likewise 🙂

Sorry. I didn’t see your response till now. It got flagged for moderation due to the presence of the link.

Anyway, I totally get it.

In the case when an author is explicitly against it, I’d be extremely uncomfortable. But that’s an obvious black and white example.

If an author’s intentions can be ascertained by a group of people close to him/her and they’ve determined it to be appropriate, I think it’s relatively okay. Without that minimal benchmark, I’d be very uncomfortable with it. Private correspondence though, is something I’m undecided about.

I think that’s how I looked at Bruce Lee’s posthumous works.

I’m also thinking about it in terms of myself. If I pass on without fulfilling what I intend to do or say, I’d be okay (or I would prefer it) if a group of very close friends (who understand me best) to make certain publishing decisions on my behalf. Yet, they would also know the limits to which I’d want to share about myself.

By the way, glad to have this discussion with you, Kai. 🙂

🙂

Hi Logen, I’m sure a lot of thought went into the decision to publish this, as you say. I still read into what you are saying that Bruce Lee did not want this text published, as his understanding had moved on, and so he wanted to redo the book. But although this feels uncomfortable, I’d be a hypocrite to criticise it, as I love to read (for example) the works of Franz Kafka who left his unpublished works to a friend with an order to destroy them, which the friend ignored.

Also, if Bruce Lee never finished the “improved” version of the text, and this is all we have, you might say it’s the best access we have to his thinking on this subject, even if it’s not perfect.

There’s not really any black and white answer when you are trying to weigh up the writer’s wishes/intentions against the wider public interest.

Here’s an interesting debate which looks at all sides of the argument:

http://mirandacelestehale.net/2011/10/13/the-ethics-of-posthumous-publishing/

Hi Kai

No. Lee did not explicitly say he didn’t want this book published. And I apologise for not using nuanced language here: “This explained why he decided against publishing The Tao of Gung Fu back in 1965.”.

He abandoned publishing this book in 1965 (this is a much more accurate statement); very different from not wanting it published. What I had surmised from the information and context available was that he no longer felt that Tao of Gung Fu accurately represented his views in martial arts. It felt more like “Since my views have changed, why bother publishing this. I could work on something better.”.

Here’s the excerpt by John Little:
“This is that book. It was to have been published in 1965 and was intended by its author, Bruce Lee, to be his gift to the Western world. While Lee scrapped the idea of publishing this book, he did not scrap his research notes or sample chapters. ”

Here’s Bruce Lee’s own words when he was working on the manuscript:
“I’m in the process of completing a much [more] thorough book on the Tao of Gung Fu …. This book will contain my insight during these past five years. I’ve worked hard for it. ”

That’s why, as before, I think he would have been okay with this work, in particular, to be published posthumously. He was working on it for a long time, and he retained nearly all his research notes (probably to work on something more reflective of his views later on).

On the issue of ethics – I believe it will always be there, especially when one dies before being able to settle a substantial deal of his/her affairs. I’m mostly satisfied that his former wife, family and friends have thought about it, and reasoned that it was okay (considering what Bruce Lee would have wanted – considering his ambition and determination to share what he learnt of martial arts).

Logen