One of my bugbears is the idea of publishers getting someone to write about the same characters after the death of an author. Agatha Christie wrote Hercule Poirot's last case, and held onto the manuscript for 30 years, having it published in 1975, the year before she died. But now we have another series of "Hercule Poirot" books, being published five decades later. In this case, I feel the author made her feelings clear, if not explicit, and they should be respected.
Very much enjoyed this video, lots to think about with posthumous publishing and as you say, every case is different. Persuasion is the best example of an excellent posthumous novel, but I’ve read some that I didn’t realise were posthumously published, that I thought were not good or certainly didn’t match up to my expectations of the author. One example I read in recent years was Those Bones Are Not My Child by Toni Cade Bambara. This was absolutely a harrowing book and one that deserved to be published, but it was edited after the authors death by Toni Morrison and I personally thought it could have taken a lot more editing and probably would have been edited more had the author lived to do so. When I read up on it, apparently it was twice as long in the authors own draft which she had worked on and researched for many years. Anyway, a fascinating topic to explore. And Minerva was great as always. 🐈⬛
Excellent video, Claudia! I was thinking about Go Set a Watchman the whole way through, so I’m pleased you mentioned it at the end. I did buy it and read it at the time and then just felt very uncomfortable about the whole thing. I hated it and it is definitely something that is an early draft of a novel that contains the seeds of what would later become to kill a Mockingbird but I firmly believe that Harper Lee in her right mind never meant for it to see the light of day! Rihanna Pratchett has recently released a book, which is Tiffany Aching’s guide to witchcraft, or to being a witch or something like that, and I don’t know how I feel about that knowing how protective Pratchett was over his work while he was alive. But she is his beloved daughter, and it’s not like the estate needs the money, so perhaps it’s just her way of connecting with her father and continuing his legacy? I don’t know. One I will have to look into further.
This was absolutely fascinating! Wonderful job, Claudia. I think Terry Pratchett's decision was smart particularly since, as you said, he had time to come to terms with the situation, and was able to focus on finishing the works he wanted to prioritize for publishing. And hey, it's not like his published works are scarce. I'm glad his estate followed through with his wishes.
Although I understand why he wanted it done, and the method was very cool and Pratchetty, seeing that crushed hard drive makes me cry a little every time.
Loved this video, your exploration of the ethics and nuances involved in publishing works after an author's death are incredibly insightful. I remembered the steamrollered hard drive but forgot about the point of the action and it's a good reminder about that control that writer's have during the process of a book being published. That's so sad about the publication of works explicitly against the wishes of a writer. Though considering publications of book that are ahead of their times is really hopeful - it's finished and ready and waiting for everyone else to catch up. I'd have a lot more to say but i sometimes worry about putting too much into a comment in case it acts as a spoiler to the video. You video is wonderfully thought-provoking.
Thank you for this video -- such an interesting topic! When I saw the title of your video, Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird was the first book I thought of. The next book I thought of was Wives and Daughters by Elizabeth Gaskell -- a novel I love.
So thought provoking-- and emotion provoking. So complex. Thank you for your research and excellent presentation, good work. Very interesting. Bottom line, for me in this moment, is that the author should know what will happen at his demise and if goaded by strong desire should himself destroy the words, if possible ( time, health, etc) . Idk. After our passing ,hopefully we arent aware any more whats happening in the circus here.
This was fascinating! There's another aspect if this topic, the one of the unfinished novels that are finished by a different author. Recently I had an edition of Edith Wharton's last novel, finished by another author but the book didn't explained which chapters were written by Wharton and which ones were added to it, so I decided to walk away from that copy. I'm not sure if I'd like to read such a book.
Tangentially related but I always think about the concept of public ownership when it comes to the publication of things like diaries and letters. On the one hand they can often provide invaluable insights and obviously things like Anne Frank's Diary are an essential record of life for under the Holocaust. but it's weird to think about how publicly available private correspondence and writing that was absolutely not intended for public consumption are. There's almost certainly a line where I find it acceptable to read and publish people's diaries/letters but thinking about fairly recently deceased I always ick out a bit when their private correspondence and writing is published by their estates.
I agree. I know Jane Austen's sister burned a bunch of Jane's letters -- and probably at the Jane's request -- right after she died. I'm guessing Austen's not the only author who asked for that privacy.
Absolutely brilliant video! I loved the research you presented, the scale of dodginess, and the humour you brought into it. It’s interesting how the further removed in time and/or the more successful a posthumous novel is, the more society seems to accept it. Because of course it should be published - everyone loves it! /s (and the affected author isn’t around anymore to potentially speak against it) Definitely some good food for thought in your video ☺️
Thank you for this very interesting video. I didn't know about most of these. I did know a bit about Jane Austen, but not how much her brother had a role in it. Great content!
Forster also left express instructions to Christopher Isherwood for publishing Maurice, so publishing it was concurrent with Forster's dying wishes. The story of how the manuscript for Maurice was smuggled out of Europe by Forster's queer and author connections so it could be published is quite interesting.
I was wondering if you would mention the collection of work that was published after the death of Douglas Adams. The work clearly wasn't too to Adams' standard and should never have been published. It's clearly an attempt to cash in and as such leaves the reader disappointed and feeling duped. His legacy, albeit of a creative life cut short, should have been left as it was without the posthumous publication watering it down in my opinion. 😕
And then there's the latest entrant into shady posthumous publishing, but who has left all the other estates eating dust: Roberto Bolaño, whose output after death is only matched by 2pac's in size and... suspicious barrel-scraping. Since his death in 2003 (at age 50) his estate has published one thousand-page-long novel, four additional novels between 200-360 pages, three short story collections and a poetry collection. His estate has received plenty of side-eyes over the last two decades, but heck, I can't blame them for wanting to make something out of someone who was the epitome of the cursed, hard-knock literary writer (his books probably sell by the tens/hundreds of thousands in Spanish).
I am a historian and a literary scholar. The idea of an author's unfinished works and letters being destroyed is utterly devastating. In my opinion, the author's feelings about it are largely immaterial. It doesn't take a psychologist to tell you that if you did not want a piece of writing published, you would destroy it yourself. Byron's Memoirs were destroyed, Dickens letters burned, several volumes of Sylvia Plath's diaries were destroyed as was a second novel. This is nothing less than the desecration of a cultural artifact. I can see perhaps putting personal things in trust not to be made public for fifty years to spare living people. And as for publishing unfinished or posthumous works as a money grab, I think this is beside the point. Making these works available for scholars, fans, and the general public is needed and wanted.
An authors feelings matter , those works belong to them and them only ,even after death ,we aren't owed any of their personal belongings, including something so personal as books ,letters or journals.
As an archivist, I have an ethical responsibility to adhere to the wishes of the owner of a record. They have an absolute right to destroy, or to order the destruction, of their archive or any portion of it. If they are unable to do so during their lifetime, their wishes should be respected by those who have promised to take on the responsibility for them.
@@katebowers8107 Is it a right though? Most American courts do not uphold the notion that an owner has the right destroy that which is his/hers. Is the world a better place because we have Kafka's The Trial and Forster's Maurice? I think so.
Doing a little more research, the right to destroy works of art, literary works, items of antiquity, correspondence with public officials, and newly built or architecturally important buildings are all forbidden.
@@bethflynn5342 Um, depending on where you live, you might not be able to destroy a building that you own, but the manuscript of your own novel? The letters people sent to you? You have an absolute right to destroy those if you OWN THEM. 🙄 In most of the US, you can’t prevent people from tearing down historic buildings if they own the property. Massachusetts general law section 1101, for example “There is no obligation for owners of historic buildings to use the provisions of this chapter. “
![What even is a classic and why you're wrong about it [CC]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JP1HBBJ8vaU/mqdefault.jpg)
![What even is a classic and why you're wrong about it [CC]](/img/tr.png)
![When The Machine Stops: Isolation and the Death of Social Media [CC]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nWq5UOYQSPk/mqdefault.jpg)
![These Wuthering Heights Book Covers Are Silly [CC]](/img/1.gif)
One of my bugbears is the idea of publishers getting someone to write about the same characters after the death of an author. Agatha Christie wrote Hercule Poirot's last case, and held onto the manuscript for 30 years, having it published in 1975, the year before she died. But now we have another series of "Hercule Poirot" books, being published five decades later. In this case, I feel the author made her feelings clear, if not explicit, and they should be respected.
I am on the other side. If someone can recreate the magic of Sherlock Holmes or Jeeves and Wooster, count me in. I just want more.
@@purplesprigs The word "If" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here! 😉 There are a lot of truly dreadful Sherlock pastiches out there.
Very much enjoyed this video, lots to think about with posthumous publishing and as you say, every case is different. Persuasion is the best example of an excellent posthumous novel, but I’ve read some that I didn’t realise were posthumously published, that I thought were not good or certainly didn’t match up to my expectations of the author.
One example I read in recent years was Those Bones Are Not My Child by Toni Cade Bambara. This was absolutely a harrowing book and one that deserved to be published, but it was edited after the authors death by Toni Morrison and I personally thought it could have taken a lot more editing and probably would have been edited more had the author lived to do so. When I read up on it, apparently it was twice as long in the authors own draft which she had worked on and researched for many years.
Anyway, a fascinating topic to explore. And Minerva was great as always. 🐈⬛
Excellent video, Claudia! I was thinking about Go Set a Watchman the whole way through, so I’m pleased you mentioned it at the end. I did buy it and read it at the time and then just felt very uncomfortable about the whole thing. I hated it and it is definitely something that is an early draft of a novel that contains the seeds of what would later become to kill a Mockingbird but I firmly believe that Harper Lee in her right mind never meant for it to see the light of day! Rihanna Pratchett has recently released a book, which is Tiffany Aching’s guide to witchcraft, or to being a witch or something like that, and I don’t know how I feel about that knowing how protective Pratchett was over his work while he was alive. But she is his beloved daughter, and it’s not like the estate needs the money, so perhaps it’s just her way of connecting with her father and continuing his legacy? I don’t know. One I will have to look into further.
This was absolutely fascinating! Wonderful job, Claudia.
I think Terry Pratchett's decision was smart particularly since, as you said, he had time to come to terms with the situation, and was able to focus on finishing the works he wanted to prioritize for publishing. And hey, it's not like his published works are scarce. I'm glad his estate followed through with his wishes.
Although I understand why he wanted it done, and the method was very cool and Pratchetty, seeing that crushed hard drive makes me cry a little every time.
Well done! I learned a lot, and you gave me much to consider. More please!
Loved this video, your exploration of the ethics and nuances involved in publishing works after an author's death are incredibly insightful. I remembered the steamrollered hard drive but forgot about the point of the action and it's a good reminder about that control that writer's have during the process of a book being published.
That's so sad about the publication of works explicitly against the wishes of a writer. Though considering publications of book that are ahead of their times is really hopeful - it's finished and ready and waiting for everyone else to catch up. I'd have a lot more to say but i sometimes worry about putting too much into a comment in case it acts as a spoiler to the video.
You video is wonderfully thought-provoking.
Thank you for this video -- such an interesting topic!
When I saw the title of your video, Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird was the first book I thought of.
The next book I thought of was Wives and Daughters by Elizabeth Gaskell -- a novel I love.
So thought provoking-- and emotion provoking. So complex. Thank you for your research and excellent presentation, good work. Very interesting. Bottom line, for me in this moment, is that the author should know what will happen at his demise and if goaded by strong desire should himself destroy the words, if possible ( time, health, etc) . Idk. After our passing ,hopefully we arent aware any more whats happening in the circus here.
And, while here, I need all the Jane Austen...😊
I loved the spectrum you created to measure the ethics of posthumous publishing, haha. Wonderfully informative! Thank you.
I’ve instructed my Siri to destroy all of the things I’ve ever said when I believe I’m going to die.
This was so well researched and presented, and I loved learning about all of these. I wish this could be a series!
What fantastic content, Claudia. Thank you.
This was fascinating! There's another aspect if this topic, the one of the unfinished novels that are finished by a different author. Recently I had an edition of Edith Wharton's last novel, finished by another author but the book didn't explained which chapters were written by Wharton and which ones were added to it, so I decided to walk away from that copy. I'm not sure if I'd like to read such a book.
Excellent video - I learned so much from you today. Thank you very much.
This was a fantastic video. I’m off to look at some of the links you added. Thank you.
Tangentially related but I always think about the concept of public ownership when it comes to the publication of things like diaries and letters. On the one hand they can often provide invaluable insights and obviously things like Anne Frank's Diary are an essential record of life for under the Holocaust. but it's weird to think about how publicly available private correspondence and writing that was absolutely not intended for public consumption are. There's almost certainly a line where I find it acceptable to read and publish people's diaries/letters but thinking about fairly recently deceased I always ick out a bit when their private correspondence and writing is published by their estates.
I agree. I know Jane Austen's sister burned a bunch of Jane's letters -- and probably at the Jane's request -- right after she died. I'm guessing Austen's not the only author who asked for that privacy.
Absolutely brilliant video! I loved the research you presented, the scale of dodginess, and the humour you brought into it. It’s interesting how the further removed in time and/or the more successful a posthumous novel is, the more society seems to accept it. Because of course it should be published - everyone loves it! /s (and the affected author isn’t around anymore to potentially speak against it)
Definitely some good food for thought in your video ☺️
Thank you for this very interesting video. I didn't know about most of these. I did know a bit about Jane Austen, but not how much her brother had a role in it.
Great content!
glad youtube recommended me this video ! very well made.
Forster also left express instructions to Christopher Isherwood for publishing Maurice, so publishing it was concurrent with Forster's dying wishes. The story of how the manuscript for Maurice was smuggled out of Europe by Forster's queer and author connections so it could be published is quite interesting.
I rarely comment on videos but I greatly enjoyed this. Great work!
I loved this video! Such an interesting topic. I didn't know about most of these posthumous publication cases.
I was wondering if you would mention the collection of work that was published after the death of Douglas Adams.
The work clearly wasn't too to Adams' standard and should never have been published. It's clearly an attempt to cash in and as such leaves the reader disappointed and feeling duped.
His legacy, albeit of a creative life cut short, should have been left as it was without the posthumous publication watering it down in my opinion. 😕
This is so interesting!
The trip to Dorset wasn't difficult, it is only an hour drive away from his old home
And then there's the latest entrant into shady posthumous publishing, but who has left all the other estates eating dust: Roberto Bolaño, whose output after death is only matched by 2pac's in size and... suspicious barrel-scraping. Since his death in 2003 (at age 50) his estate has published one thousand-page-long novel, four additional novels between 200-360 pages, three short story collections and a poetry collection. His estate has received plenty of side-eyes over the last two decades, but heck, I can't blame them for wanting to make something out of someone who was the epitome of the cursed, hard-knock literary writer (his books probably sell by the tens/hundreds of thousands in Spanish).
I bet Neil Gaiman was given those manuscripts (they were both very good friends)… 😏
I am a historian and a literary scholar. The idea of an author's unfinished works and letters being destroyed is utterly devastating. In my opinion, the author's feelings about it are largely immaterial. It doesn't take a psychologist to tell you that if you did not want a piece of writing published, you would destroy it yourself. Byron's Memoirs were destroyed, Dickens letters burned, several volumes of Sylvia Plath's diaries were destroyed as was a second novel. This is nothing less than the desecration of a cultural artifact. I can see perhaps putting personal things in trust not to be made public for fifty years to spare living people. And as for publishing unfinished or posthumous works as a money grab, I think this is beside the point. Making these works available for scholars, fans, and the general public is needed and wanted.
An authors feelings matter , those works belong to them and them only ,even after death ,we aren't owed any of their personal belongings, including something so personal as books ,letters or journals.
As an archivist, I have an ethical responsibility to adhere to the wishes of the owner of a record. They have an absolute right to destroy, or to order the destruction, of their archive or any portion of it. If they are unable to do so during their lifetime, their wishes should be respected by those who have promised to take on the responsibility for them.
@@katebowers8107 Is it a right though? Most American courts do not uphold the notion that an owner has the right destroy that which is his/hers. Is the world a better place because we have Kafka's The Trial and Forster's Maurice? I think so.
Doing a little more research, the right to destroy works of art, literary works, items of antiquity, correspondence with public officials, and newly built or architecturally important buildings are all forbidden.
@@bethflynn5342
Um, depending on where you live, you might not be able to destroy a building that you own, but the manuscript of your own novel? The letters people sent to you? You have an absolute right to destroy those if you OWN THEM. 🙄
In most of the US, you can’t prevent people from tearing down historic buildings if they own the property. Massachusetts general law section 1101, for example “There is no obligation for owners of historic buildings to use the provisions of this chapter. “
Poshumous publishing is, imo, fine at least morally regardless of the author's wishes. The author is dead, they can't care post hoc what happens.