« My favorite things Spain, music | Main | How honeytrappers work »
Getting oneself in hot water
I am surprised by all the opposition to my argument for not burning the unpublished Nabokov manuscript. I say this: we limit all sorts of destructive transactions for the living, so why not every now and then a limitation upon the wishes of the dead? I was not staking out the extreme (but possibly true) position that the wishes of the dead should count for nothing.
I might add that the status quo is permitting the Nabokov manuscript to be published and that civil society has not collapsed. Nor are people panicking that their gravestones will be overturned three years hence and sold to finance the expansion of the EITC.
In any case I propose a thought experiment. If you disagree with me, you should never have read Kafka or Virgil, nor should you set foot in the British Museum, go to an ancient Egyptian art exhibit, or for that matter visit any ethnographic museum. Lots of that stuff was taken from graves. They probably didn't want "the public" to look at it and yes that includes you. How many of the nay-sayers will pledge they have behaved this way or even that they are much bothered they didn't?
Nor are you allowed to hear Doors tribute bands, remixed or recombined Beatle vocals (would John have approved?) and who knows about late Schubert or Mahler's 10th? Better safe than sorry and that goes for unapproved translations and editions as well, or how about any religious compendium that refers to the Hebrew Bible as "The Old Testament"? Don't even pick it up. I do in fact regard Sussmayr's completion of Mozart's Requiem as an aesthetic crime but not a moral one; it is better to hear the work unfinished. The really sad thing is how many people like the revised version.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on February 20, 2008 at 09:24 AM in Law | Permalink
Comments
And many many pieces by published authors are published posthumously. Although these authors might not have expressed their desire that these manuscripts should be burnt, we may infer that they would not have been happy to know that someone (typically a surviving spouse or heir) published those not-yet-finished pieces.
I think of all the stuff from Borges that appeared after his death. I am happy to read it, but Borges would hate to know that I (as many other readers) have seen the books that deserved, in his view, the fire.
And yet, he would also have smiled thinking that there was a "sequence of steps", which include his negation to publish the book and his widow's disobedience that would allow the book to reach its secret destiny.
Posted by: londenio at Feb 20, 2008 9:42:16 AM
One reason to follow Nabokov's desire is that if he knew the manuscript would be published, he could as well have destroyed it himself or not written it at all
Posted by: Eduardo Pegurier at Feb 20, 2008 9:44:01 AM
JS Mill, in some early unsigned articles, defended grave robbers who dug up corpses for medical research.
More evidence that Mill was shakey, in my view.
Posted by: Daniel Klein at Feb 20, 2008 9:51:30 AM
I agree that there's probably reason to save Nabokov's unpublished work. However, you invited the criticism by talking like an unreflective reductionist (which is hardly what you usually sound like). It takes a lot of charity to parse "dead people don't count in the social welfare function" in any way that isn't silly.
Posted by: Justin at Feb 20, 2008 10:19:17 AM
All of these other instances you cite are fallacious: Nabokov (apparently) expressly voiced a desire to burn the damed thing.
What about that don't you get?
Posted by: meter at Feb 20, 2008 10:35:44 AM
The dispositions of wills and estates are carried out as legal acts based on the desires of dead people. Your position, arguing that those wishes die with the agent in question, runs up against roughly 2,800 years of precedent.
Posted by: The other Eric at Feb 20, 2008 11:00:32 AM
I agree with Eduardo in that pursuing the refusal to honor contracts with the dead will alter the contracts the living make. Also, if we do not honor the postmortem contracts than it opens the door for preventing transfers of property. Hypothetically, the politician may ask, "Why should Bill Gates be permitted to leave his fortune to his children?" If they start asking those questions, we will see much different behavior from the living that I suspect will be an inferior outcome.
Posted by: Justin R at Feb 20, 2008 11:05:12 AM
"The dispositions of wills and estates are carried out as legal acts based on the desires of dead people. Your position, arguing that those wishes die with the agent in question, runs up against roughly 2,800 years of precedent."
But do we enforce wills to honor the desires of the dead, or do we do it to enforce the expectations of the living heirs regarding the distribution of the estate? I think the latter is arguably a more rationale justification. If that's true, and wills are for the benefit of survivors rather than the dead, then perhaps it makes more sense to do what's in the best interest of the survivors. The destruction of valuable property surely isn't that, unless the survivors personally value honoring the wishes of the dead more than they value selling the manuscript.
Posted by: anon. at Feb 20, 2008 11:24:49 AM
Anon,
Wishful thinking will get you nowhere. Wills are enforced precisely to honor the desires of the dead. It is an agreement based not on what the living want or care about, but on the dead's expressed desire. Some heirs are often slighted despite their expectations, others are happily surprised.
That the living can violate agreements made with the dead is no more arguably rational than theft would be. Agency is agency under ancient custom or modern law. It would make more sense to insurance companies just keep the life insurance benefits, but they can't.
Posted by: The other Eric at Feb 20, 2008 11:41:44 AM
meter: Virgil wanted the Aeneid to be destroyed, as he was not yet finished with it. (And it's clear if you read it in Latin that he truly wasn't done: there are seven or so lines scattered across it where the meter doesn't quite add up right.)
Posted by: Andromeda at Feb 20, 2008 11:45:24 AM
"The really sad thing is how many people like the revised version."
I'd be intrigued to see an economic justification for the claim that it's bad that people should gain pleasure from this...
Posted by: Seamus McCauley at Feb 20, 2008 11:45:50 AM
"It would make more sense to insurance companies just keep the life insurance benefits, but they can't."
Right, because the heirs have an enforceable interest in the benefits. Because the insurance, like the will, exists for the benefit of the heirs.
Posted by: anon. at Feb 20, 2008 11:47:03 AM
In re anon and the other Eric:
In Rome (doubtless included in your 2800 years) wills could be invalidated if they didn't distribute property in an adequately equitable way among your heirs -- you couldn't just cut a child out of your will and expect it to withstand legal challenge. So that gives some weight to anon's question; it's not solely the respects of the dead which have always been supported here.
Posted by: Andromeda at Feb 20, 2008 11:49:12 AM
It's not clear to me how your thought experiment is anything but a giant straw man. It's not clear to me at all how it answers most of the criticisms I read in your original article.
That's not to say that I disagree with the idea of limiting the wishes of the dead. I just think we should consider the utility, and consider it closely in historically interesting circumstances.
Posted by: infopractical at Feb 20, 2008 11:49:18 AM
Don't forget to add Emily Dickinson to the "not allowed to read list."
Posted by: van at Feb 20, 2008 11:49:58 AM
"In Rome (doubtless included in your 2800 years) wills could be invalidated if they didn't distribute property in an adequately equitable way among your heirs -- you couldn't just cut a child out of your will and expect it to withstand legal challenge."
Similarly, in some states--Virginia, for example--one cannot cut their spouse entirely out of their will. Indeed, spouses are entitled to a certain minimum distribution from the estate, regardless of the deceased's wishes.
Posted by: anon. at Feb 20, 2008 11:54:33 AM
Andromeda, of course contracts are broken all the time. And who better to break them with than people who are literally not there to defend their wishes. But Roman history had a wonderful escape clause you skipped over-- you could simply re-name your heirs. You could write your son out and add a new one, adopted for any number of reasons. Historically, wills were almost never invalidated beneath the level of ceasar/imperatur. Look up the legal history of these agreements and you'll find nothing, no basis at all, for the idea that exists for the claims of the heirs.
Posted by: The other Eric at Feb 20, 2008 11:58:51 AM
that wills exist for the claims of the heirs.
kant tipe 2day.
Posted by: The other Eric at Feb 20, 2008 12:00:43 PM
"All of these other instances you cite are fallacious: Nabokov (apparently) expressly voiced a desire to burn the damed thing."
Not so. Kafka explicitly asked his executor, Max Brod, to destroy his papers upon his death. Brod ignored his wishes and in his preparations for publishing the works even rearranged chapters. "The Castle" and "The Trial" were both published by Brod posthumously.
Posted by: Thelonious_Nick at Feb 20, 2008 12:02:25 PM
Did Nabokov leave a will stating the works be burned? If so, then isn't this just an academic argument? I thought those wills were legally binding and the works therefore had to be destroyed.
Posted by: jason voorhees at Feb 20, 2008 12:08:53 PM
Tyler_Cowen:
I was not staking out the extreme (but possibly true) position that the wishes of the dead should count for nothing.
Yes, yes you were:
Dead people don't count in the social welfare function.
Posted by: Person at Feb 20, 2008 12:39:38 PM
This is easy. Write very clearly on the front page that the author wanted this burnt. Scan it all into the data bases, and burn it. That makes clear what the author wanted, does what he/she wanted, and we've still got it with the author's view prominently displayed.
Posted by: David Heigham at Feb 20, 2008 12:44:33 PM
By not honouring a promise that you make to a dead person, you don't harm the dead person - they are beyond all such earthly concerns.
You harm yourself. If you promise to do something, and then deliberately do the opposite of that, you have betrayed yourself as someone completely lacking in honour. Why should anyone ever trust you again?
Posted by: Sam at Feb 20, 2008 1:01:10 PM
By not honouring a promise that you make to a dead person, you don't harm the dead person - they are beyond all such earthly concerns.
You harm yourself. If you promise to do something, and then deliberately do the opposite of that, you have betrayed yourself as someone completely lacking in honour. Why should anyone ever trust you again?
Posted by: Sam at Feb 20, 2008 1:01:39 PM
"In Rome (doubtless included in your 2800 years) wills could be invalidated if they didn't distribute property in an adequately equitable way among your heirs -- you couldn't just cut a child out of your will and expect it to withstand legal challenge"
that is the law in every civil law country with a code based on the Napoleon or italian Civil Code
Posted by: jean at Feb 20, 2008 1:27:09 PM
