Interesting topic! It made me think of a very important work of classic fiction in Chinese literature, The Story of the Stone, a Proustian family drama that is full of characters and narrative play, plus a nihilistic core that is quite rebellious in its time. The whole book was finished before the author’s death. Why do we know that? Because there were tons of notes taken by his friends and family in different handwritten manuscripts, referring to its tragic ending, they definitely have read the ending. However, the manuscripts beyond the 80 chapters were lost somehow, and no one could find them. Then another writer claimed to find the whole 120-chapter manuscripts, and published it himself, but now the general consensus is the last 40 chapters were written by that second author, the last chapters being a lot more conventional and the ending conforming to the traditional values. A lot of discrepancy between that ending and the ending described in those notes are also obvious and hard to justify. So the magnum opus is without a real ending until now. A lot of academic studies about this book is fascinating, so are conspiracy and controversy. The context of the publication of that book, the dubious disappearance of the ending, is a historical mystery. I would recommend anyone who has an interest in that realm to have a look.

Your enthusiasm is infectious. 👏 I’ve only read Tess, back in the day (at school). As a 15/16 year old boy, I probably wouldn’t be the target audience. But I loved it! The sense of place was remarkable; I could practically smell the farm yard scents and feel the countryside wind on my face. And the vulnerability of Tess, and her treatment at the hands of the men in her life, was heart breaking. The plot seemed unpredictable. It felt real. So for me, Tess would be a great place to start. But I’ve just bought a set of 9 x Hardy Folio Society books, and will read the lot! When I’ve finished, I’ll let you know if I think there are any better starting points. But I must admit, people tend to be partial to their first brush with an author. So I imagine Tess of the D’Urbervilles will remain my No.1 pick!

My feeling is that I don’t have a problem with anything being published posthumously as long as the editor is clear about what the final product is and the author’s original materials (on which the published book is based) are preserved so that future scholars can compare the materials with the published text. We can tie ourselves in knots debating ethics, but the truth is that if an unfinished Shakespeare play turned up tomorrow along with instructions in Shakespeare’s hand to burn it, nobody would burn it. So I do think we would all be willing to throw ethics out the window if the material is valuable enough and if the author died a long time ago. Because of this, I say for consistency’s sake we may as well apply the same rules even for mediocre works by the recently dead. I also think we can overvalue the importance of what it means to publish something. For example, there was debate about whether Nabokov’s son should have published The Original of Laura. But I didn’t see the big deal. The manuscript would have been made available to scholars at some point anyway, so it would have been out there in the world: written about in research papers. Publishing just meant it was more easily accessible. It didn’t confer some magical status on the work. It didn’t make it any more real. It wasn’t a stamp of approval. And, importantly, it wasn’t framed as a new Lolita: it was just a manuscript that some people might be interested in reading. My expertise is in Oscar Wilde and there are lots of examples of his works being published posthumously in different ways, mostly through the work of his literary executor, Robert Ross, whose main aim was to rehabilitate Wilde’s reputation. He heavily edited and published De Profundis to show Wilde’s spiritual awakening in prison (excising the petty point-scoring), published unfinished plays with the unwritten parts completed by another author, published his journalism (fixing minor errors), and published his terrible first play (apparently only to lessen demand for piracies). Another publisher filled in the gaps in Wilde’s unfinished book-length version of the Portrait of Mr W.H. and published that. In all these cases the originals were preserved, so no harm done in the long run. I’ll also say that a lot of music is released posthumously but there seems to be less hand-wringing about that. My suspicion is that this is because we value literature and authors more than music and musicians (especially popular musicians). Maybe someone advocated not releasing Tupac’s 100+ unreleased tracks, but if they did I never noticed. My suggestion would be that we stop treating the written word and authors’ wishes as if they’re sacred. If work of any kind is interesting, make it available.

First of all, I couldn’t hear any background noise, so no worries. Such interesting questions! Of course, Harper Lee is top of mind. She never wanted Go Set A Watchman published, so it never should have been published. Full stop. If the author has said no, and a greedy publisher (or family) intervenes, it’s vile. I find going into the bottom drawer and pulling out things that the author wrote much earlier in life and never intended to have published, should be absolutely out of bounds too. The greedy public shouldn’t matter. It seems that books and music have a lot in common when it comes to the death of the artist. I know that George Michael had some stuff unfinished/unreleased and went through it with his closest friend not too long before his death. He marked some things, whether songs or videos of concerts, as not to be released for one reason or another. He just wasn’t happy with them. So far, they are living up to George’s wishes. I hope it stays that way even though I would love to hear George again in something for the first time. But not if he didn’t want it. That should be what being a respectful fan is about. Back to books. I have a book that falls into one of your scenarios, probably one of the easier ones. Miss Marley was a book started by Vanessa LaFaye and finished by her friend Vanessa Mascull after Vanessa died from cancer, if I remember correctly. The book is beautiful and seamless. Thank goodness it was finished and published. It’s one of my favorites. Do I want or need to know who wrote what? Would I prefer say, different fonts for different authors? No. But that comes down to it should be seamless. I think the Acknowledgments for Miss Marley laid out the situation and roughly described the line of demarcation. More than enough info for me. Would I want to know individual lines or words changed/finished in a poem? Not really. If another author finishes a book by an author who has died and understands the author’s intent and style and will complete their work to the best of their ability to sound like the original author, I think that is ok. If an unfinished book is finished by someone else without fidelity to the original author, that sucks. I shouldn’t be able to see a line of demarcation between authors. Seems like having their editor or agent finish a book may have the best chance of maintaining that fidelity. Releasing unfinished work, with or without commentary? I go back to my George Michael example. It wasn’t ready for people to see. It should remain out of public view. Do my answers change depending on how long ago the author died? Unfinished Shakespeare? Unfinished Tony Morrison? Unfinished Homer? Well, Homer, maybe give it to me. But I’m wavering on Shakespeare even. Morrison? No. Not unless it’s something she wanted. So, I guess I come down on the side of what the author/artist would have wanted. Often, we have no way of knowing. But if something is being published for the money, I want nothing to do with it. One last thing. It should be completely clear from the cover everyone who was involved in writing the book.

Interesting topic! In general, I don't have very strong opinions on this. It depends on the situation. When an author has stated that they don't want their work published after they're gone I think we should respect that, but hey, if money can be made... I read 'Inseparable' by Simone de Beauvoir for the booktube prize and I was aware that the book had been published posthumously and she didn't intend to publish it. I think she was right. Some stories are so personal that they don't make good books. It even says in the epilogue that there are multiple unpublished versions of the story, which to me indicates that she couldn't get it right. And maybe the personal nature is why she wasn't able to make it into a publishable book. It's not terrible and some people did rate it very high, but I have the sneaking suspicion that her status may have played a part in that. There's one extra situation I could think of: when the author knows they're going to die soon and hand over the work to someone else to finish. So there is intent to publish and also intent that it be finished by someone else. Probably the storyline will be passed on, but the details are not by the original author. I think Lucinda Riley might be an example of that. I didn't read past book 3 so no opinion on that one.

Interesting video. I fall into the camp of wanting to know the authors intention. If an early work has been kept by the author, but with no intention to publish I would hope the estate wouldn’t capitalise against the authors wishes. Saying that from an academic viewpoint scholars would appreciate access to the work. It does become a complex issue. From a would I read it for enjoyment perspective I would say no. I would follow the authors wish. Maybe as a reader I want to read what I know the author wanted their work/story to say, and if they have not had an influence to the editing process etc, I wouldn’t be interested in reading it just to be a completist. I am thinking of Barbara Pym in particular as I am reading her novels. Rather long comment to say in a nutshell, I would consider what the author wanted, if we did not know, I would read was was published in their lifetime or the book that was finished and had a publication date, as I would assume the editing had been completed and not changed. This is too much thinking for a Sunday afternoon 😂

The Michael Crichton/James Patterson “collab” comes to mind. Supposedly Crichton’s wife found his notes for a book and knew that Patterson would be the perfect person to complete it. Patterson is known for slapping his name on a book that his ghostwriters wrote simply because his name is recognizable and will sell books. It’s so icky. Just a money grabbing ploy.

I think I have different feelings depending on the perspective. As a reader, I really don’t mind so long as the context is explicit. That said, if I was a writer, I wouldn’t want anything put out into the world without final sign off unless it had previously been agreed like in the case of I May Be Wrong by Bjorn Nathiko Lindeblad. Interestingly @hannahlosttheplot just talked about this same issue regarding another book (I forget the title) in a reading vlog.

I have much to say so sorry in advance. I don’t have any “moral” qualms with posthumous publications of any variety. The author is dead. The manuscripts they left behind belong to those who inherit their estate. They can do what they like. If Kafka’s friend had listened to him and destroyed his work the world would be a lesser place (though of course we wouldn’t know that). I’ve been rereading Ernest Hemingway’s “worst” books this summer (yes it’s an odd project) three of which were published posthumously and which kind of fit your categories. The first, Islands in the Stream, was published shortly after his death and in the nearly completed form in which it existed when he died. This is the kind of posthumous book that I read and think of as being written by the author. It needed editing, but it was a completed manuscript that was published as it was found. To me this is a legitimate work by Hemingway. The next two, Garden of Eden and True at First Light, were both unfinished manuscripts at the time of his death and had to be heavily edited by someone else to make them a coherent narrative. Editors at Hemingway’s publishing house took the most coherent of three manuscripts of Garden of Eden cut huge chunks out of it and shaped it into novel. To me that makes it less legitimate. The writing is his, but the choices were not. I would have preferred them to either pick one of the three versions and publish it as they found it or publish all three. True at First Light was edited, and in some cases sentences were added, by his son who eliminated large chunks of text including things he thought were boring and reflected badly on his father or his family. This is then, to me, is not really a book written by Hemingway. Again publishing it as it existed at the time of Hemingway’s death is my preferred option. Of course this would have limited their commercial appeal and defeated the purpose in publishing them. F. Scott Fitzgerald also has a posthumously published novel, The Last Tycoon, which his estate published in its incomplete form. I believe it was copy edited, but other than that it just ends with the last chapter Fitzgerald wrote. I consider it a legitimate work of F Scott Fitzgerald. For me it’s an authenticity issue and a matter of not messing with historical documents (though I’m sure the originals from which the last two were created still exist).I want to read what these authors wrote and so I appreciate posthumous publication. I just prefer it as authentic as possible.

I feel it's very context-specific. For example, Zora Neale Hurston died very disgraced and dejected and her works being published posthumously was a way of correcting history and making things right(thank you Alice Walker!) Funny you talked about works being burned because her work was literally being burned by a guy who had been sent to clean up her house after her death and I think one of her friends was very luckily walking by and was able to salvage her work. I can also think that EM Forster was too scared to publish Maurice was when he was alive and can I say now Maurice is seminal work in queer literature. I know sometimes that the deceased's estates/publishers are doing it for the wrong reasons but also a lot of times the posthumous works are important.

Very interesting video! It's a great reminder to all writers to make a will. In case this is of any help to you ... I recently read Heather Cass White's "New Collected Poems of Marianne Moore" and I finally felt that I was reading the "best" version of Moore's poems. The chosen versions, however, were not the later edits Moore made. I'm summarising rather badly, but you might want to search Heather Cass White out and read about her decision making process. Good luck with your research!

This is such an interesting issue! Whenever I think about this problem, my mind always goes first to something I heard in a lecture once that often, when a writer asks somebody to destroy their unpublished manuscripts, they don't actually mean it & that if they really wanted to destroy their unpublished work, they would destroy it themselves. (I think Kafka often comes up as an example.) But while this may be true in some cases, I'm sure there are at least as many instances where it isn't. Personally, if I already liked a particular author, I would be interested in their posthumous publications, too. For work that is clearly less complete, my personal preference would be to see a faithful rendering of the manuscript with extensive editorial notes, as opposed to any editing of the manuscript itself. It would also be nice to see, probably in the form of an introduction, a discussion of why the piece was selected for publication despite being incomplete. Even if the editor/agent/etc. knew the author very well and knew their intentions with the piece, I still would prefer to see the text as it is. Of course subsequent editing could make for a more enjoyable read, but the text would then effectively become "co-authored" & inevitably become something different. As for texts being finished by other authors - I would consider reading these, but as I said above, I would consider this to be a co-authored text, or an adaptation of some kind. I would definitely like to know who completed/adapted the text, though, and would be less inclined to read it if I knew a ghost author was involved in the process. Another important point - and this probably applies more to personal documents such as diaries/journals - but I feel like there is also a general agreement(?) that posthumous publication becomes more acceptable (or less controversial) in proportion to the time elapsed since the author's death... Unfortunately I don't have any useful thoughts on the undated poems... Personally I am interested in editions of poetry that show how a poet revised a poem throughout their lifetime, although I'm aware that these editions often show the date of each revision. Depending on the number of versions, perhaps such an approach could work anyway, even if there's no way to organize the versions of the poem chronologically?

Let's face it financial reasons are the main motivation the families or estate of a deceased author want to publish an unfinished work or a work the author did not want published. There are a few exceptions, for example E M Forster who was writing in a time when homosexuality was not accepted. I don't think an author should destroy their 'failed' drafts, they may keep them to inform future works or they might just want to keep a body of drafts etc for future generations. If an author's intentions are clear, then I don't mind another author finishing a book...it depends. But where our man Marquez expressly said don't publish this, and the estate still does that, it comes down to the filthy lucre and I won't be reading that. When it comes to poetry, I would read the unfinished versions. I mean, look at Sappho and others like that where we get only pieces of their work and we love them just the same.

That's an easy answer for me. If there's an edited version the author was ready to have published, yes, it should be done posthumously. If there is some fine tuning left to do, the author can't be asked about anymore, I would be okay with that too. But if there are major changes still left to be done, then it should never get published. In all the other cases it's a no from me too. I'm volunteering in hospice care and it is immensely hurtful to watch relatives disrespecting the wishes of the deceased and doing what they decide is the right thing to do or what is best for themselves. I will never get used to witness that and I have no understanding for that kind of selfish behaviour.

Last night I found out via the UK Guardian that HarperCollins next month is set to publish "70 previously unpublished poems" in a collection comprised of 195 pieces from JRR Tolkien, 50 years after his death, though he had struggled to publish them in his own lifetime. His son Christopher had pushed for his father to gain posthumous recognition for his bardic endeavours. It does not appear Tolkien had intended for the poems to read by the public. I also worry about the quality of the proposed collection, that it might be subpar, or mediocre in contrast to more fully realized works in the mainstream. Isn't it enough for Tolkien's name to be attached to some of the most extraordinary pieces of fantasy writing in the twentieth century? Why this effort to present JRR Tolkien as a capable poet? Poetry is already so niche.

Anthony Veasna So was on the verge of a huge break out career with his short story collection Afterparties about to be released. Unfortunately he died unexpectedly, and so did his very unique voice as a Queer Cambodian American. It’s heartbreaking that someone with such a unique perspective won’t be able to give us his wonderful stories and novels. He had been working on his novel as part of his publishing deal. Songs On Endless Repeat has come out within the last year with further writings by him. Included is a considerable chunk that was his novel in progress. I was pleasantly surprised how much was there and how much hung together. It contains a bright glimpse of his potential. Ultimately, it’s got to be a case by case consideration with many different factors. I think he would have been very happy that people got this further glimpse of writing. I’m so sad we don’t have more.

The book has so much to offer and as I read and re-read it, I find space for looking at it through multiple emerging perspectives in literary studies today. Although the book's inception was 16 years ago, it offers the possibility to be read as literature for social transformation especially in India and the cosmopolitan contexts of urban cities like Mumbai. Also, kudos to you for this very well made video.

Have a good holiday 🎉

I excitedly bought The Warm Hands of Ghosts earlier this year… and it has sat on my shelf ever since! I really must get to it!

Love the covers!🎉

I’m going to start My Friends today! I’m actually torn between which cover I prefer, usually it’s quite clear cut. I think reading it will solidify which works best. I’ve heard such great things about it, I’m in need of a really good novel, they’ve been spare this year. I did finish Held and gave it five stars, but’s it not exactly a classic novel in that regard.

As far as I’m concerned you could start anywhere. Everything he wrote is worth reading…!! 😊

🩵🩵🩵

delighted to hear that you loved the Maggie O'Farrell, I think about it all the time! enjoy your holiday x

Good to see you, enjoy your break, read lots!

I hope you enjoy your holiday! I tried a Helen Oyeyemi book a few years back. I honestly don't remember which one, but I only made it two or three chapters before I decided to stop. I had thought that I would try another of her books at some point, but I never have.

You have permission to read easier books as you get back into reading again! And well done for DNFing a book you just weren’t feeling right now - it’s a hard thing to do when you’ve invested some time in it and it feels like the kind of thing you should like! Have a brilliant holiday 😀

yesss, I love ‘I Am, I Am, I Am’. I will read anything that Maggie O’Farrell writes, she has never failed me📚🤌🏻✨

A Hamnet movie? OMG! I saw the Hamnet play in London last December and it was absolutely incredible!

Staycation in someone else's garden sounds like a good break to me. Bonus points if it's outside of your usual neighbourhoods.

I really enjoyed I am, I am, I am. I read it on a 5hr flight, which might not have been the best choice, but it was so good! I want to read Helen Oyeyemi, but I feel a bit intimidated and don't know where to start! Enjoy your housesitting!

I absolutely love Delphine De Vigan!! Gratitude is another short one and very moving ❤

I've only read one Helen Oyeyemi and it wasn't really my thing but I hope your next attempt is more successful!

Just saying "Hi" and " Great to have you back!"😊

Yay a Jen video! This is just what I needed today. 🥰🥰

Bookstores obviously make themselves cooler just to trap you in the summer.

You look so well and rosy in this. Have a lovely housesit holiday. Sometimes it's enough just to be away from home.

Happy to see you liked reading Delphine de Vigan. I would recommend Based on a True Story by her. It seems to be a bit of a marmite book, but I really liked it.

Immediately added Loyalties to my wishlist. Have a wonderful holiday!

Great to see you back - you look amazing. Just realised I’ve missed 2 videos so I’ll backtrack.

Loyalties sounds like a bit of me. Is it translated or written in english?

Underground by Delphine de Vigan is a lovely book. Best book read in July The God of the Woods by Liz Moore Not as good as her book The Unseen World but a good read. Both are now optioned for film now.

Jen you look stunning!! Have a splendid holiday! ❤

Enjoy your holiday! 😊