[HN Gopher] Gabriel Garcia Marquez: Sons publish novel that late...
___________________________________________________________________
Gabriel Garcia Marquez: Sons publish novel that late author wanted
destroyed
Author : divbzero
Score : 34 points
Date : 2024-03-07 05:36 UTC (17 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.co.uk)
| wryoak wrote:
| Classic: authors trying to take their texts to the grave. We also
| wouldn't have The Master and Margarita if Bulgakov's wife had
| respected his death bed wish to have it burnt.
| shrubble wrote:
| Manuscripts don't burn, however...
| neogodless wrote:
| There's a free article on NPR about this:
|
| https://www.npr.org/2024/03/06/1236246186/gabriel-garcia-mar...
|
| There's also a related story about the author at the time of his
| death (April 17, 2014):
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7606131 (160 comments)
|
| _Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Literary Pioneer, Dies at 87_
| (nytimes.com)
| nindalf wrote:
| I'm conflicted about this. On one hand, I adore his books and I'm
| sure this would be great, even if he didn't think so himself.
| Reviews I've read suggest it's good, though not as good as his
| best work.
|
| But I feel like I'm being disloyal if I read something he
| explicitly wanted no one to read. On balance I think I'll skip
| it. I got plenty of other books to read anyway.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| This is an ancient conflict. IIUC, Kafka wanted his work
| destroyed. I think about half his published material is
| posthumous because his friends couldn't bring themselves to
| comply with his wishes and, in fact, believed it was important
| for the world to read it.
| moralestapia wrote:
| >believed it was important for the world to read it
|
| Sure, if you also ignore the obvious economic reasons
| attached to it.
| fifilura wrote:
| Or maybe his incentives were not purely economical? Why
| should I have to assume that?
| moralestapia wrote:
| Because there's a thing called "the public domain" and
| they didn't opt for that.
| fifilura wrote:
| I don't know what the "public domain" discourse was in
| the 1920s, if was considered even an option. But there
| are other things you relinquish by giving it to public
| domain, not only money.
| moralestapia wrote:
| The guy died in 1968. He slowly released the material
| among the course of 44 years; after his death, many of
| these documents remain unreleased. Kind of a weird
| behavior for somebody acting under the premise that "it
| was important for the world to read it".
|
| He then left everything in hands of his secretary, who
| proceeded to, among other things:
|
| * Sell plenty of Kafka's letters and postcards to private
| entities.
|
| * Attempting to smuggle (out) some manuscripts without
| filing photocopies to the Archives of the National
| Library of Israel, which is required by law and is also,
| again, kind of a weird behavior for somebody acting under
| the premise that "it was important for the world to read
| it".
|
| * Auctioned an original manuscript of The Trial, fetching
| about 2 million USD.
|
| I couldn't find evidence of _one_ single piece of
| material that was willingly donated to a museum or
| similar entity by either Max Brod or Esther Hoffe during
| the 83 years (!) they had it under their possession.
|
| Even squinting very very _very_ hard at the situation, it
| 's hard for me to not see "the obvious economic reasons
| attached to it".
|
| >But there are other things you relinquish by giving it
| to public domain
|
| Like what?
| quatrefoil wrote:
| Kafka was virtually unknown during his lifetime. It's
| unlikely that there was any expectation of profit. They
| probably just liked the writings and thought it would be a
| shame to destroy them.
| fifilura wrote:
| I was just about to post!
|
| I believe the world would not have been a better place
| without these books.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Brod#Publication_of_Kafk.
| ..
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _But I feel like I'm being disloyal if I read something he
| explicitly wanted no one to read._
|
| He won't mind.
| Almondsetat wrote:
| Would you refuse to unearth an ancient roman villa just because
| we have a papyrus of an emperor saying he hated its design?
|
| There is a question about at which point personal belongings
| become part of history, i.e. get museumified, but we all know
| that at some point we stop thinking of those private endeavors
| as secrets to keep forever and they become part of public
| history.
| forgetfreeman wrote:
| Conversely why would I financially support the decision to go
| against this man's wishes for his own work?
| Almondsetat wrote:
| Nobody is forcing you to buy it. I will though. Also this
| book will make its way into libraries and eventually become
| public domain.
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| Why should a dead person's wishes bind the actions of
| living people?
| csdvrx wrote:
| > Why should a dead person's wishes bind the actions of
| living people?
|
| Let's start by looting rich dead people fortune the day
| they die: Steve Jobs money could have been used to reduce
| the US national debt!
| tombert wrote:
| It's a funny sentiment but I don't think Steve Jobs'
| entire fortune would put the smallest dent into the
| national debt. A quick google indicates he was worth
| about 8 billion, while the national debt in 2011 was
| around 15 trillion. 15 trillion minus 8 billion is still
| basically 15 trillion...
| toyg wrote:
| Would still have paid for a lot of university debt, food-
| stamp, or Medicare...
| Barrin92 wrote:
| out of respect? Paraphrasing Chesterton, tradition is
| refusing to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of
| those who merely happen to be walking about.
|
| If I respect an author enough to spend hours of my life
| reading her work, why should I discard her opinion the
| moment she dies? If you're going to honor one thing about
| a person it probably ought to be their will.
| Almondsetat wrote:
| Is the profession of a historian inherently immoral then?
| How many things we know and how many of them are of
| crucial historical importance that were not supposed to
| be known?
| ozim wrote:
| Idea is that historians don't deal with recently deceased
| and they are not digging into their close relatives or
| friends.
|
| I do wish my close ones to obey my will. I don't care
| about some random person 50 years later after I die.
|
| I will also obey the will of my relatives and close ones
| to show that I respect the will so when it is my turn to
| go away others will treat me as I treated others.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Because it's nice to live in a society where the living
| isn't tramatised by the knowledge of what happens to your
| legacy after you die.
|
| For example, it could be argued that the best way to
| dispose of corpses is composting and not cemeteries or
| cremation. With that in mind, should the state not impose
| that everyone is composted?
|
| Even though I personally wouldn't care if that's the
| ultimate fate of my body, lots of people DO care about
| that. There would be a harm done to society if something
| like this was forced on the remains of their loved ones.
|
| So the round about answer is, because it's a nice thing
| to do that makes people feel good and that has value.
|
| The fact that we are having this discussion sort of
| underlines the issue with going against the wishes of the
| dead. It makes people uncomfortable and upset.
|
| That being said, it probably wouldn't feel nearly as
| ghoulish if Garcia was dead for more than a couple of
| years. The reason it feels uncomfortable is her family is
| going against her wishes to publish his book ostensibly
| for the money. That feels a little like grave robbing.
| (Which, again, could be viewed in the same light. Why
| does grave robbing matter?)
| chmod775 wrote:
| Because it will put those who are still living at ease.
| Dying is a touchy topic already, and the expectation of
| having one's wishes _honored_ after one 's death can
| inform decisions while still alive.
|
| Also yeah. Disrespecting a perfectly reasonable wish of a
| deceased and tainting their legacy is just a deeply
| dishonorable thing and I will actively shun people who do
| so.
| Almondsetat wrote:
| someone's legacy != someone's curated image
| chmod775 wrote:
| A writer's works is definitely their legacy.
| Almondsetat wrote:
| Also the unpublished works
| chmod775 wrote:
| Most definitely not if you have them destroyed like T.P.
|
| What was even your point about "someone's curated image"?
| Was that argument supposed to go somewhere or are you
| planning to impart pieces of your wisdom one statement at
| a time, hoping people will extrapolate some sort of
| argument in the most charitable manner?
|
| I really cannot be bothered, especially since it seems
| like we're just splitting hairs here and arguing about
| definitions.
| adammarples wrote:
| Because you want to read it? There's no other reason.
| Personally I think once you're dead you don't get to decide
| anything any more. That's just life.
| lagadu wrote:
| Legit question: Would you read it if it were free but still
| against the creator's wishes?
| kansface wrote:
| Emily Dickinson likely intended that all of her works be
| destroyed after her death. Her sister disregarded her will and
| saw them published instead.
| browningstreet wrote:
| This is how I look at it: a lot of artists say that once a work
| is "out there", it really belongs to the audience. Also, people
| start to get funny POVs when they get older. He may have been
| living with a bunch of contradictory energies.
|
| Did Pale King tarnish DFW's reputation? (Maybe a bad example,
| his demons did a bit of that) DFW's short stories and earlier
| novels seem to have stood well on their own and survived the
| publishing of the incomplete Pale King.
| lizard wrote:
| I heard about this on NPR this morning (which is looks like
| someone already posted the link:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39633900), and it sounds
| like the sons justification was that the book was good and the
| issues was that Gabriel Garcia Marquez's wasn't in the right
| mind to recognize his own work anymore. "When
| he said it doesn't make sense he didn't realize it didn't make
| sense to him anymore."
|
| I'm not familiar with this work so have no stake in this
| particular game, but it sits uneasy for me anyways. For myself,
| I think it mostly comes down to the incentives for releasing
| it.
|
| Is this a valuable literary work that deserves to be published?
| How would we even go about deciding such a thing, without
| breaking the deceased's will anyways?
|
| Or, is this just the estate saying, "The money from the
| previous books is drying up! We can either get real jobs, or go
| against dad's wishes for free money." In which case, screw
| that.
|
| But even if you agree with the latter, given the complexity of
| the former, I feel like the fix there is that the rules for
| publishing works of the deceased should be different, e.g. it
| is immediately in the public domain so that there is no (or at
| least less) financial incentive since the original author has
| already decided not to profit from it. That would at least let
| us address the former questions more clearly and with
| reverence.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| Life belongs to the living. If he really wanted his last novel
| destroyed, he should have done it himself while he was still able
| to do so.
| Narretz wrote:
| > Of course it's not a trashy romance novel, it is an amazing
| work of art
|
| Quote by the editor. Highlights a problem to me. Since Marquez is
| so famous, they feel the need to put this novel on a pedestal,
| even though it might just be "okay". Which of course is okay in
| itself.
|
| I also think the sons contradict themselves when they say that
| their father lost the intellectual power to judge if the book
| should be published, yet didn't he also write it during this
| time? So I understand it like Marquez was aware of his mental
| problems and that's why he decided not to publish.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| It's not unusual for authors to express a desire for their
| unpublished works to be destroyed. Kafka wanted all his
| unpublished works to be destroyed - consider these are most of
| his known works now, we're quite lucky his executor, Max Brod,
| defied his wishes.
| csdvrx wrote:
| > It's not unusual for authors to express a desire for their
| unpublished works to be destroyed. Kafka wanted all his
| unpublished works to be destroyed - consider these are most of
| his known works now, we're quite lucky his executor, Max Brod,
| defied his wishes.
|
| Are we lucky, or was Kafka unlucky?
|
| I find the lack of respect about authors' wishes very shocking.
| drunkpotato wrote:
| Why? They're dead. Not trying to be flippant, I honestly
| don't get why the deceased's desires should be elevated over
| the living's. It's a moral choice I don't agree with and
| don't entirely understand.
| hosh wrote:
| This is less about the deceased's desires over that of the
| living and more about creative control. Any creator will
| want to polish their work. It's already difficult enough to
| articulate and express the source of inspiration, and even
| polished, the material expression almost never matches its
| source.
| vidarh wrote:
| I've published two novels, and I have _tons_ of notes for
| all kinds of things, and frankly while there is lots I
| have written that I don 't want to publish until/unless I
| rework it, and some things I don't want to publish at
| all, I couldn't give a shit what gets published after I'm
| dead _other than to the extent it 'd harm or embarrass
| anyone I care about_. I don't think I have anything
| that'd harm anyone, but I do have things that might
| embarrass some. Like love poems written in my youth that
| has sentimental value for me, but might be embarrassing
| to my present or then girlfriend, for example.
|
| Frankly, all I'd ask of a literary executor would be that
| they 1) humor my requests while I'm alive, 2) respect the
| wishes of my family. Other than that, whether they
| _actually_ follow through on my wishes? Put it this way,
| if I find myself in an afterlife, as an atheist, I doubt
| whether my executor stuck my wishes will be high on my
| list of things to care about. And without an afterlife it
| 's not as if I'd be able to care. Or know,
| ghaff wrote:
| I can see both views. On the one hand, authors aren't
| always the best judges of their own work and executors
| can hire someone who may do a good job of polishing. On
| the other hand, there are unfinished works that are
| relatively mediocre (True at First Light) or just clearly
| unfinished (The Last Tycoon).
|
| Of course, a movie studio is almost certain to finish off
| a movie if a director dies and may remove them for other
| reasons.
| hosh wrote:
| It's true, a good editor or producer collaborates with
| the creative to get it across the finish line, flawed as
| it is.
|
| It works better if there is mutual respect.
|
| My point though is when generalizing and reframing this
| about the deceased vs living, more often than not, it is
| no longer about respecting (even respectfully
| disagreeing) with the creative and more about
| disrespecting the deceased.
| ghaff wrote:
| >It's true, a good editor or producer collaborates with
| the creative to get it across the finish line, flawed as
| it is.
|
| If it's a studio film, they may well fire the director
| and hire a new one. And, of course, screenwriters are
| casually script doctored with or without their consent.
| hosh wrote:
| Sure, because it is funded by a commercial concern and
| they are in the business of selling entertainment.
|
| With books, the balance of power isn't so skewed to the
| publisher, though I suppose it depends on what it is.
|
| I don't know what circumstances Tolkien's unfinished work
| was released, though it seems like his son toiled away at
| them for years.
| ghaff wrote:
| True, and there's typically far less money (or big
| expenses) involved with books.
|
| I always assumed Christopher Tolkien had some sort of "do
| with them what you think best" agreement with his father
| although I don't actually know. Not that there's anything
| particularly special in written word beyond Tolkien's
| originals.
| chasil wrote:
| Well, I guess that we all need to stop listening to
| Schubert's unfinished symphony.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._8_(Schubert)#E
| arl...
| westhanover wrote:
| Do I have permission to desecrate your corpse? You are
| dead after all.
| jkestner wrote:
| I'm donating my body to art, so sure.
| pfdietz wrote:
| Do what Steven Wright plans and donate your body to
| science fiction.
| itishappy wrote:
| Does this apply to inheritance too? Why should we care what
| happens to our kids once we die?
| drunkpotato wrote:
| While we're alive, we care. When we're dead, it's up to
| our children to care. Inheritance wishes are generally
| respected, but also can and do get overridden. I'm not
| saying that an author's wishes shouldn't be taken into
| account, the living still care about how they felt while
| they were alive, but it shouldn't be the one and only
| priority that gets respected. Again, the dead can't care
| anymore. Only the living can.
| hosh wrote:
| That really depends upon your beliefs and understanding
| of the cosmos. Not everyone agrees with that.
|
| To be fair, I have practiced shaivasana ("corpse pose"),
| specifically including "corpse don't care" as a response
| to existential anguish arising and passing. But I also
| know quite a good bit about what it means to regret and
| long for second chances or a path not taken. I think it
| is quite rare for anyone (regardless of beliefs) to die
| without regrets. If you are able to pull that off for
| yourself, I'm glad for you.
| hosh wrote:
| It's interesting you bring up kids.
|
| In a belief system where there is a Creator, and the
| Creator is a Mother, all of Creation are her children.
| Thus, as humans, raising and nurturing a child is as much
| of an act of creation as art, music, etc. And conversely,
| our artistic creations tend to develop a life of its own.
| nottorp wrote:
| But but... our copyright lords at the Mouse's castle have
| decreed that copyright lasts 75 years after the author's
| death.
|
| That means it's illegal to not respect the dead person's
| wishes. The copyright is theirs, not their descendant's.
| pfdietz wrote:
| Copyright lasts for that period, but it doesn't continue
| to belong to the dead person.
| jzb wrote:
| They weren't deceased when they expressed the desire. You
| usually don't know when, exactly, you're going to die.
| Nobody would argue, I hope, with "I'm going on a trip,
| don't publish anything I'm not done with until I get back
| and finish it." This just happens to be a very long, one-
| way trip.
|
| That said, I do think once someone is dead, there's some
| argument whether you have to respect that. But I at least
| understand the desire.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| Aside from "they're dead, how can it hurt them" factor,
| there's the point that if an author well and truly wants a
| given work out of the public eye, they can destroy it
| themselves when they're alive.
| jl6 wrote:
| Usually we're talking about things like the author's
| private notes and rough drafts, which they may well wish to
| keep around while they are alive (because they are useful).
| kryptiskt wrote:
| He put them in the care of Brod, who had told him that he
| would refuse to burn them. If he really wanted the work
| burned he wouldn't have put it in the hands of his biggest
| fan.
| chasil wrote:
| Virgil's Aeneid is the most famous example that I know...
|
| "According to tradition, Virgil traveled to Greece around 19 BC
| to revise the Aeneid. After meeting Augustus in Athens and
| deciding to return home, Virgil caught a fever while visiting a
| town near Megara. Virgil crossed to Italy by ship, weakened
| with disease, and died in Brundisium harbour on 21 September 19
| BC, leaving a wish that the manuscript of the Aeneid was to be
| burned. Augustus ordered Virgil's literary executors, Lucius
| Varius Rufus and Plotius Tucca, to disregard that wish, instead
| ordering the Aeneid to be published with as few editorial
| changes as possible. As a result, the existing text of the
| Aeneid may contain faults which Virgil was planning to correct
| before publication. However, the only obvious imperfections are
| a few lines of verse that are metrically unfinished (i.e., not
| a complete line of dactylic hexameter). Other alleged
| "imperfections" are subject to scholarly debate."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeneid#Virgil's_death,_and_edi...
| nescioquid wrote:
| It was the first example I thought of, as well.
|
| I don't really mean this as an accusation, but I suspect
| these death-bed demands are simply a pose. Not that they are
| essentially insincere, but rather a final gesture of
| conscientiousness that should be ignored.
|
| What is lost to the world by retaining the imperfect,
| incomplete?
| virgildotcodes wrote:
| Presumably the image that the dead person was attempting
| cultivate about themselves and their work.
| csallen wrote:
| I think a better explanation is that authors and other
| creators of public works are concerned with how they will
| be perceived.
|
| Otherwise, they wouldn't spend months and years
| meticulously editing and improving their works before
| release.
|
| It's uncomfortable, embarrassing even, to have your
| unfinished work consumed and reviewed as if it were
| finished, and as if it were an accurate measure of your
| intentions and talent.
| david-gpu wrote:
| _> It 's uncomfortable, embarrassing even, to have your
| unfinished work consumed and reviewed as if it were
| finished_
|
| Yes, but when the unfinished work is published, it is
| well known that it was incomplete.
|
| That said, I can understand the author not wanting it to
| be published. If is a shitty thing to publish it against
| the author's will when they are alive, it is equally
| shitty to do it when they have died.
| Jerrrry wrote:
| >most famous
|
| >It is unlikely that Marcus Aurelius ever intended the
| writings to be published.
|
| It is lore that one of his jesters burned himself to save the
| writings from a fire.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations
| rzzzt wrote:
| Add Chopin to the, ahem, list: https://youtu.be/x93pwAvUkAA
| perihelions wrote:
| Brahms was successful at destroying large parts of his work
| product [0]. Kuhlau was too [1], thought he didn't intend to
| --his house burned down.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Brahms#Works (
| _"...once claimed to have destroyed 20 string quartets before
| he issued his official First in 1873... "_)
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Kuhlau
| TheCaptain4815 wrote:
| Roberto Bolano wanted 2666 to be 5 split novels
| COGlory wrote:
| What if he did want it published, and this is just marketing?
| FourHand451 wrote:
| Terry Pratchett had a plan for things he was working on at the
| time of his death:
|
| > Pratchett told Neil Gaiman that anything that he had been
| working on at the time of his death should be destroyed by a
| steamroller. On 25 August 2017, his assistant Rob Wilkins
| fulfilled this wish by crushing Pratchett's hard drive under a
| steamroller at the Great Dorset Steam Fair.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Pratchett#Unfinished_tex...
| msie wrote:
| That's too bad. Kinda selfish in a way.
| aqfamnzc wrote:
| How so?
| ghaff wrote:
| It's what's more important? Doing fan service for fans who
| will revere your grocery list because it brings them joy? Or
| leaving behind a body of work you're really proud of and is
| widely respected?
|
| I make it black and white but it's not obvious to me you
| always want to publish things just because some people will
| devour them.
| magospietato wrote:
| I get where you're coming from in a way. But speaking
| personally, the idea of people peeking at my creations before
| I'm ready for them to is anathema. Like, some fundamental
| violation of the self.
| natebc wrote:
| I think it's perfectly fine for last wishes to be a little
| selfish.
| Narretz wrote:
| I think that was the right call. Pratchett's works after the
| Alzheimer onset weren't bad by any means, but they became very
| formulaic and didn't have the creativity of his best books.
| They're not helped by Moist van Lipwig being imo his most
| boring protagonist.
| johncalvinyoung wrote:
| I don't love Moist the way I do Sam Vimes, but the last
| handful of Industrial Revolution-themed Discworld novels are
| among my favorites. Maybe it's because I'm a software
| developer who trained in economics, but the discussions of
| monetary systems and public policy in satire is much
| appreciated.
| glimshe wrote:
| Good call. You can hardly find cases where the heirs of great
| authors didn't simply leech off the estate, normally with
| little to no regard to artistic integrity.
| sonofhans wrote:
| Christopher Tolkien is, as always, the exception that proves
| this rule.
| xeonmc wrote:
| Considering that the creation process heavily involved
| Christopher in that their father-son story time inspired a
| large part of it, one could probably qualify him as a
| coauthor in terms of non-financial attachment to the works.
| tombert wrote:
| After Dr. Seuss died, they started publishing his unpublished
| stuff. "Daisy-Head Mayzie" is the one that comes to mind. At a
| certain point in my life I used to think that was bad, but to be
| honest I feel like it's naive to think we have any control of our
| legacy after we die.
|
| I think it's best to publish these things, but treat them as more
| archival biographical than anything else, like a journal. I
| honestly don't think "Daisy-Head Mayzie" is bad, or even the
| worst thing with Dr. Seuss' name on it, and it's an interesting
| look into his opinions on becoming famous. I'm glad it was
| published, even if he wouldn't be.
| petre wrote:
| They probably wanted to publish the work but couldn't do it, so
| they left it up to chance. If one really wants to destroy their
| work, they throw it into the fire like James Joyce did with
| _Stephen Hero_ , or what became _Portrait of the Artist as a
| Young Man_. Fortunately his wife Nora was quick enough to save
| it, helped by his sister. I tried to read it but only made it
| to chapter three.
| dang wrote:
| See also (but no comments there, as we merged the thread hither):
|
| _Gabriel Garcia Marquez Wanted to Destroy His Last Novel. It 's
| Being Published_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39630173
| wly_cdgr wrote:
| A disgrace. I will never buy or even read these. None of us
| should.
| 7thaccount wrote:
| This reminds me of the amazing Kentucky Route Zero game, which
| references a bunch of magical realism authors like Marquez.
| dhosek wrote:
| There's the famous story about the scholars who broke into
| Beethoven's tomb hoping to rescue some lost pieces that were
| buried with him. When they opened it, they found him furiously
| erasing the manuscripts.
|
| "What are you doing?" the horrified scholars asked.
|
| "Leave me alone," Beethoven replied. "I'm decomposing."
| grugagag wrote:
| That was a good one.
| nottorp wrote:
| Careful there.
|
| Could be another masterpiece... or it could be one of the 3480
| new "Dune" novels allegedly written from Frank Herbert's notes.
| Quality stuff, that.
| jl6 wrote:
| Personally I think it is right to respect the reasonable wishes
| of the recently deceased, but there's a time limit on everything.
| Eventually, the deceased pass into history and become fair game.
| There's no sharp boundary, but 10 years isn't that long.
| bena wrote:
| We are often our own harshest critics.
|
| I think you should have someone you trust to gauge the quality of
| your work and let them make the call.
|
| Because like people here have pointed out, some authors wanted
| their works destroyed when they died, but for some that is the
| work we most know them by.
| renewiltord wrote:
| > _" We did think about it for about three seconds - was it a
| betrayal to my parents, to my father's [wishes]?_
|
| > _" And we decided, yes, it was a betrayal. But that's what
| children are for."_
|
| Haha, fucking brilliant. I love this. Certainly the children of
| the man. I think this is a good thing they have done. There is no
| harm done to the man, since he no longer exists. Truly
| philosophical descendants of Diogenes of Sinope.
| soperj wrote:
| I think Gabriel Garcia Marquez would have been fully on board
| with that thinking.
| mseepgood wrote:
| How is this ethical?
| selimthegrim wrote:
| I can't remember if it was Warhol or Zappa who strictly enjoined
| (with no legal force) his heirs/descendants/family from putting
| his image/words on coffee mugs and it happened anyway.
| cvalka wrote:
| Good call.
| kouru225 wrote:
| As someone who deals with art and artists on the regular, the
| thing most people don't realize is how much our perception of
| them and their art is built on top of an illusion. It's the
| artist's job to create an illusion of a cohesive narrative.
| Sometimes that gets into artists' heads and they're overly afraid
| of breaking down that narrative, but sometimes that fear is
| absolutely justified. It's a hard judgment call that
| unfortunately gets even more confused by the prospect of making
| straight bank
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-07 23:00 UTC)