> Publishing something that the author did not want
> published is wrong: it is akin to digging up the poor man's bones and
> putting them on display in a circus.
This is an interesting remark. And in principle I agree. However, being
very interested in the next few artists (as an example), greedy Tom
would still love to see their "hidden" work:
- Kubrick's first movie "Fear and desire" (I believe that's the title)
which he tried to hide from the world afterwards. Yes it will be
amateuristic in a low budget way but I would still love to see work of
the beginning artist
- unpublished Salinger - there are quite a few stories which appeared in
The New Yorker that were never collected. Possibly including other
stories with the Franny & Zoe family of characters. It wouldn't surprise
if you look in the murkiest corners of the net then maybe you might be
able to find illegal scans of these texts. As it is now, I'll have to
wait until he's dead. And to think that he has a few other novels in his
safe, I just hope he never burned them.
- any unpublished R.R. Ryan? By now we suspect that Ryan was a man who
also wrote under another pseudonym but that's about it.
- in general you might also wonder if published letters of a dead writer
are so ethical. Those are personal. But if Nabokov's letters were never
published, we would never be able to read to following gem: in response
to an editor who invited writers to write for (say) $1000 a 5000 word
essay on (I think I remember more or less correctly) "Are artists
responsible any bad influence that their work might have on the
public?", Nabokov answered: "No. I get 20 cent from you, sir."
So yes it's an interesting question. I tend to think that if a writer
really doesn't want a manuscript ever to see print; (s)he should burn
it/ erase it from the hard disk.
ciao, Tom<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
>> Stay informed about: The Living Haunt The Dead 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
