After an author dies...?

When an author dies, what do you think should happen to their series? Should it be picked up by another author chosen by the family or the publisher, thrown open to the fans, or draw a line under it and ended. Pratchett expected his daughter to take over Discworld, but she's said she's not writing more. Bank's culture died with him. Fleming's Bond is now written by writers for hire. What do you think is the best option?

 

When my favorite author died some years ago, I had come to terms that it was the end of his books. Isaac Asimov was a great sci-fi author that for me, he is peerless in the field. But a year after Asimov's death, I heard that his brother came up with a book of his unpublished stories. Unfortunately, sci-fi books are very expensive so I didn't have the opportunity to purchase such. Besides, that book was not promoted worldwide.

 

Grabbing and publishing someone's unfinished stories isn't the same as having an all-new author write all-new books though. There's style, ideas, and so many things that were locked in an author's head and died with them.

It can get squicky. Virginia Andrews' family had a ghostwriter write more books under her name than the original did when she was alive.

 

Personally, no matter how sad it is when an author dies I think that their work should die with them. People will obviously sill be able to read what they have already written but there shouldn't be any new material written by somebody else to try and carry on their legacy.

Whenever an author tries to carry on writing a series started by an author that died, in my experience it's never quite lived up to expectations. The story written might well be as good or even better, but every author will have their own unique style and no matter how hard an author might try to replicate what's already been written it will never be quite the same.

 

It depends. No seriously, it does depending on the author, the style and who takes it over.

Discworld is very much Pratchett's creation and his alone - very few have ever come close to him at his finest in his style. There are just so few people who can even replicate it, let alone get an entire book out of it. The entire thing was pretty much unique to him, which is why trying to replicate it doesn't work.

The Bond books have had a few more published by some very good authors, not totally in the style of Fleming and that's probably a good thing, because matching it makes little sense, but as long as it meets the same themes and tropes Bond has lived by - it kind of works.

Now as for Lovecraft - there are a lot of stories based on his mythos written by others, that fit right in with everything else. Derleth for example, although it helps that Lovecraft's style was so strange.

Here's a good one: The Holmes Society and the creation of new works. It happens, it happens rarely, and the books have to live up to the standard of Arthur Conan Doyle and don't get released unless they do. But they fit right in alongside all the others and no-one bats an eyelid.

 

If you had read some of the ones I have had to review featuring the aforementioned Mr Holmes, you would be wishing he had died with his creator (who wished he had died at the Rickenbach Falls).

Do you think this trend to sell on works and the right to write in worlds will happen with indie authors and their families? Ebooks are too new for cases to have arisen yet but some of the larger names like Konrath are getting a name in their field, and might find that keeping new titles coming out is a good source of income for the family after they have gone.

 

It seems less likely for it to happen with indie authors. With a traditionally published author, all the estate or rights holders have to do is find or approve the writer: the publisher does the rest, so there's no upfront cost. With an indie author the estate has to find the writer, editor, cover design, marketing, formatter, etc.

Unless they sell the rights to a publisher, and then anything could happen.

 

I wouldn't worry. In a hundred years time, all the copyright will have lapsed and everyone will be able to do whatever they like with the material. Which would be great apart from 1000's of dreadful fanfic hacks will spring forth without fear of being sued.

I fear that day when it comes.

 

Have you heard of Kindle worlds...

 

A ghostwriter. There has never been a more fitting term.

It should end though. It's like a rock band replacing their lead singer. It just doesn't work for me.

 

I agree with you there, Context. It should end with the author unless they desire someone else to continue their legacy. If the author never made his wishes clear, then I don't think that other people should just assume that's what they would have wanted for their work.

 

What happens when the author they choose to continue their work isn't the one the fans would choose? Take Discworld, Terry Pratchett passed it to Rhianna Pratchett, but her style's really different and she's said she's not continuing it.

 

Is it 100 years across the board, or are there exceptions, say lengthier periods, for certain materials? I have some vague memory of someone once telling me that was the case, perhaps in relation to a big hitter like Disney.

 

Disney is the reason that the expiry time on certain things keeps being extended by 25 years every so often. Then again, so much of their stuff is trademarked to the hilt, it would be difficult for anyone to do anything with it anyway. You don't mess with the Mouse.

I believe the timescales actually differ depending in which country you are in, but the current standard is usually 50 or 70 years after the death of the creator.

 

I think that time frame makes a lot of sense especially when it comes to the bigger and more well known brands like Disney and so on.

 

Disney are among the ones who need the least protection of all. It's the much smaller indie writers who could find themselves stuck that need the copyright law in place.

You know the other thing that matters and seems to occur now and again. Authors not making a will and saying what should happen to their works. Way to leave some stuff in limbo. If they don't want it published then they can state it clearly.

I like the idea of 40 years after death myself. It means that any product can still provide for a good while after death for the family, without necessarily being too long.

 

I know what you mean about authors not providing details in their wills about what should happen to their work but I read somewhere that if there is no will then the probate court will appoint someone to make all these decisions on the author's behalf. Of course I don't know how true that is.

 

It's probably like any part of anyone's estate when they die. If a will doesn't exist, then someone has to decide how it should be split up following the existing laws.

 

I read somewhere that things like ownership/royalties of self published work in an estate isn't always easy to sort out - probably too new really. I would advise people to add specific information on how to deal with those things.