1. This thread makes a compelling case that (alas) the Steinbeck werewolf novel should probably not be published. At the very least it shows how nettlesome and difficult the managing of literary estates is.
https://twitter.com/ajsomerset/status/1396546151424348161
2. You would think that once a writer is dead, their literary career is over. That's a mistake. Death can bring with it lots of questions of what should be preserved, what published, what edited, what left to the privacy of the archive.
3. Even seemingly obvious rules ("the author's last wish should govern estate") falls apart in practice. The world is a richer place because the last wishes of Virgil, Emily Dickinson and Kafka (to destroy major works) was disobeyed.
4. An author isn't always the best judge of what is valuable in their work and posterity can find value in discards. The stone the builder rejected has become the cornerstone etc.
5. A good rule of thumb might be to err on the side of preservation but be selective about publication. All of which is newly relevant as Philip Roth states says there is strong likelihood they will destroy many of his papers. A podcast discussion here: jeetheer.substack.com/p/should-we-bu…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
