Comments on: Reading forbidden material

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 05:18:18 +0000

I'd vote for honoring the author's wishes. As intriguing as it might be to look at unfinished works or those works the author calls "forbidden", I believe we have to follow the law on this one, if instructions are left. I know I'd want my wishes followed, so I make certain to have them written into my will!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 22:21:01 +0000

It's always OK to disrespect somebody's wishes because it suits you!

If it were me, I'd come back to life just to strangle the bastard. And possibly eat his brain.

By: Mischa KK Bagley

Mischa KK Bagley — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 07:55:08 +0000

Well yes, I do think it's OK for someone to override a writer's instructions to destroy that writer's work after death. Apart from Nobokov, I think only one other example need be cited to illustrate the point: Franz Kafka.

Mischa KK Bagley.

By: Myrna Foster

Myrna Foster — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:34:37 +0000

I thought of Tolkien's work too.

I don't even let my husband read my first drafts.

By: Christine M.

Christine M. — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 00:21:04 +0000

Somehow that made me think of Christopher Tolkien publishing everything and anything his father had ever scribbled down on a piece of paper.

By: Kristin Laughtin

Kristin Laughtin — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:54:03 +0000

I'm actually not in favor of going against an author's last wishes, because I would not want someone to go against my own wishes like that. My first drafts are rough. Often, when revising, I find that some of my points didn't come through the way I intended, and I would not want the world to judge me off something that just came out wrong. I feel like my writing is mine until I choose to share it, and would resent someone else making that choice for me. It'd be even more so if a past work of mine had been considered genius. Perhaps the newest one would have been too if I'd had time to finish, but releasing it while sloppy just casts doubt on everything I've ever written.

By: Court

Court — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:35:06 +0000

The problem in this case, I think, is that Nabokov was once asked in an interview if he would ever let critics / scholars have a look at his first drafts. He said never, and said it would be like offering up his sputum for examination.

The Original of Laura is a very rough draft, and reads as such, egregious misspellings and all. I don't think Nabokov would have approved. But he's dead. And I, for one, and glad to have the chance to catch a glimpse of Nabokov's inner workings. It reveals him as human, for one thing, and not a Writing Deity as his superlative prose sometimes makes him appear to be.

By: MitMoi

MitMoi — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:06:24 +0000

I think it depends on how the author viewed most of his work.

If he was one of those who never thought anything was "good enough" - then maybe it was perfectionism that led him to request it not be published ... and maybe it's a beautifully wrought piece of work - ready for the light of day.

But what if it were a "shitty" first draft? Not perfected and polished. I'm not sure I'd want a "less than my best effort" included in the canonical record of my work.

And God forbid someone post-passing comment on how it didn't stand up - and maybe the other works were "flukes".