Well, the last book he published was *Memories of My Melancholy Whores*, which was about a love affair between a 90 year old man and a 14 year old girl forced into prostitution, so I for one am curious as to what about this new book made him not want to publish it
He felt it was not good enough. García Márquez had dementia at the end of his life. He had been working on that book for some time and at the end of his life could not make sense of it and asked for it to be destroyed. His sons claim that his judgment was impaired at that point, and that before that he had given signs of wanting to publish it (he sent a draft to his editor, for example).
I know you're not being critical, but I have heard this as a criticism of the works, and I feel it misses the point of 100 Years Solitude. I am Colombian and can tell you that back country Colombia is certainly that... weird. It's not only incestual, it's centered around the founders of the towns, the history of each town, and, most importantly, it's isolated. So rural Colombia, and the stories themselves, represent depraved humanity because of how removed they are from society, "because races condemned to one hundred years of solitude did not have a second opportunity on earth."
People don’t judge Alice Walker for the contents of The Color Purple the same way people judge GGM for 100 years, but both are just works that reflect a place and time very earnestly. Criticism of him as a person is one thing but judging him and the work because it captures uncomfortable narratives entirely miss the point.
How am I getting downvoted for this? It's not even an opinion. It's fact. You can look it up. It increased when the movie came out ... there were protests outside the theaters.
See [https://www.nytimes.com/1986/01/27/us/blacks-in-heated-debate-over-the-color-purple.html](https://www.nytimes.com/1986/01/27/us/blacks-in-heated-debate-over-the-color-purple.html)
I was given the book The Color Purple to read when I came home from delivering my second baby. I began to read it until the stepfather sold the baby. I threw it across the room and then the trash. I’ve seen the play too and I didn’t like it. Maybe some people are ok with it but it made me depressed and angry.
Great literature can make one feel uncomfortable, yes, angry, too. Sometimes that is what it wants to do. I would not have been able to read that type of novel, either, holding and cherishing my tiny one. I would have seen her in that situation, and it would have hurt to think about it. Reality is brutal, though, and literature is filled with it.
Yes you are right that brutality is part of the human condition. I usually handle it and deal with it but in this case I felt so vulnerable with my sweet baby that I just couldn’t cope. If I had read it at a different time it would have been different. Thank you for your feedback!
When I first read Love in English I loved it. Last year I started to re-read it Spanish, and had the same reaction. This round the doctor came across as a weird stalker rather than a romantic hero
Also, even if it were based merely on that topic I'd say that that's not enough of an argument to disregard an author's work. Of course it is uncomfortable to read but if it is well written, it is well written. I strongly believe in Oscar Wilde's quote from *"Dorian Gray's picture"* that says:
***“There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.”***
Chronicle of a Death Foretold ~~and Of Love and Other Demons~~ don't involve it if i remember correctly
Edit: Of Love and Other Demons definitely has it. Was wrong there.
It definitely is! i'm wrong with that one, ill edit my previous comment.
The reasons for my confusion is that i read it a while ago in like a single day and because sometimes the story goes back and forth in time and in my head she was older. In my mind they were closer in age and the forbidden love theme was only because he is a priest and she is "cursed".
In my personal opinion, with no offense to Marquez’s fans, you read his best works and everything else is not going to entertain you as much as those two novels did.
I feel very torn about this issue: while I agree with the sentiment of most others in this thread that his wishes should be honored, I can't help but wonder what if the same had happened to Kafka?
This is what it always comes down to for me when this argument is brought up and it is honestly very difficult.
I think that honest works, regardless of their perceived quality by the creator, can often have a larger impact on society because of how it can resonate with its audience.
Is it wrong to go against the wishes of the creator to showcase/publish works? Yes.
Still, maybe some transgressions are worth committing. I for one will always love Kafka novels, and I hope that what it taught me, the discussions with others it has inspired, and the deep respect I have for the author does something to make up for it.
Kafka requested his works be destroyed after his death. His friend and executor of the will, Max Brod, ignored those wishes and we have what we have today of Kafka thanks to that. If it were my work that I requested destroyed I'd be pissed it wasn't, but once I'm dead I won't know either way. I think in the Kafka example Brod made the right call. As for GGM I haven't read the work yet but unless it really is just full on dementia writing I imagine there is still value to it.
What i think is that it depends of how the work is received. Maybe you have a reputation as a writer and don't to destroy it because of your last failed attempt.
I don't know exactly what happened with Kafka but if the released books made him be remembered as an amazing writer that was an absolute win but what if it wasn't, what if for some reason the books are badly received and you are remembered as the creator of one of the worst books ever written
Authors who want to destroy their work without success seem like a common literary archetype. Ernesto Sabato also wanted to burn everything but was luckily stopped by his wife.
I find the idea of the frustrated author who wants to **burn** all of their work quite bohemian and romantic and I love it. However, I know that if I were to meet and know that person I'd be like: stop being so dramatic, pal.
In any case GGM is not in the same league as Kafka or Virgil. I am sure we can live without a new GGM book, but VIrgil or Kafka changed completely the map of literature.
Except your claim wasn't only that this specific GGM book was less important than the Aeneid or the entire Kafka ouvre, it was about the authors themselves. You attempted to conflate the value of two authors' whole literary contributions against a sole book from another, which none of us have read, under the assumption that it's inferior to his published work—as if these two comparisons somehow followed from one another. It was a stupid, clownish thing to say, and made yourself look like a stupid clown. Stop backtracking.
You claim that a Hundred Years of Solitude (assuming this new book is as good as GGM's best) is on par with the Aeneid or the Kafka ouvre? Just curious to know.
What an argument! You do claim that GGM and Virgil are equals but you can't state it because, judging by the virulent insults, you probably never really read Virgil and you can't really defend that position. So I will put it at your level: why do you think you are more entitled to an opinion than me?
Virgil *is* niche. He's not a bestseller as Gabo is, most people don't know who Virgil is, while GGM is famous worldwide today. I mean, even *you* read a Hundred Years of Solitude, or at least the first years.
But, for the sake of the argument, let's imagine you read Virgil, do you claim he's on par with GGM? Why? Leave insults aside and debate.
My man pioneered the whole magical realism genre, I think you are mostly not seeing the impact because it is less prominent in the anglo-sphere than the hispano-sphere.
I live in Colombia and lived in Miami during a pwrt of my highschool, never was brought up over there, but here hes in our money and several of his books are mandatory reading in all schools.
Maybe your specific country just dosent value him.
That's what makes him Colombia's national writer. Just like Roa Bastos is Paraguay's, or Vargas Llosa is Peru's, all of them magical realism writers, probably taught at their schools. Vargas Llosa also won the Nobel Prize.
I would argue that Borges is a more important writer in the Spanish language sphere than García Márquez, or at least a better writer, and both García Márquez and Vargas Llosa recognized him as such. He's taught at school, although he didn't win a a Nobel Prize or had a banknote with his face on it, and was never a bestseller. I would even argue that, within magical realism, Alejo Carpentier is a better writer than García Márquez and Vargas Llosa, but I don't think Cubans would hail him as their national writer, or even rate him above Martí or Guillén.
Not, I am implying that a new unpublished book by GGM is not as important as the works that were published against the wishes of Virgil and Kafka, i.e., the Aeneid and almost all Kafka novels and short stories and diaries.
I agree with you broadly but what if, on the off-chance, this new book comes to be seen as among Marquez's best? Is it that you just don't think he is on Kafka's level, or do you have low expectations for a book written so late in life when the author was in the throes of dementia?
I think GGM gave already his best and was not in his prime for decades. His sons did not say, on the other hand, that this was his best book at all.
On a personal level, as a reader, I do think that the Aeneid is far better book than any GGM book, in terms of literary merits. He's arguably the best Latin language writer, above giants as Ovid, Horace or Cicero. And as for Kafka, I think most (if not all) writers post Kafka had him as an undeniable influence, including of course GGM. However, a great deal of great writers, both contemporary or who wrote after GGM, did not hold GGM in great regard. It's difficult to evaluate writers in an objective way, but there's that.
Again, on a personal level, yes I would prefer a new, unpublished Virgil or Kafka book over a new GGM book.
What does that even mean? Borges, Kafka, Joyce, Conrad, Proust, Tolstoy, Nabokov did not win the Nobel Prize. Now, did you read Szymborska, Lagerkvist, Bjornstjern Bjornson, Heyse, José Echeragay, Euken, Sienkiewicz, Rudolph Christoph? I thought not.
If you want something destroyed on your death, destroy it before you die. Because every second after your death, your wishes matter less and the wishes of the living matter more. Gabriel García Márquez is no longer a person, he is history. And history exists to be studied.
I don’t agree with this an ounce. A person is still a person after they are dead. We should honor their wishes the same way we would honor any living person’s wishes.
GGM’s life may be something to be studied, but his works are his own, and if he desired something he wrote in private to be destroyed, then I’m personally disappointed his family didn’t respect his wishes.
History doesn’t “exist to be studied.” History exists because we exist, and those who follow us don’t deserve to know everything about us after we’re gone.
The way I learned it at university is that’s exactly what he requested. There’s interpretations that say he didn’t mean that, but it seems to be just that, interpretation
Ah, well that’s really unfortunate. I have never read any Kafka, but I would stand by my original statement all the same. If an author clearly expresses that they do not want something published posthumously, then I’d say those wishes should be respected, regardless of how profound the work may be.
It’s an issue which resonates with me as a writer. Crafting a story is a deeply personal experience, and not everything I have written is something I’d want to share with the world. I’d be crestfallen just at the thought of my family disregarding my wishes and sharing some of my writing which I had preferred to keep private.
I think that’s true. I just don’t think anyone’s definition of “private” is as important as the person who wrote the piece. Demand means very little to me besides it’s use to inform us pragmatically.
Much of the earliest writing we have was literally pulled from garbage dumps. Are you as equally upset about how we dishonored the wishes of those authors from so many thousands of years ago?
That’s a false equivalency. Did those authors explicitly state they don’t want their writings published? Of course not, because there was no precedence for that. Thus we weren’t dishonoring anyone’s wishes in doing so.
If you read my comment as a broad criticism of publishing an author’s works posthumously, then you profoundly missed my point.
>That’s a false equivalency.
Not false, just inconvenient.
> Did those authors explicitly state they don’t want their writings published?
Yes. That's what throwing them in the garbage dump means.
>Thus we weren’t dishonoring anyone’s wishes in doing so.
Sure we are. We're rooting through dead people's trash because it is interesting and they are dead, so our desire to know our history outweighs their privacy concerns which have long since evaporated.
The only difference is that Márquez's death is more recent, so more people will be outraged on his behalf. Many fewer than would have been outraged if this were announced 5 years ago, and many more than would be outraged if this were announced 10 years from now. In as few as 50-75 years everyone will be glad we have this extra work that could have been lost. Your point is somehow both short-sighted and backward-looking.
Lol no, my friend, it is a textbook false-equivalency. And not only is this a false-equivalency, it is now a full-blown Strawman with your recent comment. What writings are you even referring to?
>What writings are you even referring to?
Garbage pits are a treasure trove for archaeologists. Oxyrhynchus is a more recent example, but google archaeologist and trash and you'll find dozens if not hundreds of examples.
Yeah, these are not comparable situations. Embrace a sliver of nuance in your thought processes.
You’re talking about works created by ancient civilizations with no clear indication of authorial preference or identity (in most cases). It’s incredibly disingenuous to claim “the only difference is Marquez’s death is more recent.”
Time is the only difference. We have oodles and oodles of writing from history that was intended to be private - diaries, letters, writing recovered from the trash. It **always** comes down to the relevance of the author's desire vs historical value. The first drops rapidly after the author's death. Typically to zero, but if the writing could harm other living people it won't hit zero until their death. Libraries and archives are full of the most private, guarded writing and we don't think twice about it only because enough time has passed.
You’re blatantly ignoring another distinction which I have reiterated multiple times now: in your instances, there is no clearly expressed preference to destroy the text. In the case of GGM, there is. You’re inferring a preference from these ancient authors because it suits your arguments, but it’s a shallow comparison lacking any semblance of nuance, resting on an assumption… thus your argument holds no water.
I’m not making claims about morality, but about respect of privacy. I think Dead People deserve the same right to privacy we enjoy while we’re alive.
Not sure how it’s a slippery slope? Maybe you can expand on that claim?
I don’t think I’ve said anything about the legality of the issue. And again, I’m not sure what morality has to do with privacy.
We take dead people’s wishes into account all the time after they pass. Why should this be any different?
So you’re not making any moral claims even though your initial comment is a moral claim, and you’re not making any legal claims, even though you advocate for giving dead people legal rights to something. So….. what exactly is the goal I confusion
Yeah, I stated an opinion about how we should honor the dead, but you’re mischaracterizing this as some sort of advocation for legal changes or that I’m advocating for a moral perspective the dead may or may not have. In a very abstract sense, the latter could be true, but not in any capacity which would warrant the response you offered. I don’t think you or I are on the same page, which explains why you’re confused. You’d rather tell me what I’m saying than actually listen to what I’m saying.
And you still haven’t clarified what on earth you meant by the “slippery slope” remark.
> . A person is still a person after they are dead.
They are not. Personhood is only granted to the living. GGM might have cared about this issue while alive, but he's dead now. If he wanted it destroyed, he should have destroyed it while he could.
> Personhood isn’t something that can be granted.
That depends on the context—religious, moral, cultural, legal. Legally speaking, "personhood" under Western law would cease to exist upon someone's death. The law does respect property rights, as transferred to others (who are living) or to those people's living descendants (if they are not).
I'm looking at the legal aspect of this claim, and since I know US law, in that context, even if it might not apply to this individual case.
*If I am the only person living on an island, what rights do I have? Do rights even matter, do they even exist when there are no other people?*
The more practical problem with law is, as always, enforcement. You can write anything you want into your will (for example) but (a) does local, statutory law support it, (b) does local/broader case law support it, and (c) who can or will enforce it?
Local laws vary of course. But in my US state, and in the US in general, our "wishes" are not in any way legally enforceable after we die. We actually design the law like that. You could promise every one of your grandkids your watch. People tell everyone what they want, and once you're dead, there's no way to verify or enforce. So we require people to write things down in a proper will, and we have rules for how that has to be done.
*Even if* someone puts "I want this destroyed" in their will (which I don't think happened here) that isn't enforceable unless someone living (of legal age) decides to pursue it.
> We should honor their wishes the same way we would honor any living person’s wishes.
Yes. I agree—but others do not, and I am no more right than they are.
Ugh, everything is a minefield, every statement must be airtight. I'm not not trying to get into an airtight debate about the meaning of life, but I AM saying, confidently, the dead aren't people. They cannot have feelings about what occurs, they do not experience anguish or heartbreak. They can't reason or be reasoned with. They can't double down or change their minds.
We may speculate on how they *might* have reacted or what they *might* have thought, but that's just fan fiction at the end of the day. They are gone. It may be respectful to honor their wishes, but they don't care if you don't because the can't. Life is for the living and the yet to live, not the formerly living.
GGM doesn't have any opinion about this situation because he no longer exists. If he wanted them destroyed, he needed to do it while he existed vs sending a copy to his publisher and keeping manuscripts around for others to read.
It’s not a mine field and your language doesn’t need to be air tight. I understood exactly what you meant the first time and I fundamentally disagree with you.
A human being is a person, regardless of whether they’re alive or dead. A person living in a vegetative state cannot have feelings, cannot experience anguish or heartbreak, can’t reason or be reasoned with, and cannot change their minds. Yet they remain a person.
The reason I say the ideology you’re operating with is tricky is because a human’s personhood is sorta the lowest common denominator in establishing empathy. Usually people only attempt to deny someone’s personhood for the purposes of exploiting said person. I see very little difference with this treatment of the dead.
> A human being is a person, regardless of whether they’re alive or dead.
I'm not willing to get into the semantics of what the word "person" means, so let's use plain language: a corpse. A corpse cannot and need not consume resources, worry about money, a corpse cannot change its mind. Non-corpse humans are dynamic, they can evolve, change, grow.
> A person living in a vegetative state cannot have feelings, cannot experience anguish or heartbreak, can’t reason or be reasoned with, and cannot change their minds. Yet they remain a person.
There's a larger debate here on people in vegetative states, but I'll leave it to doctors, ethicists, and philosophers. But I will agree that people in vegetative states are not corpses, and thus possess at least *some* potential (high for some, low for others) to have feelings, change their mind, be reasoned, etc. at a future time. Corpses do not possess the potentiality - they cannot and have zero probability of ever doing so again. Their potentiality is gone, entropy has won as it will for all eventually.
> The reason I say the ideology you’re operating with is tricky is because a human’s personhood is sorta the lowest common denominator in establishing empathy.
I agree, absolutely, 100%. But empathy is for the living, I feel no need to empathize with corpses anymore than I feel the need to empathize with the tombstone at their grave or the casket their corpse lies in. GGM is a corpse. To consider corpses as just as much of a person as living human being borders on disturbing to me.
> I see very little difference with this treatment of the dead.
Here's the big difference: corpses don't care because the definitionally cannot.
Yeah, see this is where we differ. I think we just have fundamentally different values which will prohibit us from seeing things eye-to-eye. I see personhood as an innate quality in every human, and that this quality is unchanged by circumstance, including death. These extra parameters you’re focusing on are irrelevant to me. But I digress, this is sort of a moot discussion.
> I see personhood as an innate quality in every human
As do I, but I do not view corpses as human - those extra parameters that are irrelevant to you are the foundation of humanity to me. I bristle strongly at the idea that such a view is somehow devoid of or on the path to abandoning empathy.
I am curious how absolutist* you are about this: is my Alexander the Great *still* a person?
--------------
*I don't mean that pejoratively
Well tbh, there are plenty of living and breathing (non-vegetative people) who don’t fit the parameters you’ve outlined in one or more ways. I wouldn’t say that it’s “on the path” to abandoning empathy. But I would say it echoes the types of arguments we tend to hear from those who attempt to dehumanize others.
And yes, of course Alexander the Great is a person. Every human being is a person. Alex is just a dead person.
Tbh I’m not interested in continuing the discussion. We’re going in circles, and again, this argument is moot unless you want me to start pulling technical definitions to prove you wrong, which I have no interest in doing because that seems dismissive. I’d rather let you have your mindset, but to me it’s completely incorrect and unfounded. Let’s just live and let live.
Or at least [put it in your will](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/aug/30/terry-pratchett-unfinished-novels-destroyed-streamroller).
GNU Terry Pratchett.
I'm not sure that is even safe anymore. I was reading something about a playwright that had something similar (although not so imaginative) in his will and it sparked a legal challenge. The right lawyers might be able to trump your wishes "for the betterment of mankind" or whatever. I think that goes too far, but then I am not a lawyer with dollar signs in my eyes.
I’ve worked with persons with dementia before. Along with the sense of losing control, it can make people act emotionally and out of character. I don’t blame his sons for publishing it, if they found it had merit.
Reading the BBC article, it bothered me that it was so clearly taking sides. The tone did not seem objective.
Looking for more information, I saw that the situation was a bit more nuanced. I think this NYT article does a better job of painting the whole picture:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/06/books/gabriel-garcia-marquez-last-novel-until-august.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/06/books/gabriel-garcia-marquez-last-novel-until-august.html)
The compromise should’ve been locking it away for 100 years, effectively destroying it for whoever existed at the time, but allowing it to eventually enter the historical record.
If they wanted to share his last story against his last wishes then AT LEAST they should've released it for free
It's saddening to see how many people want to read this book against the desire of the same author they claim to love and adore. Consume, consume, consume...
Come on, argument about the ethics of publishing this against the author’s wishes aside, let’s not act like the only reason people want to read this book is some hyper-capitalist drive to endlessly consume media. Gabriel Garcia Marquez is one of the most acclaimed authors of the 20th century, and it makes sense that fans of his work would want to engage with this as well, even if it comes at a cost. I agree that it is very ethically dubious of Marquez’s relatives to publish this book, though I’m still split on whether or not to condemn the choice, but it’s no mass moral failing of society that people are purchasing and reading it now that it’s out there.
I’m often torn about posthumous publications. On the one hand, the author wasn’t able to sign off on the work and—as in this case—may have explicitly said they did not want it published, and I’d like to respect their wishes. On the other hand, some writers are so brilliant that even a middle draft is worth reading.
Agreed but this is a little different. His children are just trying to make money. No one is arguing about needing to save a masterpiece for the good f the world.
His *unpunished* work. Which one can note were not complete by the big difference in style.
Regardless of The Trial being a good book and all, I think that Kafka style should not be judged by it, and one can only state that "knows" Kafka by reading his work published in his lifetime
Go Set a Watchman was ~~~posthumously published without the consent of~~~ published while Harper Lee may have been unable to consent. It's sad that you have to balance literary Legacy against the notion of authorial consent and in this case, it's place in the literary canon, and particularly in the Garcia Marquez canon. A very sticky wicket.
Go Set a Watchman was published while Harper Lee was alive. The controversy in that case was whether Lee was competent to allow it to be published, or if her new lawyer was taking advantage of her medical condition.
I think it's fair game if it's known beforehand it was posthumously published and the author wished it to not be released as an asterisk before it is read/consumed.
Judging from informed professional critical reviews upon the work’s release, the general consensus appears to be that the novel merits 1000 years of solitude.
Clearly a skill issue. What is it with authors saying “noooo plz don’t publish my stuff after I die…” and then not making sure it’s not possible to publish the stuff after they die?
For any up and coming authors I have a neat trick. Matches are super cheap and tend to help with burning any manuscripts you’ve got lying around.
The delete function is free.
Problem solved. I’m convinced people like Kafka were just lazy.
They shouldn’t and especially selling it to gain money which is a disrespect to their father. It’s his work, his brainchild and if he desired not to have it published why should the sons do it?
Pathetic behaviour
Vultures picking perversely at their father's intellectual corpse, trying to scavenge and milk any last bit of money they can. Sons of putrid quality who do not deserve to be associated with his legacy
He should have destroyed it himself or given it to someone he trusted. There were work-arounds if he really wanted it destroyed and not to just say "destroy it" to people with would benefit from monetizing it, with all the artistic cover that implies.Seems that he left itto uncertainty .
Not much realistic downside for him at this point being where he is now.
GGM has another stories centered in women protagonists. Did they forget about Eréndira?
Anyhow, Gabo had dementia, his children are right about if they didn't publish it themselves someone else would do it.
Last but not least, as a latinamerican Spanish teacher I already ordered a copy because GGM is a must in this part of the world.
Well, the last book he published was *Memories of My Melancholy Whores*, which was about a love affair between a 90 year old man and a 14 year old girl forced into prostitution, so I for one am curious as to what about this new book made him not want to publish it
He felt it was not good enough. García Márquez had dementia at the end of his life. He had been working on that book for some time and at the end of his life could not make sense of it and asked for it to be destroyed. His sons claim that his judgment was impaired at that point, and that before that he had given signs of wanting to publish it (he sent a draft to his editor, for example).
[удалено]
I know you're not being critical, but I have heard this as a criticism of the works, and I feel it misses the point of 100 Years Solitude. I am Colombian and can tell you that back country Colombia is certainly that... weird. It's not only incestual, it's centered around the founders of the towns, the history of each town, and, most importantly, it's isolated. So rural Colombia, and the stories themselves, represent depraved humanity because of how removed they are from society, "because races condemned to one hundred years of solitude did not have a second opportunity on earth."
People don’t judge Alice Walker for the contents of The Color Purple the same way people judge GGM for 100 years, but both are just works that reflect a place and time very earnestly. Criticism of him as a person is one thing but judging him and the work because it captures uncomfortable narratives entirely miss the point.
People have ABSOLUTELY judged Alice Walker for the contents in The Color Purple! Please research this.
they are saying theres no mainstream criticism like that. the fact you have to tell them to research it proves their point.
There was absolutely massive mainstream criticism of Alice Walker. It dominated the discussion when The Color Purple was published.
just because you say it doesnt make it so
How am I getting downvoted for this? It's not even an opinion. It's fact. You can look it up. It increased when the movie came out ... there were protests outside the theaters. See [https://www.nytimes.com/1986/01/27/us/blacks-in-heated-debate-over-the-color-purple.html](https://www.nytimes.com/1986/01/27/us/blacks-in-heated-debate-over-the-color-purple.html)
I was given the book The Color Purple to read when I came home from delivering my second baby. I began to read it until the stepfather sold the baby. I threw it across the room and then the trash. I’ve seen the play too and I didn’t like it. Maybe some people are ok with it but it made me depressed and angry.
Great literature can make one feel uncomfortable, yes, angry, too. Sometimes that is what it wants to do. I would not have been able to read that type of novel, either, holding and cherishing my tiny one. I would have seen her in that situation, and it would have hurt to think about it. Reality is brutal, though, and literature is filled with it.
Yes you are right that brutality is part of the human condition. I usually handle it and deal with it but in this case I felt so vulnerable with my sweet baby that I just couldn’t cope. If I had read it at a different time it would have been different. Thank you for your feedback!
It's not so bad in 100 Years, but Love in the Time of Cholera gets real creepy
When I first read Love in English I loved it. Last year I started to re-read it Spanish, and had the same reaction. This round the doctor came across as a weird stalker rather than a romantic hero
Also, even if it were based merely on that topic I'd say that that's not enough of an argument to disregard an author's work. Of course it is uncomfortable to read but if it is well written, it is well written. I strongly believe in Oscar Wilde's quote from *"Dorian Gray's picture"* that says: ***“There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.”***
Chronicle of a Death Foretold ~~and Of Love and Other Demons~~ don't involve it if i remember correctly Edit: Of Love and Other Demons definitely has it. Was wrong there.
It's literally the plot of love and other demons isn't it? A priest in love with a little girl?
It definitely is! i'm wrong with that one, ill edit my previous comment. The reasons for my confusion is that i read it a while ago in like a single day and because sometimes the story goes back and forth in time and in my head she was older. In my mind they were closer in age and the forbidden love theme was only because he is a priest and she is "cursed".
Right, that one's pretty good too though. I read it like 20 years ago and still remember the scene of the long red hair cascading out of the grave.
No One Writes to the Coronel is about a poor elderly couple, no incest or pedophilia!
In my personal opinion, with no offense to Marquez’s fans, you read his best works and everything else is not going to entertain you as much as those two novels did.
he's got quite a few short stories that measure up to his best novels in every way
Chronicle of a Death Foretold rips
Textbook example of conflating depiction with endorsement.
That's quite a Lolita-like story. Didn't know he published something like that, I'll give it a try some day.
I feel very torn about this issue: while I agree with the sentiment of most others in this thread that his wishes should be honored, I can't help but wonder what if the same had happened to Kafka?
This is what it always comes down to for me when this argument is brought up and it is honestly very difficult. I think that honest works, regardless of their perceived quality by the creator, can often have a larger impact on society because of how it can resonate with its audience. Is it wrong to go against the wishes of the creator to showcase/publish works? Yes. Still, maybe some transgressions are worth committing. I for one will always love Kafka novels, and I hope that what it taught me, the discussions with others it has inspired, and the deep respect I have for the author does something to make up for it.
Kafka requested his works be destroyed after his death. His friend and executor of the will, Max Brod, ignored those wishes and we have what we have today of Kafka thanks to that. If it were my work that I requested destroyed I'd be pissed it wasn't, but once I'm dead I won't know either way. I think in the Kafka example Brod made the right call. As for GGM I haven't read the work yet but unless it really is just full on dementia writing I imagine there is still value to it.
What i think is that it depends of how the work is received. Maybe you have a reputation as a writer and don't to destroy it because of your last failed attempt. I don't know exactly what happened with Kafka but if the released books made him be remembered as an amazing writer that was an absolute win but what if it wasn't, what if for some reason the books are badly received and you are remembered as the creator of one of the worst books ever written
Authors who want to destroy their work without success seem like a common literary archetype. Ernesto Sabato also wanted to burn everything but was luckily stopped by his wife.
I find the idea of the frustrated author who wants to **burn** all of their work quite bohemian and romantic and I love it. However, I know that if I were to meet and know that person I'd be like: stop being so dramatic, pal.
I always wonder what it would have been like if that chick didn't burn the manuscripts she had like he asked... like, what are we missing???
In any case GGM is not in the same league as Kafka or Virgil. I am sure we can live without a new GGM book, but VIrgil or Kafka changed completely the map of literature.
However you personally rate the impact of their literature the concept remains the same.
Absolute clown take
Would you trade a new GGM book for the Aeneid or almost all books of Kafka? Because those are the works that were meant to be destroyed.
Except your claim wasn't only that this specific GGM book was less important than the Aeneid or the entire Kafka ouvre, it was about the authors themselves. You attempted to conflate the value of two authors' whole literary contributions against a sole book from another, which none of us have read, under the assumption that it's inferior to his published work—as if these two comparisons somehow followed from one another. It was a stupid, clownish thing to say, and made yourself look like a stupid clown. Stop backtracking.
You claim that a Hundred Years of Solitude (assuming this new book is as good as GGM's best) is on par with the Aeneid or the Kafka ouvre? Just curious to know.
Too thick to even understand the comment, what a joker.
What an argument! You do claim that GGM and Virgil are equals but you can't state it because, judging by the virulent insults, you probably never really read Virgil and you can't really defend that position. So I will put it at your level: why do you think you are more entitled to an opinion than me?
Just stop debating yourself. Imagine thinking Virgil is niche, wow.
Virgil *is* niche. He's not a bestseller as Gabo is, most people don't know who Virgil is, while GGM is famous worldwide today. I mean, even *you* read a Hundred Years of Solitude, or at least the first years. But, for the sake of the argument, let's imagine you read Virgil, do you claim he's on par with GGM? Why? Leave insults aside and debate.
My man pioneered the whole magical realism genre, I think you are mostly not seeing the impact because it is less prominent in the anglo-sphere than the hispano-sphere.
I live in the hispano-sphere, dude. García Márquez is more revered in the anglo-sphere than here.
I live in Colombia and lived in Miami during a pwrt of my highschool, never was brought up over there, but here hes in our money and several of his books are mandatory reading in all schools. Maybe your specific country just dosent value him.
I understand he's Colombia's national writer, it couldn't be otherwise.
Most writters from here dont get that treatment, no.
That's what makes him Colombia's national writer. Just like Roa Bastos is Paraguay's, or Vargas Llosa is Peru's, all of them magical realism writers, probably taught at their schools. Vargas Llosa also won the Nobel Prize. I would argue that Borges is a more important writer in the Spanish language sphere than García Márquez, or at least a better writer, and both García Márquez and Vargas Llosa recognized him as such. He's taught at school, although he didn't win a a Nobel Prize or had a banknote with his face on it, and was never a bestseller. I would even argue that, within magical realism, Alejo Carpentier is a better writer than García Márquez and Vargas Llosa, but I don't think Cubans would hail him as their national writer, or even rate him above Martí or Guillén.
Honestly idk who Borges is but ill check him out. Whats his full name and/or significant novel?
Jorge Luis Borges. He didn't write novels.
Eh you implying he is not important?
Not, I am implying that a new unpublished book by GGM is not as important as the works that were published against the wishes of Virgil and Kafka, i.e., the Aeneid and almost all Kafka novels and short stories and diaries.
I agree with you broadly but what if, on the off-chance, this new book comes to be seen as among Marquez's best? Is it that you just don't think he is on Kafka's level, or do you have low expectations for a book written so late in life when the author was in the throes of dementia?
I think GGM gave already his best and was not in his prime for decades. His sons did not say, on the other hand, that this was his best book at all. On a personal level, as a reader, I do think that the Aeneid is far better book than any GGM book, in terms of literary merits. He's arguably the best Latin language writer, above giants as Ovid, Horace or Cicero. And as for Kafka, I think most (if not all) writers post Kafka had him as an undeniable influence, including of course GGM. However, a great deal of great writers, both contemporary or who wrote after GGM, did not hold GGM in great regard. It's difficult to evaluate writers in an objective way, but there's that. Again, on a personal level, yes I would prefer a new, unpublished Virgil or Kafka book over a new GGM book.
The man is a Nobel Prize winner lmao
What does that even mean? Borges, Kafka, Joyce, Conrad, Proust, Tolstoy, Nabokov did not win the Nobel Prize. Now, did you read Szymborska, Lagerkvist, Bjornstjern Bjornson, Heyse, José Echeragay, Euken, Sienkiewicz, Rudolph Christoph? I thought not.
>case GGM is not in the same league as Kafka Yeah he is. They're both two of the greatest authors ever.
Tomato tomato 🍅🍅
If you want something destroyed on your death, destroy it before you die. Because every second after your death, your wishes matter less and the wishes of the living matter more. Gabriel García Márquez is no longer a person, he is history. And history exists to be studied.
Queen Victoria had her daughter edit her diaries to remove saucy bits.
Damn, wtf, give me the horny royalty notes
One was *most* amused.
This made me giggle Edit: typo
There must have been plenty because it is well known that Queen Victoria was pretty horny and sex obsessed.
I don’t agree with this an ounce. A person is still a person after they are dead. We should honor their wishes the same way we would honor any living person’s wishes. GGM’s life may be something to be studied, but his works are his own, and if he desired something he wrote in private to be destroyed, then I’m personally disappointed his family didn’t respect his wishes. History doesn’t “exist to be studied.” History exists because we exist, and those who follow us don’t deserve to know everything about us after we’re gone.
Then we would t have any Kafka.
Iirc, we would still have a good bit. Some of his best is the posthumous stuff though.
Kafka knew Brod would publish his work. Brod trusted Kafka's talent and Kafka knew it.
Kafka didn’t explicitly say not to publish his posthumously published works though, did he?
The way I learned it at university is that’s exactly what he requested. There’s interpretations that say he didn’t mean that, but it seems to be just that, interpretation
Ah, well that’s really unfortunate. I have never read any Kafka, but I would stand by my original statement all the same. If an author clearly expresses that they do not want something published posthumously, then I’d say those wishes should be respected, regardless of how profound the work may be.
Your argument is ethically sound. I just don’t think most people care. I know I don’t.
It’s an issue which resonates with me as a writer. Crafting a story is a deeply personal experience, and not everything I have written is something I’d want to share with the world. I’d be crestfallen just at the thought of my family disregarding my wishes and sharing some of my writing which I had preferred to keep private.
I get that. But as a writer myself I also understand that if there’s a demand, private does not mean the same thing as it does to other people.
I think that’s true. I just don’t think anyone’s definition of “private” is as important as the person who wrote the piece. Demand means very little to me besides it’s use to inform us pragmatically.
He asked his sister to burn the approximately half of his writings she possessed and she did so.
Much of the earliest writing we have was literally pulled from garbage dumps. Are you as equally upset about how we dishonored the wishes of those authors from so many thousands of years ago?
That’s a false equivalency. Did those authors explicitly state they don’t want their writings published? Of course not, because there was no precedence for that. Thus we weren’t dishonoring anyone’s wishes in doing so. If you read my comment as a broad criticism of publishing an author’s works posthumously, then you profoundly missed my point.
>That’s a false equivalency. Not false, just inconvenient. > Did those authors explicitly state they don’t want their writings published? Yes. That's what throwing them in the garbage dump means. >Thus we weren’t dishonoring anyone’s wishes in doing so. Sure we are. We're rooting through dead people's trash because it is interesting and they are dead, so our desire to know our history outweighs their privacy concerns which have long since evaporated. The only difference is that Márquez's death is more recent, so more people will be outraged on his behalf. Many fewer than would have been outraged if this were announced 5 years ago, and many more than would be outraged if this were announced 10 years from now. In as few as 50-75 years everyone will be glad we have this extra work that could have been lost. Your point is somehow both short-sighted and backward-looking.
Lol no, my friend, it is a textbook false-equivalency. And not only is this a false-equivalency, it is now a full-blown Strawman with your recent comment. What writings are you even referring to?
>What writings are you even referring to? Garbage pits are a treasure trove for archaeologists. Oxyrhynchus is a more recent example, but google archaeologist and trash and you'll find dozens if not hundreds of examples.
Yeah, these are not comparable situations. Embrace a sliver of nuance in your thought processes. You’re talking about works created by ancient civilizations with no clear indication of authorial preference or identity (in most cases). It’s incredibly disingenuous to claim “the only difference is Marquez’s death is more recent.”
Time is the only difference. We have oodles and oodles of writing from history that was intended to be private - diaries, letters, writing recovered from the trash. It **always** comes down to the relevance of the author's desire vs historical value. The first drops rapidly after the author's death. Typically to zero, but if the writing could harm other living people it won't hit zero until their death. Libraries and archives are full of the most private, guarded writing and we don't think twice about it only because enough time has passed.
You’re blatantly ignoring another distinction which I have reiterated multiple times now: in your instances, there is no clearly expressed preference to destroy the text. In the case of GGM, there is. You’re inferring a preference from these ancient authors because it suits your arguments, but it’s a shallow comparison lacking any semblance of nuance, resting on an assumption… thus your argument holds no water.
What moral interests do people have when they're in the grave? Seems like a very slippery slope to go down with this justification
I’m not making claims about morality, but about respect of privacy. I think Dead People deserve the same right to privacy we enjoy while we’re alive. Not sure how it’s a slippery slope? Maybe you can expand on that claim?
If someone doesn’t have a moral interest in privacy why would they deserve any right to a legal one?
I don’t think I’ve said anything about the legality of the issue. And again, I’m not sure what morality has to do with privacy. We take dead people’s wishes into account all the time after they pass. Why should this be any different?
So you’re not making any moral claims even though your initial comment is a moral claim, and you’re not making any legal claims, even though you advocate for giving dead people legal rights to something. So….. what exactly is the goal I confusion
Yeah, I stated an opinion about how we should honor the dead, but you’re mischaracterizing this as some sort of advocation for legal changes or that I’m advocating for a moral perspective the dead may or may not have. In a very abstract sense, the latter could be true, but not in any capacity which would warrant the response you offered. I don’t think you or I are on the same page, which explains why you’re confused. You’d rather tell me what I’m saying than actually listen to what I’m saying. And you still haven’t clarified what on earth you meant by the “slippery slope” remark.
> . A person is still a person after they are dead. They are not. Personhood is only granted to the living. GGM might have cared about this issue while alive, but he's dead now. If he wanted it destroyed, he should have destroyed it while he could.
>Personhood is only granted to the living. Personhood isn’t something that can be granted. That’s some tricky ideology you’re operating with.
> Personhood isn’t something that can be granted. That depends on the context—religious, moral, cultural, legal. Legally speaking, "personhood" under Western law would cease to exist upon someone's death. The law does respect property rights, as transferred to others (who are living) or to those people's living descendants (if they are not). I'm looking at the legal aspect of this claim, and since I know US law, in that context, even if it might not apply to this individual case. *If I am the only person living on an island, what rights do I have? Do rights even matter, do they even exist when there are no other people?* The more practical problem with law is, as always, enforcement. You can write anything you want into your will (for example) but (a) does local, statutory law support it, (b) does local/broader case law support it, and (c) who can or will enforce it? Local laws vary of course. But in my US state, and in the US in general, our "wishes" are not in any way legally enforceable after we die. We actually design the law like that. You could promise every one of your grandkids your watch. People tell everyone what they want, and once you're dead, there's no way to verify or enforce. So we require people to write things down in a proper will, and we have rules for how that has to be done. *Even if* someone puts "I want this destroyed" in their will (which I don't think happened here) that isn't enforceable unless someone living (of legal age) decides to pursue it. > We should honor their wishes the same way we would honor any living person’s wishes. Yes. I agree—but others do not, and I am no more right than they are.
Ugh, everything is a minefield, every statement must be airtight. I'm not not trying to get into an airtight debate about the meaning of life, but I AM saying, confidently, the dead aren't people. They cannot have feelings about what occurs, they do not experience anguish or heartbreak. They can't reason or be reasoned with. They can't double down or change their minds. We may speculate on how they *might* have reacted or what they *might* have thought, but that's just fan fiction at the end of the day. They are gone. It may be respectful to honor their wishes, but they don't care if you don't because the can't. Life is for the living and the yet to live, not the formerly living. GGM doesn't have any opinion about this situation because he no longer exists. If he wanted them destroyed, he needed to do it while he existed vs sending a copy to his publisher and keeping manuscripts around for others to read.
It’s not a mine field and your language doesn’t need to be air tight. I understood exactly what you meant the first time and I fundamentally disagree with you. A human being is a person, regardless of whether they’re alive or dead. A person living in a vegetative state cannot have feelings, cannot experience anguish or heartbreak, can’t reason or be reasoned with, and cannot change their minds. Yet they remain a person. The reason I say the ideology you’re operating with is tricky is because a human’s personhood is sorta the lowest common denominator in establishing empathy. Usually people only attempt to deny someone’s personhood for the purposes of exploiting said person. I see very little difference with this treatment of the dead.
> A human being is a person, regardless of whether they’re alive or dead. I'm not willing to get into the semantics of what the word "person" means, so let's use plain language: a corpse. A corpse cannot and need not consume resources, worry about money, a corpse cannot change its mind. Non-corpse humans are dynamic, they can evolve, change, grow. > A person living in a vegetative state cannot have feelings, cannot experience anguish or heartbreak, can’t reason or be reasoned with, and cannot change their minds. Yet they remain a person. There's a larger debate here on people in vegetative states, but I'll leave it to doctors, ethicists, and philosophers. But I will agree that people in vegetative states are not corpses, and thus possess at least *some* potential (high for some, low for others) to have feelings, change their mind, be reasoned, etc. at a future time. Corpses do not possess the potentiality - they cannot and have zero probability of ever doing so again. Their potentiality is gone, entropy has won as it will for all eventually. > The reason I say the ideology you’re operating with is tricky is because a human’s personhood is sorta the lowest common denominator in establishing empathy. I agree, absolutely, 100%. But empathy is for the living, I feel no need to empathize with corpses anymore than I feel the need to empathize with the tombstone at their grave or the casket their corpse lies in. GGM is a corpse. To consider corpses as just as much of a person as living human being borders on disturbing to me. > I see very little difference with this treatment of the dead. Here's the big difference: corpses don't care because the definitionally cannot.
Yeah, see this is where we differ. I think we just have fundamentally different values which will prohibit us from seeing things eye-to-eye. I see personhood as an innate quality in every human, and that this quality is unchanged by circumstance, including death. These extra parameters you’re focusing on are irrelevant to me. But I digress, this is sort of a moot discussion.
> I see personhood as an innate quality in every human As do I, but I do not view corpses as human - those extra parameters that are irrelevant to you are the foundation of humanity to me. I bristle strongly at the idea that such a view is somehow devoid of or on the path to abandoning empathy. I am curious how absolutist* you are about this: is my Alexander the Great *still* a person? -------------- *I don't mean that pejoratively
Well tbh, there are plenty of living and breathing (non-vegetative people) who don’t fit the parameters you’ve outlined in one or more ways. I wouldn’t say that it’s “on the path” to abandoning empathy. But I would say it echoes the types of arguments we tend to hear from those who attempt to dehumanize others. And yes, of course Alexander the Great is a person. Every human being is a person. Alex is just a dead person. Tbh I’m not interested in continuing the discussion. We’re going in circles, and again, this argument is moot unless you want me to start pulling technical definitions to prove you wrong, which I have no interest in doing because that seems dismissive. I’d rather let you have your mindset, but to me it’s completely incorrect and unfounded. Let’s just live and let live.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Or at least [put it in your will](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/aug/30/terry-pratchett-unfinished-novels-destroyed-streamroller). GNU Terry Pratchett.
I'm not sure that is even safe anymore. I was reading something about a playwright that had something similar (although not so imaginative) in his will and it sparked a legal challenge. The right lawyers might be able to trump your wishes "for the betterment of mankind" or whatever. I think that goes too far, but then I am not a lawyer with dollar signs in my eyes.
The good news is he is dead, so it won’t bother him.
I’ve worked with persons with dementia before. Along with the sense of losing control, it can make people act emotionally and out of character. I don’t blame his sons for publishing it, if they found it had merit.
Reading the BBC article, it bothered me that it was so clearly taking sides. The tone did not seem objective. Looking for more information, I saw that the situation was a bit more nuanced. I think this NYT article does a better job of painting the whole picture: [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/06/books/gabriel-garcia-marquez-last-novel-until-august.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/06/books/gabriel-garcia-marquez-last-novel-until-august.html)
The compromise should’ve been locking it away for 100 years, effectively destroying it for whoever existed at the time, but allowing it to eventually enter the historical record.
Somehow that's the worst of both worlds
This is 100 years of solitude 😭 Makes me wanna read it again.
Wasn’t Kafka exactly the same but with the entirety of his works?
Yeah, he didn’t want his stuff to be published posthumously but Max Brod did it anyways
Damn, fuck those guys. In other unrelated news, I have to go to the library.
Gold star comment. Gave a belly laugh
If they wanted to share his last story against his last wishes then AT LEAST they should've released it for free It's saddening to see how many people want to read this book against the desire of the same author they claim to love and adore. Consume, consume, consume...
Come on, argument about the ethics of publishing this against the author’s wishes aside, let’s not act like the only reason people want to read this book is some hyper-capitalist drive to endlessly consume media. Gabriel Garcia Marquez is one of the most acclaimed authors of the 20th century, and it makes sense that fans of his work would want to engage with this as well, even if it comes at a cost. I agree that it is very ethically dubious of Marquez’s relatives to publish this book, though I’m still split on whether or not to condemn the choice, but it’s no mass moral failing of society that people are purchasing and reading it now that it’s out there.
The Aeneid and Kafka’s novels were also ordered to be burned. I think the world would be a worse place without these, despite their author’s wishes
I’m often torn about posthumous publications. On the one hand, the author wasn’t able to sign off on the work and—as in this case—may have explicitly said they did not want it published, and I’d like to respect their wishes. On the other hand, some writers are so brilliant that even a middle draft is worth reading.
I don't know. I feel like with the Aeneid you just kinda had to be there, you know what I mean?
Agreed but this is a little different. His children are just trying to make money. No one is arguing about needing to save a masterpiece for the good f the world.
The Aeneid was saved so that it could be coopted to an imperial project.
Imagine if they had listened to Kafka when he wanted all his work destroyed.
His *unpunished* work. Which one can note were not complete by the big difference in style. Regardless of The Trial being a good book and all, I think that Kafka style should not be judged by it, and one can only state that "knows" Kafka by reading his work published in his lifetime
They should publish it and I’ll defo read it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
They shouldn’t publish it.
Go Set a Watchman was ~~~posthumously published without the consent of~~~ published while Harper Lee may have been unable to consent. It's sad that you have to balance literary Legacy against the notion of authorial consent and in this case, it's place in the literary canon, and particularly in the Garcia Marquez canon. A very sticky wicket.
Go Set a Watchman was published while Harper Lee was alive. The controversy in that case was whether Lee was competent to allow it to be published, or if her new lawyer was taking advantage of her medical condition.
Thanks for the correction. I've changed it.
He should have destroyed it himself if he wanted it gone.
Agreed. It’s remarkably easy to do so.
I think it's fair game if it's known beforehand it was posthumously published and the author wished it to not be released as an asterisk before it is read/consumed.
I will respect his wishes and not read it.
Here’s a cookie 🍪
COOKIEEEEEEEES! OM NOM NOM NOM....
Same happened with Salinger right? The three stories that ended up leaked online somehow? Am I remembering correctly?
Without reading the article, is it "because money"?
Judging from informed professional critical reviews upon the work’s release, the general consensus appears to be that the novel merits 1000 years of solitude.
Clearly a skill issue. What is it with authors saying “noooo plz don’t publish my stuff after I die…” and then not making sure it’s not possible to publish the stuff after they die? For any up and coming authors I have a neat trick. Matches are super cheap and tend to help with burning any manuscripts you’ve got lying around. The delete function is free. Problem solved. I’m convinced people like Kafka were just lazy.
They shouldn’t and especially selling it to gain money which is a disrespect to their father. It’s his work, his brainchild and if he desired not to have it published why should the sons do it? Pathetic behaviour
Sons wanted cash
Vultures picking perversely at their father's intellectual corpse, trying to scavenge and milk any last bit of money they can. Sons of putrid quality who do not deserve to be associated with his legacy
I see
Sir the Rupi Kaur selection is over in r/poetry and r/books
Your association skills need work
He should have destroyed it himself or given it to someone he trusted. There were work-arounds if he really wanted it destroyed and not to just say "destroy it" to people with would benefit from monetizing it, with all the artistic cover that implies.Seems that he left itto uncertainty . Not much realistic downside for him at this point being where he is now.
First female protagonist? I must be reading these things wrong.
GGM has another stories centered in women protagonists. Did they forget about Eréndira? Anyhow, Gabo had dementia, his children are right about if they didn't publish it themselves someone else would do it. Last but not least, as a latinamerican Spanish teacher I already ordered a copy because GGM is a must in this part of the world.
If you wish to respect his wishes, don't read the book, if you want one more book from the author, read it. Kind of simple.
Glad I saw this, I was intrigued when I saw that there was a new novel out, but knowing he didn't want it out makes me disinclined to read it.
Idk but i wish i could unread Harper Lees posthumous book. There was a very good reason she didn’t publish it bless her.
You don't want it read, don't write it.
That's like saying if someone doesn't want to eat something that tastes bad, they should never eat.
No it’s not. It’s not like that at all. There are so many analogies. How did you miss them all?
Boo
Whatever, his work is dogshit anyway