In comparison, Douglas Adams' remaining incomplete notes were turned into a book after he died (The Salmon Of Doubt). As a fan, it was frustrating to read - you could see his moments of genius, but the gaps in the story and the unrefined parts of the text were a let down. I gladly bought the book, but after finishing it, I'm not sure it was a good choice to publish the unfinished writings.

If an author had a very-nearly complete book, I reckon it might be worthwhile to let someone else do the final tidying up and publish, but if Terry Pratchett's remaining works were lots of partially complete writings, I think it would be a poor reflection on the author to let someone else work on them.

It also left some sense of who he was, what he cared about and considered important, who his friends were.

So I say it was a good thing overall. Even though it was also sad because it was the unfinished writings of a dead author I love.

[0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZG8HBuDjgc

It has moments where Tolkien's skill shines through, but it's much harder to read. I can't really recommend them.

The Silmarillion on the other hand, seems to have mostly been finished when Tolkien passed.

I agree with you that if a work is published and presented as just another one of their novels it is different.

I would have liked to see what his existing writing partners -- Neil Gaiman or Stephen Baxter, for instance -- could have done. But it's not what he wanted.

He didn't want to destroy his work whilst he could still work. But if he waits too long and misses the opportunity to take action whilst in good health he may lose control over it. Without the other limiting factors - this feels like a very easy call. I'm thrilled that he trusted people to see his wishes through - and as importantly that they've shown themselves to be deserving of said trust

Presidential diaries would be another example, or a CEO's Rolodex.

Both retention and publication go against the wishes of the deceased, but I would see putting them in the Vatican Archives for a few researchers to peruse as a lesser transgression than putting them in a book for all to see.

I agree with you that there is probably a legal or moral requirement to retain the notes of Pope John Paul II, and that may override his personal wishes (though, again, in an archive, rather than in all good bookshops).

You are also correct that it may be difficult, or even impossible to separate JP2's notes from Karol Wojtyla's notes after 1978, but what about before? Are the notes of Bishop of Ombi or the Archbishop of Krakow also as important? How far back does the corporate entanglement go?

In any case, the question of why it is that way doesn't much matter for this particular question. Regardless of why copyright applies to a dead guy's works, it does.

That may depend on whether they are John Paul II's notes (and the Bishop of Ombi's etc.) or Karol Wojtyla's. And whether the published work belongs to The Church or to Dziwisz.

I wonder if, around 100 years from now, that would create a tontine type scenario.

Re Terry's opinion on 'pratchettologists', may I point you to the following in the Pratchett Quote File: https://www.lspace.org/books/pqf/alt-fan-pratchett.html

"I save about twenty drafts -- that's ten meg of disc space -- and the last one contains all the final alterations. Once it has been printed out and received by the publishers, there's a cry here of 'Tough shit, literary researchers of the future, try getting a proper job!' and the rest are wiped."

-- (Terry Pratchett, alt.fan.pratchett)

"I save about twenty drafts — that's ten meg of disc space — and the last one contains all the final alterations. Once it has been printed out and received by the publishers, there's a cry here of 'Tough shit, literary researchers of the future, try getting a proper job!' and the rest are wiped."

On one hand, as a long time Pratchett fan, it would be interesting to see what ideas he was working on (I'll miss many of his characters), on the other hand and looking at other examples (cough, cough, Tolkien, cough), I prefer his legacy to be what it is today.

As for Tolkien, I'm quite happy that the Silmarillion got published.

Update: just read loopbit's response to the same post. Good point.

These materials include quite a few interesting research angles: draft manuscripts of published works, unpublished stories, other ephemera including letters, & biographies by other authors.

[1] http://www.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/resources/Pratchett.pdf

A group (say, of castaways on a desert island) can easily afford to have 99% of people donate 1% of their output to support a 1% of their population that was paralyzed in the crash, and most would prefer not to watch that 1% die of neglect. But individually, no one can give 100% of their output to that 1%.

Left to their own devices and anonymous, people will slowly opt out of the voluntary contribution, and the situation will be worse than what everyone wanted. Unless the group has some means of compelling everyone to contribute.

I'd rather live in a society where everyone (including myself) was forced to contribute, than a society in which no one was. Living in a society in which everyone else happens to contribute to the things you'd like, while you don't have to contribute, is not an option that's on the table.

I live in an unincorporated township, with just a few residents. My road would never get plowed or maintained.

It might not be a stretch to say that future generations would have the technology to recover the data, if past trends are any indication:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ancient-scrolls-blacke...

As far as physical destruction goes, this isn't even that extreme.

Also that drive is old and I am suspicious that is the only copy, or that the novels we're there anyway. Seems likely Pratchett destroyed them already and this was symbolic.

Would it generate new Discworld stories, or would it rip a portal into the Dungeon Dimensions releasing the eldritch horrors that dwell within?

I honestly don't know, but it's worth asking the question. That's how we can expect the next Terry Pratchett to act, if we ignore this Terry Pratchett's wishes.

(I should note that even if the answer is that he would have shrugged and let us release his unfinished works, I still think we should obey his wishes. Terry belongs to Terry, no one else has a right to him.)

He wants his legacy to be as static as possible and not pimped out and whore'd to the highest bidder. Fair enough I say.

Every action we make chooses one from (infinite) branches of reality. Favoring one over the other is meaningless. The result of things existing will always be other things not existing. The atoms that I'm using to exist could have been used to compose other entities instead. You're assuming a sort of situation where everything that could exist would exist. A Borgesian library where not only every possible work of Kafka is written, but in every possible variation. The act of writing by itself destroys every alternative work. Are we certain that the Kafka we have is the best Kafka we could have?

One morning, when Gregor Samsa woke from troubled dreams, he found himself transformed in his bed into a horrible vermin.

One morning, when Georg Samsa woke from troubled dreams, he found himself transformed in his bed into a disgusting bug.

One day, when Georg Valta woke from troubled dreams, he found himself awake in his bed transformed into a horrible vermin.

In the morning, when Georg Sanka woke from dreadful dreams, he found himself awake in bed in the body of a nightmarish vermin.

...

And yes, I absolutely would prefer to live in the world state with optimal Kafka. You really wouldn't? If Kafka came up to and asked him to help you with his wording or something, you wouldn't assist him at all?

I didn't mean that I do not have any preferences, but that my preferences aren't special or better than others' preferences, in the same way that another version of the world (where Pratchett's wishes were overruled) is not a better world than the current one. I think I'm skirting close to Leibniz here. Yes, the world could be better, but it would not be our world, and it would only be better to some of us, and worse for others.

It's highly unlikely that your best Kafka is my best Kafka. As such there is no Best Kafka. The world in which I help Kafka finish The Castle is one in which (for want of a nail) a trillion years from now the Zormulons exterminate the Qdhraxians. I doubt the Qdhraxians are happy I at least got an ending to a story.

It's hard to miss what you never knew.

Would have been great to possibly break out of that before our lifetimes, and I'd guess writing could have played a big part in that.

Or are you arguing these was more potential of some destruction of a legacy?

In my opinion, the only valid positive outcome of respect for the dead can be in benefits to the living - who may benefit from either disrespecting the dying wish, or alternatively from the expectation that their own dying wishes may some day be fulfilled. That's definitely a debate.

I do think they made the right call here, though.

[1] http://diggercomic.com/

I suppose it's a little different given Pratchett's stuff here was "unfinished" tho Kafka could have argued all his stuff was unfinished too ...

With Kafka, we got great novels out of the postumous publication. The publication of Joyce's letters to Nora Barnacle, however, paint him as someone who "[fastens] intently on peculiarities of sexual behaviour, some of which might be technically called perverse"[1]. No one has really benefited from their publication, except perhaps gossip columns.

I think I would stick to the author's desires. As great as Kafka's work is, I don't think we are "entitled" to them. But I can understand the opposing point too.

[1] Richard Ellmann, Selected Letters of James Joyce, Introduction, Faber & Faber, London, 1975

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_work

    curl -s -D - https://www.ceondo.com -o /dev/null | grep Terry

[1] presumably these have also been purged if his wishes were so written or interpreted, probably by more conventional means[2]

[2] the bulldozer being used for this one drive for ceremonial purposes

* I'm not advocating people write novels in DOS. Just making an exaggerated point that since the medium is text only you don't need to be upgrading frequently.

Not that i can't relate. If i could find a CLI browser that kept up with latest CSS and JS stuff, i would be doing everything in a framebuffer CLI.

Also seems so long ago, I used to play Discworld MUD and relive the stories on there as well. And now Terry has passed away (RIP, hope you're having fun with Death) and Discworld is off on its own, floating on a turtle somewhere. I have to be honest, I would read some Discworld fan fiction just to see those familiar characters again.

http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/index.php/Multiple_exclamat...

PS: I would have destroyed the shit out of that HD.