« Johannes Fedderke and the importance of good governance | Main | Claims my Russian wife won't even deign to laugh at »
Don't burn it
Tom Stoppard weighs in on the burn it/don't burn it debate about Nabokov's unfinished work: "It’s perfectly straightforward: Nabokov wanted it burnt, so burn it."
That is from Bookslut, but Stoppard is wrong. Dead people don't count in the social welfare function. (If they did, how many of them would prefer non-democratic or racist outcomes? And would we count that? We shoudn't and we don't.)
Don't destroy the output. Nor is there an incentive problem. If we release Nabokov's papers as a book, maybe the next Nabokov will burn the manuscript in the first place. We're no worse off, compared to not releasing such manuscripts. Kafka told Max Brod to burn his works, but we're all glad Brod didn't. Think of the current generation as a player in the multiple selves game of the author (he could have burnt it himself long ago) and then the right answer is obvious.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on February 16, 2008 at 01:49 AM in Books | Permalink
Comments
Think of the current generation as a player in the multiple selves game of the author (he could have burnt it himself long ago) and then the right answer is obvious.
Is it really? The right question is if authors really need this sort of commitment - presumably as a sort of credible signaling? Perhaps taking this possibility away will result in fewer really innovative works being written.
Posted by: guest@none.none at Feb 16, 2008 2:59:20 AM
Death is not a certain, planned event. The next Nabokov could conceivably change his mind about burning the papers and release them willingly had he not had to burn them first for fear of their release after his death. Aren't we humans extremely fickle beings?
If you respond by saying that the next Nabokov would keep some way to potentially resurrect the manuscript, then the problem evaporates. Everyone would simply write his manuscripts in his brain, if possible.
/there are consequences to such an action.
Posted by: msun641 at Feb 16, 2008 3:08:40 AM
Not sure the dead racists is a good analogy. Certainly they had no property interest in "racism" like Nabokov had in his book. Maybe a better analogy is someone who intends to set up a charity but dies before it can be formally established. If society establishes it on that person's behalf, shouldn't the person's wishes about the charity be taken into account in the social welfare function? Might that create good incentives for someone to lay the workings of a charity even if he's not completely certain about the direction he wants it to take?
Posted by: swg at Feb 16, 2008 3:13:04 AM
And so in one fell swoop, when they run counter to his own interests, the mighty libertarian overturns the definitive philosophical principles he purports to hold dear. And a few more besides. The right to dispose of personal property as one sees fit? Nope. The right to personal autonomy? Nope. A dying man's decree as to the fate of his own private thoughts? Not even that is to be left him. And for what? Because some guy who "knows better" has deemed himself arbiter for what's best for both art and humanity?
Although Stoppard admirably summed up all that need be considered with regard to this question, the more officious amongst us might also consider that Nabokov apparently was not unacquainted with the mechanisms of publication, and did not lack the means to realize that goal, were he moved to pursue it. Putting self-serving arguments in the mouths of an infinite number of hypothetical Nabokovs who have never existed, while ignoring the last extant wishes of the one who *did* exist, seems an indulgence of pseudo-rational masturbation that is excessive even in a group famous for such things.
I like Elvis, but don't reckon that gives me the right to rifle through whatever's left of his stuff. Shame on you.
Posted by: shane at Feb 16, 2008 4:32:59 AM
I think you are overreacting, Shane. This is a perfectly viable view for someone who views property rights and other libertarian values as vehicles to achieve good outcomes. I never got the impression that Cowen was part of the naive natural rights group of libertarians who base their stances on religious conviction.
Posted by: Erik at Feb 16, 2008 4:54:49 AM
If the book is bad.And it shatters the image we have of Nabokov.And we stop reading Lolita or Ada or Pale Fire Or History of a beheading because he wrote an awfull novel .We all will lose
be worst off.
Posted by: jean at Feb 16, 2008 6:42:10 AM
Very good Shane!
Posted by: Seer at Feb 16, 2008 6:50:24 AM
Dear Tyler ,
the argument about racists is a complete non sequitur: obviously you wouldn't follow a racist's policy if he is alive either.
shane is perfectly right: the same argument would prohibit wills .
You write:"Kafka told Max Brod to burn his works, but we're all glad Brod didn't."
Is that the royal "we"?
I'm not glad at all and Milan Kundera wrote a brilliant essay, aptly called "Les testaments trahis", arguing that Brod was wrong to betray Kafka's confidence.
Dear Erik ,
telling shane that he is "overreacting" is a rhetoric device which is no substitute for a rational argumentation.
Writing that Cowen is not part of a group of libertarians who base their stances on religious conviction (nobody said he was!) is definitely bizarre.
Posted by: Struwwelpeter at Feb 16, 2008 6:52:49 AM
"Dead people don't count in the social welfare function."
I might be slow to count them as well, but much of our intellectual property laws (and those in Europe more so) are about honoring "author's intent."
I'd prefer short copyright, but to give the author full control in that copyright span. After that, if he doesn't burn them, it is a moral puzzle for heirs, no one else.
Posted by: odograph at Feb 16, 2008 8:25:40 AM
The most important relevant point is that Nabokov was well aware of the precedent of Kafka and Max Brod. Given his style of thought the voiced preference itself seems to be a literary allusion, especially since destroying a manuscript himself, or just throwing it out, would have been so easy.
The preference for a naive conception of literalism in the understanding of others, grounded perhaps in an extremely narrow conception of unshared by most outside of engineering and science is one of its major problems.
Posted by: michael vassar at Feb 16, 2008 8:29:29 AM
I agree with Stoppard and Shane above. Burn it. His family made a promise and they should honor it. Incidentally,Tyler, I disagree with your appeal to Parfit. You're grasping at straws here. The information about Nabokov's mind is too meagre to warrant any kind of counterfactual reasoning. Didn't Hanson just have a post on this?
Posted by: Rue Des Quatre Vents at Feb 16, 2008 9:03:29 AM
I hadn't realized Tyler was a libertarian? At any rate, I don't think all natural rights libertarians base their ethics on religious views. Many (such as myself) simply believe that coercive interventions which increase social welfare are so extremely difficult for even the most intelligent of us (perhaps especially the most intelligent of us with fancy degrees) to spot with accuracy, that its best not to meddle in that sort of stuff at all. That is, unless the intervention has a clear and obvious result (e.g., pushing someone out from under a falling anvil) and the intervener can later be held accountable for his actions. I suppose that might make me a utilitarian, but I don't think the near-universal use of a natural rights-ish libertarian ethic in non-political relationships is any mistake; I think it evolved for good reasons.
Oddly, we seem much more likely to break from that ethic in dealing with large-scale political problems, which are vastly more complex than our personal lives. In the later we more or less accept it, despite how much easier it is to judge the social benefit of our actions in those situations. I know this is because abandoning interpersonal ethics in the political sphere provides utility to those who want power over others without the penalties associated with using coercion personally, but I don't think that necessarily makes such abandonment a good idea.
Sorry for the off-topic comment... My vote is that its the son's property now. Dead me have rights only so far as the living respect them.
Posted by: Grant at Feb 16, 2008 9:15:08 AM
Death is not a certain, planned event. The next Nabokov could conceivably change his mind about burning the papers and release them willingly had he not had to burn them first for fear of their release after his death.
That problem has been solved -- a present or future Nabokov could protect his works with strong encryption and not disclose the key. As long as he lives, remains possible for him to change his mind and reveal the key.
Posted by: Slocum at Feb 16, 2008 9:26:25 AM
Adam Smith would say burn it.
Posted by: Daniel Klein at Feb 16, 2008 9:45:11 AM
That problem has been solved -- a present or future Nabokov could protect his works with strong encryption and not disclose the key. As long as he lives, remains possible for him to change his mind and reveal the key.
Like a super-strong password, no? Presumably, Nabokov did not keep it in this form, and that's what I was alluding to with this: If you respond by saying that the next Nabokov would keep some way to potentially resurrect the manuscript, then the problem evaporates. Everyone would simply write his manuscripts in his brain, if possible.
So I would definitely urge any author with manuscript-burning thoughts to use a "private medium," but if the works are scribbled on the back of napkins, not allowing the author a reliable way to dispose of the pages will lead to a few unintended consequences.
Posted by: msun641 at Feb 16, 2008 9:57:43 AM
If the son actually intended to burn it, he could have done so quietly without notifying anyone. Look for imminent publication, with stronger sales thanks to all the publicity. Anyone care to set up a prediction market on this?
PS,
In the future, quantum computing will quite possibly make the strong encryption option moot.
Posted by: at Feb 16, 2008 11:01:33 AM
There is still an incentive problem. You just don't want to look for it. To go against the wishes of the creative artist may be to insult him gravely, which is different merely than to discourage future unpublished works by other artists. It may be to discourage the artists themselves. Isn't that why we ask somebody like Tom Stoppard to begin with?
Or, there may be a mixed result going on. We don't know Nabokov's true thoughts. Perhaps he wanted the work published, but didn't want to be responsible for the "intellectual result". After all, that Nabokov's work would be controversial only fits reality! So, he avoids historical responsibility with the request, "Burn it!"
Naturally, we must assign probabilities and weights to these outcomes. Good luck!
Posted by: infopractical at Feb 16, 2008 11:07:22 AM
Pave over the cemeteries and rip up the wills and trusts! Dead people have no rights!
Posted by: bjk at Feb 16, 2008 11:12:08 AM
I'll be careful not to entrust Tyler with my dying wish. After all, I know with certainty that he will ignore it.
Posted by: ad at Feb 16, 2008 11:25:10 AM
Dead people don't count in the social welfare function.
What about the warm, fuzzy feeling you get from respecting a great artist's dying wish? What about the disappointment that would come with printing unfinished works, finding out they're brilliant, but then realizing that they will forever remain unfinished. I don't think it's self evident that publishing the works increases social welfare. Of course, I don't think social welfare should motivate every decision, either. Burn 'em.
Posted by: Franklin Harris at Feb 16, 2008 12:41:41 PM
Virgin wanted the Aeneid burned. Luckily, that didn't happen. Don't burn it.
Posted by: Jacob at Feb 16, 2008 12:49:00 PM
I'll respect your dying wish unless it violates Paretian optimality! A simple question to ask yourself is whether you would respect the wish of a parent to have a million dollar funeral, out of your money. The book manuscript is worth much more than that.
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Feb 16, 2008 12:59:38 PM
Dead people don't count in the social welfare function. True. But presumably we give some credence to wishes that will no longer change and respond to incentives when we consider estates and trusts. To me I echo the concerns of another commenter. I loved Tom Shadyac when he did Ace Ventura. once I saw Patch Adams, I have forever stricken his works from my list of viewable films. I won't see anything new of his--ever. Here we have a moment to ponder whether or not Nabakov had more information about whether or not this work would impact negatively in terms of social welfare, while his heirs might only be thinking of the publishing windfall from "the lost manuscript of Nabakov".
Posted by: Adam Hyland at Feb 16, 2008 1:06:16 PM
Wow. We respect people's beliefs in life because we play a linked repeated game. If Nabokov had had to have been wary about his wishes not being carried out, he would have wasted some of the time he had left taking care of things himself, instead of whatever else he put effort into. If in the future we had to take greater pains to ensure our wishes, our family will miss out.
Epicurus (who acknowledged the uselessness of anything after one's death) was criticized for writing a will. But because we play an overlapping-generations game, I think it makes perfect sense.
Which is all to say that I think it is wrong not to burn it, but I would publish it anyways.
Posted by: NE1 at Feb 16, 2008 1:48:54 PM
Is it just me, or do most of us enter into a multitude of legally binding contracts that are enforceable post mortem (life insurance, pre-paid burial plots, etc.) I have a crematorium just a couple of miles down the road that would be perfectly willing to contract for the incineration of my body after my death. I can't imagine that it would be that difficult to do the same for my manuscript. Nabakov's problem is that he wasn't particularly careful with whom and how he entered into this particular contract. Later Nabakovs will likely be more careful.
Posted by: Jason Bullman at Feb 16, 2008 2:33:16 PM
