Friday, April 12, 2013
"Maria" and Posthumous Publishing
As we discussed in class on Wednesday, posthumous publishing of an author's work is nothing new. But, is it always a good idea? Especially when the publisher does not know if the late author would be okay with that? An unedited and unfinished work that could be controversial like Maria has the potential to sully an author's reputation. There are also times when it could invade the author's privacy. I know I don't always like showing unfinished work to others. Someone in class mentioned Dr. Hunter S. Thompson and his posthumous works. Even his suicide note has been made public! While Thompson doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would care, some others might. All this being said, there are posthumous works that I am glad we have. Byron's Don Juan is a good example, as are the poems of Emily Dickinson.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't believe there is any clear answer to this question. Posthumous publishing should be, and is, dealt with case by case. It's ultimately up to whoever has the rights to the work after the author's death. Nothing is ever universally praised or universally hated. There will always be someone who enjoys the posthumous work and someone who hates it. Personally I wouldn't care about my work after I'm dead and if it could be used to help support my family I'd be all for it. People should just follow their best judgment based on the caliber of the work, the present situation, and what they believe the author would have wanted.
ReplyDeleteI think that this question gets down into the heart of the nature of the relationship between Author and reader. More specifically, the nature of their interaction. Does an author really own their work? By that I mean, if we look at the author/reader interaction in such popular series as Harry Potter or Twilight, the readers become invested in the work. The easy answer is to say, "of course an author owns their work." But that is something we say in theory, but tend to not believe in practice. Fan reaction to George Lucas's prequel movies shows that the reader/watcher does feel they participate in the work. If we believed that the author really did "own" their work, I don't think that criticism of authors who "do the wrong thing with their characters" would be quite so vehement. It seems to be that many of the great writers were not appreciated during their time. I tend to think that if we did not have posthumous work, then great literary minds and works would be lost to humanity. Maria might have been controversial during its time, but the fact we are now studying it in a college literature class seems to make the case for posthumous publishing better than almost anything else.
ReplyDeleteI think that this question gets down into the heart of the nature of the relationship between Author and reader. More specifically, the nature of their interaction. Does an author really own their work? By that I mean, if we look at the author/reader interaction in such popular series as Harry Potter or Twilight, the readers become invested in the work. The easy answer is to say, "of course an author owns their work." But that is something we say in theory, but tend to not believe in practice. Fan reaction to George Lucas's prequel movies shows that the reader/watcher does feel they participate in the work. If we believed that the author really did "own" their work, I don't think that criticism of authors who "do the wrong thing with their characters" would be quite so vehement. It seems to be that many of the great writers were not appreciated during their time. I tend to think that if we did not have posthumous work, then great literary minds and works would be lost to humanity. Maria might have been controversial during its time, but the fact we are now studying it in a college literature class seems to make the case for posthumous publishing better than almost anything else.
ReplyDeletevery interesting! I've also been thinking about sites/apps like Fan Fiction and others that allow "the public" to rewrite popular literary works, or to offer up continuations and the like. This was common in the Romantic period as well--a continuation of Coleridge's "Christabel," for example, was published *before* the original poem appeared in print. This suggests that unfinished works, especially those that cannot be finished, often provoke readers in ways the "complete" works do not. We might chalk this up to a human desire for closure, but it could also be that fragments leave imaginative possibilities open, and thus give the reader room to speculate and think through issues. In some ways, unfinished works might serve their ideological and political agendas better because they are unfinished.
ReplyDelete