6 ms·

Why? They’re dead. Not trying to be flippant, I honestly don’t get why the deceased’s desires should be elevated over the living’s. It’s a moral choice I don’t

Why? They’re dead. Not trying to be flippant, I honestly don’t get why the deceased’s desires should be elevated over the living’s. It’s a moral choice I don’t agree with and don’t entirely understand.

itishappy 3y ago
Does this apply to inheritance too? Why should we care what happens to our kids once we die?
- drunkpotato 3y ago
  While we’re alive, we care. When we’re dead, it’s up to our children to care. Inheritance wishes are generally respected, but also can and do get overridden. I’m not saying that an author’s wishes shouldn’t be taken into account, the living still care about how they felt while they were alive, but it shouldn’t be the one and only priority that gets respected. Again, the dead can’t care anymore. Only the living can.
  - hosh 3y ago
    That really depends upon your beliefs and understanding of the cosmos. Not everyone agrees with that. To be fair, I have practiced shaivasana (“corpse pose”), specifically including “corpse don’t care” as a response to existential anguish arising and passing. But I also know quite a good bit about what it means to regret and long for second chances or a path not taken. I think it is quite rare for anyone (regardless of beliefs) to die without regrets. If you are able to pull that off for yourself, I’m glad for you.
- hosh 3y ago
  It’s interesting you bring up kids. In a belief system where there is a Creator, and the Creator is a Mother, all of Creation are her children. Thus, as humans, raising and nurturing a child is as much of an act of creation as art, music, etc. And conversely, our artistic creations tend to develop a life of its own.
hosh 3y ago
This is less about the deceased's desires over that of the living and more about creative control. Any creator will want to polish their work. It's already difficult enough to articulate and express the source of inspiration, and even polished, the material expression almost never matches its source.
- vidarh 3y ago
  I've published two novels, and I have tons of notes for all kinds of things, and frankly while there is lots I have written that I don't want to publish until/unless I rework it, and some things I don't want to publish at all, I couldn't give a shit what gets published after I'm dead other than to the extent it'd harm or embarrass anyone I care about. I don't think I have anything that'd harm anyone, but I do have things that might embarrass some. Like love poems written in my youth that has sentimental value for me, but might be embarrassing to my present or then girlfriend, for example. Frankly, all I'd ask of a literary executor would be that they 1) humor my requests while I'm alive, 2) respect the wishes of my family. Other than that, whether they actually follow through on my wishes? Put it this way, if I find myself in an afterlife, as an atheist, I doubt whether my executor stuck my wishes will be high on my list of things to care about. And without an afterlife it's not as if I'd be able to care. Or know,
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- ghaff 3y ago
  I can see both views. On the one hand, authors aren't always the best judges of their own work and executors can hire someone who may do a good job of polishing. On the other hand, there are unfinished works that are relatively mediocre (True at First Light) or just clearly unfinished (The Last Tycoon). Of course, a movie studio is almost certain to finish off a movie if a director dies and may remove them for other reasons.
  - hosh 3y ago
    It’s true, a good editor or producer collaborates with the creative to get it across the finish line, flawed as it is. It works better if there is mutual respect. My point though is when generalizing and reframing this about the deceased vs living, more often than not, it is no longer about respecting (even respectfully disagreeing) with the creative and more about disrespecting the deceased.
nottorp 3y ago
But but... our copyright lords at the Mouse's castle have decreed that copyright lasts 75 years after the author's death. That means it's illegal to not respect the dead person's wishes. The copyright is theirs, not their descendant's.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Copyright lasts for that period, but it doesn't continue to belong to the dead person.
jzb 3y ago
They weren't deceased when they expressed the desire. You usually don't know when, exactly, you're going to die. Nobody would argue, I hope, with "I'm going on a trip, don't publish anything I'm not done with until I get back and finish it." This just happens to be a very long, one-way trip. That said, I do think once someone is dead, there's some argument whether you have to respect that. But I at least understand the desire.
brigandish 3y ago
Because other people's wishes - especially about their own stuff - are to be respected?

itishappy 3y ago

Does this apply to inheritance too? Why should we care what happens to our kids once we die?

drunkpotato 3y ago
While we’re alive, we care. When we’re dead, it’s up to our children to care. Inheritance wishes are generally respected, but also can and do get overridden. I’m not saying that an author’s wishes shouldn’t be taken into account, the living still care about how they felt while they were alive, but it shouldn’t be the one and only priority that gets respected. Again, the dead can’t care anymore. Only the living can.
- hosh 3y ago
  That really depends upon your beliefs and understanding of the cosmos. Not everyone agrees with that. To be fair, I have practiced shaivasana (“corpse pose”), specifically including “corpse don’t care” as a response to existential anguish arising and passing. But I also know quite a good bit about what it means to regret and long for second chances or a path not taken. I think it is quite rare for anyone (regardless of beliefs) to die without regrets. If you are able to pull that off for yourself, I’m glad for you.
hosh 3y ago
It’s interesting you bring up kids. In a belief system where there is a Creator, and the Creator is a Mother, all of Creation are her children. Thus, as humans, raising and nurturing a child is as much of an act of creation as art, music, etc. And conversely, our artistic creations tend to develop a life of its own.

hosh 3y ago

This is less about the deceased's desires over that of the living and more about creative control. Any creator will want to polish their work. It's already difficult enough to articulate and express the source of inspiration, and even polished, the material expression almost never matches its source.

vidarh 3y ago
I've published two novels, and I have tons of notes for all kinds of things, and frankly while there is lots I have written that I don't want to publish until/unless I rework it, and some things I don't want to publish at all, I couldn't give a shit what gets published after I'm dead other than to the extent it'd harm or embarrass anyone I care about. I don't think I have anything that'd harm anyone, but I do have things that might embarrass some. Like love poems written in my youth that has sentimental value for me, but might be embarrassing to my present or then girlfriend, for example. Frankly, all I'd ask of a literary executor would be that they 1) humor my requests while I'm alive, 2) respect the wishes of my family. Other than that, whether they actually follow through on my wishes? Put it this way, if I find myself in an afterlife, as an atheist, I doubt whether my executor stuck my wishes will be high on my list of things to care about. And without an afterlife it's not as if I'd be able to care. Or know,
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
ghaff 3y ago
I can see both views. On the one hand, authors aren't always the best judges of their own work and executors can hire someone who may do a good job of polishing. On the other hand, there are unfinished works that are relatively mediocre (True at First Light) or just clearly unfinished (The Last Tycoon). Of course, a movie studio is almost certain to finish off a movie if a director dies and may remove them for other reasons.
- hosh 3y ago
  It’s true, a good editor or producer collaborates with the creative to get it across the finish line, flawed as it is. It works better if there is mutual respect. My point though is when generalizing and reframing this about the deceased vs living, more often than not, it is no longer about respecting (even respectfully disagreeing) with the creative and more about disrespecting the deceased.

nottorp 3y ago

But but... our copyright lords at the Mouse's castle have decreed that copyright lasts 75 years after the author's death. That means it's illegal to not respect the dead person's wishes. The copyright is theirs, not their descendant's.

pfdietz 3y ago
Copyright lasts for that period, but it doesn't continue to belong to the dead person.

jzb 3y ago

They weren't deceased when they expressed the desire. You usually don't know when, exactly, you're going to die. Nobody would argue, I hope, with "I'm going on a trip, don't publish anything I'm not done with until I get back and finish it." This just happens to be a very long, one-way trip. That said, I do think once someone is dead, there's some argument whether you have to respect that. But I at least understand the desire.

brigandish 3y ago

Because other people's wishes - especially about their own stuff - are to be respected?