The Invisible Writer

Should writer's be invisible? For many writers, writing is in and of itself, enough. Emily Dickinson and Franz Kafka to name a couple of authors, never intended or indeed actively requested that their work be published. But had Max Brod not posthumously published Kafka's work, his friend's uniquely surreal style might never have been recognised and we may never have adopted that most modernist of terms, Kafkaesque. Similarly had Lavinia Dickinson not released her sister's work, the reclusive poet may have remained invisible to the world forever.

The real crux of the matter is, whether an author's personal desire to remain invisible at the cost of depriving the public of their work is a fair price to pay.

Both Dickinson and Kafka have become household names as significant and influential writers of the 20^th Century and, without the latter, a young travelling salesman may never have woken up to find himself transformed into a 'giant vermin': a story which has become the subject of a plethora of satirical and tribute works. On the other hand, as respected as both writers are, by reading work they never intended to be published, one could argue that to an extent we are showing them an equal level of disrespect.

On balance however, I'd be inclined to say that the appreciation of a writer's work surpasses the issue of whether or not the author intended it to be published, providing that the writing does not infringe severely upon their right for privacy: Lavinia Dickinson's destruction of (the majority) of her sister's love letters was an understandable deed, however many would argue that destruction of her poetry would not be.

And had Kafka's work never been published, this might never have existed: