In 2008, Putnam released "Armageddon in Retrospect," a collection of previous unpublished works by legendary writer/curmudgeon/Indy native son Kurt Vonnegut.
In 2009, Delacorte published "Look at the Birdie," a collection of previously unpublished short fiction by Vonnegut.
This month, thanks to the good folks at Delacorte, we are also seeing "While Mortals Sleep," another collection of unpublished Vonnegut fiction.
And so it goes.
As a reader of just about everything that Vonnegut wanted to be published in his lifetime, I have mixed feelings about the Tupac-like influx of posthumous releases.
On the one hand, Vonnegut was great at what he did and I understand the desire of fans to see "new" work, of academics to want to see it all, and of publishers to make more money.
On the other hand, any of this work could have been published in the writer's lifetime--if he wanted it to be.
If the writer chose to keep these in a drawer, should we respect that? By putting the work between covers, we make it part of the canon. But, at some point, doesn't the release of such material water down the rest?
In Vonnegut terms: Are those pushing everything the man wrote into bookstores part of a karrass or a granfalloon?
Your thoughts?
Back to Top
IBJ Conversations
9 Comments
Add Comment
Just because someone didn't want something released while they were a working artist doesn't mean they always want it hidden away forever.
Perhaps our best example is J.D. Salinger. He died one year ago, and many people speculated (yearned) for unpublished manuscripts to appear.
Kurt Vonnegut was 84 when he left us, and he had every opportunity to express his wishes with his family and solicitor. Just like his work purposely published during his lifetime, we can judge the worth and significance of his posthumous work. By the way, I particularly found some of the war essays in "Armageddon in Retrospect" very moving and poignant.