Books and Ethics

[Kylie]

Where do you stand on reading books by authors who never wanted them published, or that contain information that was immorally or illegally obtained?

 

I just read an article about scandalous and unauthorised biographies, including one that Diane Wood Middlebrook wrote about Anne Sexton. Apparently she used recorded interviews that were provided to her by Anne's psychiatrist. I think it's disgusting that someone's most private conversations could be used in a publication, but I would also love to read the book. Is that wrong?

 

Maybe the question is a moot point for me. I already have a number of books full of letters and journals by authors such as Sylvia Plath and Franz Kafka. They would probably be horrified to know their private diaries have been published for all the world to read. Is it wrong that I'll always be mad at Ted Hughes for destroying Plath's final journals because now I can never read them? The main reason I never liked keeping a diary was the fear of someone reading it when I died, so what right do I have to read others' diaries?

 

Similarly, authors such as Kafka and Vladimir Nabokov specifically requested that their unpublished works be destroyed when they died. But Nabokov's son went against his wishes and published the unfinished The Original of Laura, and most of Kafka's works were published posthumously after being heavily edited by his friend. Before he died, Kafka wrote: "my last request: Everything I leave behind me ... in the way of diaries, manuscripts, letters (my own and others'), sketches, and so on, [is] to be burned unread."

[poppyshake]

Ooh it's a difficult one isn't it?. It's only natural for us to want to find out more about the people we admire but, I guess, if it's their expressed wish that personal diaries/letters etc are destroyed then it seems wrong for anyone to go against that and publish. It's always irritated me that Cassandra burnt all the interesting letters and passages etc of Jane's because it means we still don't have a very good insight into her but it's what Jane wanted .. or what Cassandra believed she would want so why does it matter .. why do we need to know everything about a person?

I believe Orwell was another that wanted his unpublished work destroyed .. he certainly requested in his will that no biography ever be written about him .. that was eventually ignored. It's almost as if great writers etc have no say when it comes to their own lives .. they are seen as public property .. and what's more a cash cow most probably for someone or the other.

As for Ted it's difficult, but I can buy his reasoning of destroying the journals to protect their children .. though perhaps concealing them for the time being would have been better. Though again they weren't written for publication so if they had all gone into the incinerator it shouldn't matter .. but did Ted have the right to do it? that's the question. Maybe it was something only their children could have decided about later but then, if I was their father, I might not want them to face it either. I imagine it was a spur of the moment thing which maybe he came to regret.

 

So does that make us wrong if we read work that we know wasn't meant for our eyes or that the writer didn't wish ever to see the light of day?. I don't know .. maybe .. but I still do. I love reading letters and diaries and very seldom think about the fact that they were probably meant to remain private

[Janet]

Orwell disliked Keep the Aspidistra Flying and A Clergyman's Daughter (which I loved!) and requested that it wasn’t reprinted again in his lifetime, although he said he didn't object to them being reprinted after his death so that his heirs might receive “a few pounds”.

 

I haven't really thought about it before, but I guess if people request their private documents/unfinished works be deleted after their deaths then that's what should happen. It's disrespectful to go against their wishes.

[Eleonora]

That's exactly the reason why I don't read diaries or unauthorised biographies. Sometimes I don't even read books written postumously if I'm quite sure the author would be uneasy about that. I mean, some authors work for ages on their books, they write and re-write passages. How could I be sure the pages I read are exactly what the author wanted to say?

[Lord Napsack]

We're going way back here to around 20 BC here. The Aeneid was unfinished by the time of Virgil's death and he expressed that when he died it should be burnt. Augustus Caesar was having none of that, told them to ignore his wishes, and then publish the epic with as few edits as possible. The story has a few errors and inconsistencies, but it still tells a pretty good story. Nothing as good as the Homeric epics, but I still enjoy it.

 

If it hadn't have been for the publishing of the Aeneid then I don't think Dante's Inferno would ever have happened. Most of the Inferno is lifted from the Aeneid, specifically the one chapter that takes place in the underworld. Dante was a massive Virgil fan boy and even put Virgil in as his guide.

 

Because of the legacy of the Aeneid I'm kinda OK it was published without his consent. It sucks that this happened, but so much has come from it, if only by proxy through Dante's works.

[Chrissy]

If an author has expressly stated that they want unfinished works etc destroyed then this should be carried out by those designated to do this. They are moraly wrong by doing anything but destroy them. As a reader, our desire to read such intimate stuff is understandable, but where is the line to be drawn?

 

Psychiatric reports / recordings, or any such material that is derived from a confidential environment should never be used. To think of my deepest (and potentially darkest) thoughts and interpretations being put on public display before or after my death is unthinkable, and what a betrayal!

 

You mentioned Ted Hughes and Sylvia Plath and her diaries, and as I read that part I thought to myself, why should the children have any more 'rights' to the writings as then anyone else? They were her intellectual property, and I think Ted Hughes was correct in destroying them.

 

I think the real lesson is to make sure as a writer that your 'papers', be they on paper, computer or disc are in order on a regular basis as as to avoid posthumous publication of things you wish to remain private.

[ian]

_{A very interesting question that almost makes me want to say - yes it's OK to publish, but only after a lengthy period of time has passed. But that means the author doesn't have their wishes respected, which also upsets me! I don't think there is a definative, black and white answer to this.}

[RogerStauss]

They should never see the light of day if the person doesn't want them too! Some people can have very personnel reasons for not wanting to publish.... so their thoughts should always be adhered too!

[bree]

I can be rather nosy sometimes - which is why I think the answer is clear to me.

 

No. They should not be published. The author is the only person who gets a say in the matter.

 

And whether the world lost a great bit of literature, and the reader his pleasure, is, very honestly, irrelevant.

 

Reading what's not meant for your eyes, no matter how tantalising it is, or how harmless it may seem, is a step in the wrong direction.