, following his or her passing, the feelings of the author are no longer relevant. The question becomes, in my mind, is the document a valuable addition to either literature (or its respective field) or to history (as an example of the author’s internal life and/or process). In addition to the examples already given, Virgil asked that the Aeneid be burned even though he had worked on it for 11 years. Octavian saved it (for propaganda reasons rather than for any love of literature), and I think humans have benefited from that decision.

By: Carrie

Carrie — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:50:20 +0000

The text has always been centered for me. On all computers I use (four, if you include the BlackBerry).

I find that I am indeed conflicted about the unfinished manuscripts. I cannot imagine not having read Kafka’s The Trial. Nor can I imagine being willing to discard, say, the safety deposit box full of J.D. Salinger manuscripts that is supposedly out there in… New Hampshire, I guess… despite his OBVIOUS desire for privacy. Yet. I can’t imagine being the one to say “yes, this author is SO respected that we should totally ignore his/her wishes for the greater good.” And, by the way, what if the books really did suck?

All I can conclude is that writers obviously need a backup plan, since apparently (at least in the World o’ Gilman) last wills and testaments have a statute of limitations. We gotta get these remnants burned BEFORE the public finds out, in other words. Felix, in the event that our spouses cannot perform the necessary immolation, would you care to join me in a pact to be responsible for burning each other’s unfinished drafts? Or would you prefer they stay in a bank vault until your work is fully appreciated and the debate can then rage on in your honor?

By: felix

felix — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:15:15 +0000

By the way, does the text appear centred to you? It doesn’t on my computer at home, but it does — I have just discovered — in the office. It’s not meant to be.