« 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I am surprised by all the opposition to my argument for not burning the unpublished Nabokov manuscript.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
From a literary theory point of view - Formalism/New Criticism and offshoots structuralism and post-structuralism have increasingly limited the author's say in "deciding" what his work means. To interpret a book by considering what the author meant or was trying to do was considered by the New Critics a fallacy. I am pretty sure I've read Nabokov voicing a similar opinion. Therefore, what say should he have in deciding whether his own work should be published?
Posted by: Nick E at Feb 20, 2008 1:55:22 PM
Prof. Cowen,
I think you keep digging yourself deeper on this one. :) I echo Person's comment above: yes you did say that dead people don't count. If you want to retract your original blog post, or clarify, that's fine--I would cringe at a collection of ridiculous blog posts I've made in the last year. But don't deny that you explicitly said dead people's wishes don't count. (Or rather, if not being in the "social welfare function" isn't the same thing as not counting in this context, please clarify what you meant by that.)
I might add that the status quo is permitting the Nabokov manuscript to be published and that civil society has not collapsed.
C'mon, this is just silly. Serial murderers and rapists aren't collapsing society either. And for all you know, all of the pragmatic consequences of violating Nabokov's deathbed desire really are happening. But if there is a genius who is now not going to work on something, for fear that he will die before it's satisfactory (and he can't trust his heirs to burn it), that wouldn't kick in for a while, and we would likely never know about it.
Posted by: Bob Murphy at Feb 20, 2008 2:12:37 PM
Surely the reason we honour wills is neither for the benefit of the heirs, nor for the benefit of the dead, but in order to affect the behaviour of the living. For example, if Bill Gates was aware that he lived somewhere where dead people's wishes weren't honoured, he'd no doubt consume a lot more, and save a lot less, to the detriment of the rest of us. We honour dead people's wills so that living people will believe that their wills will be honoured.
Posted by: John Faben at Feb 20, 2008 2:20:23 PM
Tyler, you are continuing to avoid the point that Nabokov wasn't some tragic victim of lack of self-esteem. Quite the opposite in fact. Nabokov had very high standards, yet he felt that the 20 or so novels he _had_ published met his standards (including one or two at the end that were a major step down from his peak of Lolita -- Pale Fire -- first half of Ada.) He apparently just felt that his last unfinished manuscript didn't meet his standards.
The two major writers most influenced by Nabokov are John Updike and Tom Stoppard. We've already heard Sir Tom's opinion - burn it. Somebody should ask Updike.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Feb 20, 2008 4:45:08 PM
By the way, I predict that the publication of Nabokov's last unfinished work will turn out, in the long run, to be as much of a literary non-event as the recent publication of Robert A. Heinlein's unpublished first novel was. As Jerry Pournelle pointed out just before it came out, Heinlein had absolutely no objection to being paid for his writing, so if he had a full novel sitting around in his closet for all those years unpublished, the prime reason he didn't publish it was probably that it was lousy.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Feb 20, 2008 4:52:18 PM
better toss out the carnegie foundation money while we're at it (and all other willed charities)
Posted by: Nate at Feb 20, 2008 5:00:26 PM
Person, Bob Murphy:
No he wasn't. Saying that dead people don't count in the social welfare function (which strikes me as rather obvious) is not at all inconsistent with opposing the view that "the wishes of the dead should count for nothing." They should count because of the effect they have on the decisions/planning/peace of mind of living people. Publishing these works may harm living and future authors, and may distort the art-creating system negatively, but it sure as hell would not harm Nabokov. Not in the slightest.
Posted by: Mike at Feb 20, 2008 5:54:41 PM
Mike: So Tyler_Cowen was just being vacuous with the first statement?
Posted by: Person at Feb 20, 2008 6:04:50 PM
It obviously cannot hurt Nabokov materially. It can, however, affect his legacy. Many artistic (and even non-artistic) types consider the legacy left behind to be of far more importance than living fame, fortune, etc.
Nabokov seems like that kind of writer. Regardless, trying to ascertain his thoughts on the matter are meaningless as he very clearly expressed his desires regarding this manuscript.
Posted by: meter at Feb 20, 2008 6:24:17 PM
The case of Gerard Manley Hopkins comes to mind. From his Wikipedia entry: "Despite Hopkins burning all his poems on entering the Jesuit novitiate, he had already sent some to Bridges who, with a few other friends, was one of the few people to see many of them for some years. After Hopkins' death they were distributed to a wider audience, mostly fellow poets, and in 1918 Bridges, by then poet laureate, published a collected edition..."
Posted by: John Lilly at Feb 20, 2008 6:51:31 PM
jason voorhees,
Of course it's legally binding. That means that Vladimir can sue Dmitri and any publisher. But you can't.
Posted by: Douglas Knight at Feb 20, 2008 7:07:55 PM
We do honor wills, but not arbitrarily. Almost every jurisdiction places limits on how a deceased person may dispose of their property, and provides procedures by which, if an interested party feels the estate is being disposed of improperly, they may legally challenge what is or is not being done is accordance or lack thereof with the will. Which suggests that it is not so much about honoring the wishes of the dead, as preventing and settling disputes among the heirs.
Posted by: Cyrus at Feb 20, 2008 9:56:34 PM
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."
Mike,
I grant you that logically speaking, one can consistently say that dead people aren't in the social welfare function, and that their wishes count. I'll even go further and say that someone who is fanatical about respecting the wishes of the dead, could at the same time (and consistently) think that dead people aren't in the social welfare function.
But in the context of Prof. Cowen's original blog post, he certainly didn't seem to be making the subtle point you are. It's fairly short, and I had to refresh my own memory, so let me reproduce it here:
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.
Except for the last sentence, Cowen doesn't say anything at all about the wishes of Nabokov. It's all about the practical consequences for us. And he certainly seems to think that his, "Dead people don't count in the social welfare function" is enough to blow up Stoppard's view, namely that Nabokov's wishes are the end of the story.
So I still maintain that in his first post, Cowen was saying dead people's wishes don't count. All we should consider is the practical effects on our happiness, and moreover we don't count our feelings of ickiness. After all, Cowen thinks (apparently) such feelings are incorrect.
Posted by: Bob Murphy at Feb 20, 2008 10:58:31 PM
As for Tyler's notion that Nabokov "could have burnt it himself," I would imagine that Nabokov didn't want to burn it while he was alive in case he recovered well enough to do the work necessary bring the manuscript up to his standards. But if he died before he could make it worthy of publication under his name, then he wanted his son to the rough draft.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Feb 20, 2008 11:38:35 PM
Well I'm with you Tyler, for what little that counts. If only becasue I really wish I could read Adam Smith's 3rd book.
Posted by: James K at Feb 21, 2008 12:12:26 AM
Enforcement of wills is not a matter of utility for the dead. Not exactly. It is utility for those people who have died, but served while they are still alive. Should we stop honoring wills, that security will cease to be felt. This is the consideration we must take in such a circumstance as this one. That does not mean that I fall necessarily on the side of burning the manuscript. That is to say that I refute the argument that consideration of the author's request is a matter of including dead people in the social welfare function.
I'm not even convinced that it is some mythical general social welfare function we should be considering. My own will do nicely enough, and I'll never give up hope of becoming a historically great author. Or an emu.
Posted by: infopractical at Feb 21, 2008 12:49:07 AM
Tyler,
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.
You may have a point here, but:
1. Maybe we should take into account the passage of time (e.g. it would make sense to destroy a manuscript just after its author's death if that is his wish but not if you uncover/discover it after several decades/centuries, since his wish could have evolved over time).
2. Many artistic works, treasures, mummies from Egypt etc. I guess pertained to governments and Pharaohs. They didn't have a legitimate property right in the first place or were tyrans etc. and I don't feel compelled to follow the wishes of dead tyrants.
3. They "probably didn't want" the public to look at it, but we don't know for sure.
4. If you are a religious person, you might think Nabokov is actually in Heaven, with his utility function up and running, and he will be worse off if he sees from above that you don't burn the manuscript.
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"?
No if you don't believe in intellectual property rights/copyrights.
And one last general point: infopractical seems right to me when he says that enforcements of wills affect the utility of the dead (while they are not dead). It may not affect Nabokov utility now that he is dead, but certainly would affect every one of us while we are alive if we don't feel our wishes will be honored when we are dead.
Posted by: Albert Esplugas at Feb 21, 2008 8:22:41 AM
"If you disagree with me, you should never have read Kafka...."
If one is talking about a hard and fast rule, sure. But why not a flexible rule? For an author like VN, who was old, and for whom I am unaware of any argument as to why his judgement shouldn't be trusted, I think the manuscript should just be burned. Like Steve Sailer, I am of the belief that there is approximately a 0% chance of VN leaving behind another The Trial or The Castle. Or for that matter another Lolita or Pnin.
Whereas for Kafka, there are reasons to wonder about his judgement (dying young, often suicidal, etc.), and to wonder whether in delegating the job to Brod there wasn't some hope on Kafka's part that Brod wouldn't accomplish exactly what he accomplished. Perhaps Kafka's literary instructions were expressed in the same Kafkaesque (in the true sense of being Talmudic and familiar/unfamiliar wrt human motivations, or something like that, not the popular sense of being Twilight Zone-ish) language as the literature itself.
(Kafka even expressed a desire for the things that had been published to die with him, which I think has suggested to people that the request had a symbolic element to it).
If one must adopt a hard and fast rule, how about to accept the judgement of the person the author left in charge of the burning? If they choose to disregard the will of the author, so be it.
(Apparently this was just a "take out the trash, Dmitri" sort of thing but it would be more fun if it were really a more Nabokovian "hey, Dmitri, here's a little literary chess problem for you to enjoy after I'm gone" sort of thing).
Posted by: anon/portly at Feb 21, 2008 2:33:04 PM
"We do honor wills, but not arbitrarily. Almost every jurisdiction places limits on how a deceased person may dispose of their property, and provides procedures by which, if an interested party feels the estate is being disposed of improperly, they may legally challenge what is or is not being done is accordance or lack thereof with the will."
If only someone had thought of this at Adam Smith's death. Destruction is permanent. There is a parallel to this literary situation.
Maybe the document should be set aside for the next generation to determine its fate. Presumably with the passage of time the issue could be settled more dispassionately..
Posted by: edwardseco at Feb 21, 2008 4:32:04 PM
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?
It seems to me you're conflating two propositions here: (1) that the wishes of the dead with respect to dissemination of their possessions should be honored, and (2) that once this dissemination transpires, we should act as if it hadn't. Unless I'm missing something, these are quite separate matters.
Posted by: simon at Apr 24, 2008 9:47:12 PM
