| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | Kafka and Emily Dickinson - The Right to Destroy as the Absence of Compulsion | |
<
< | In American law, we often recognize a right to destroy goods which would be valuable to society as a whole. Human beings are allowed to retain healthy, functioning organs in a lifeless and decaying corpse. But some people contend that this right should not extend posthumously to authors and their unpublished material. However, to forbid the right to destroy is essentially to compel publication. This may actually work to discourage creation. If a creator is worried that some misstep, something he considers a creative failure, will be made permanent, he will likely be even more hesitant to make that initial step. As I watched the wiki over the course of the week, I noticed few students, myself included, putting up their rough sketches and outlines. Even fewer had their brainstorming sessions made public. In all creation, there is a fear, perhaps unfounded, that others will judge our unfinished work and find us wanting. Until the idea is fully crystallized, it will not be committed to paper. And since few of us have eidetic memory, this will lead to degradation of the work and many lost moments of brilliance. | >
> | In American law, we often recognize a right to destroy goods which would be valuable to society as a whole. Human beings are allowed to retain healthy, functioning organs in a lifeless and decaying corpse. But some people contend that this right should not extend posthumously to authors and their unpublished material. However, to forbid the right to destroy is essentially to compel publication. This may actually work to discourage creation. If a creator is worried that some misstep, something he considers a creative failure, will be made permanent, he will likely be even more hesitant to make that initial step. As I watched the wiki over the course of the week, I noticed few students, myself included, putting up their rough sketches and outlines. Even fewer had their brainstorming sessions made public. In all creation, there is a fear, perhaps unfounded, that others will judge our unfinished work and find us wanting. Until the idea is fully crystallized, it may not be committed to paper. And since few of us have eidetic memory, this will lead to degradation of the work and many lost moments of brilliance. | | | | |
<
< | Additionally, we recognize the right for a living author to destroy or overwrite his work, so why should that right extinguish at death? By forcing a reticent author to destroy his works in his lifetime, we would encourage premature destruction. A sickly author might not wish his unfinished work to be "completed" as Tolkien's Silmarillion was. Fearing his sickness may be unto death, and knowing that his wishes will be ignored, this author may feel compelled to destroy the work while he still has the power. This would prevent any chance of him recovering (or not) and adapting and modifying the work until it is sufficiently improved to be published. | >
> | We recognize the right for a living author to destroy or overwrite his work, and it may be harmful to not extend this posthumously. By forcing a reticent author to destroy his works in his lifetime, we would encourage premature destruction. A sickly author might not wish his unfinished work to be "completed" as Tolkien's Silmarillion was. Fearing his sickness may be unto death, and knowing that his wishes will be ignored, this author may feel compelled to destroy the work while he still has the power. This would prevent any chance of him later modifying the work until it is sufficiently improved to be published. | | | Vergil and Nabokov - The 'Need' for Greater Understanding | | | Also, how far would this shield extend? Would we compel publication of personal letters and private diaries? These works, arguably more than an unfinished novel, would give us tremendous insight into the author; but few would support such an intrusion. | |
<
< | By compelling publication of a work, we would also discourage collaboration. If an author knows his work must be published, he may not seek out the input and help of others. Beyond a single person whom the author trusts to destroy his work, he would keep the manuscript a total secret. This novel, even if completed, may lack a true sense of discourse and would certainly have benefited from the input of other eyes. | >
> | By compelling publication of a work, we would also discourage collaboration. The more people that know of a work, the harder it will be to destroy. Beyond a single person whom the author trusts to destroy his work, he would keep the manuscript a total secret. This novel, even if completed, may lack a true sense of discourse and would certainly have benefited from the input and help of other eyes. | | | | |
<
< | | >
> | Dr. Seuss - Information Distribution when the Cat is Out of the Hat | | | The right to destroy, however, is essentially extinguished once the work is published. No longer is it comparable to a compulsion to publish, and any "right to destroy" is rendered practically meaningless. The author does not wish to destroy a single manuscript, but instead wants to erase every copy of the work. It would be impossible to place the cat back in the bag, and until all media is under the control of Kindle, copies of the work would be forever disseminated. | |
<
< | Further, the right to destroy his own work cannot be extended to destroy the works of others. Since our culture is built by accretion, this would require surgical precision - removing the grain of his own work without damaging the nacre added by others. Would he be allowed to destroy all translations of his text? Isn't the act of translation a creative and not merely a determinate process? | >
> | Further, the right to destroy his own work cannot be extended to destroy the works of others. Since our culture is built by accretion, this would require surgical precision - removing the grain of his own work without damaging the nacre added by others. Would he be allowed to destroy all translations? Isn't translating a creative and not merely a determinate process? | | | The Extension to Tangible Art | | | Unfortunate Results | |
<
< | To be certain, there are unpleasant repercussions. We would be without much of the work of Kafka and Dickinson. We would be without Vergil's masterwork. But perhaps the current system has denied us even greater pleasures by stymieing more timid writers. | >
> | To be certain, there are unpleasant repercussions. We would be without much of the work of Kafka and Dickinson. We would be without Vergil's masterwork. But we should not build our artistic culture by conscription. | | | |
|