Last of Terry Pratchett's novels steamrolled out of existance.

Per Terry's wishes;

“whatever he was working on at the time of his death to be taken out along with his computers, to be put in the middle of a road and for a steamroller to steamroll over them all”

www.theguardian.com...

This is definitely not a genius way to ensure the secrets of your browser history, or deny profits for your spoiled offspring!

RIP Terry, youve been a stellar bard!

a reply to: Butterfinger

Good work by Terry. It's so annoying when a great author passes and some bozo idol tries to complete whatever half written stuff they had left over (like what happened with Douglas Adams). Just let it be, if it was unfinished then it shall remain; and with what Terry had done here there is no way to complete it. If you truly want to follow in the author's footsteps, write some fanfiction, but don't spit on their work by trying to complete yourself.

a reply to: Butterfinger

“whatever he was working on at the time of his death to be taken out along with his computers, to be put in the middle of a road and for a steamroller to steamroll over them all”

Called a "Certificate of Destruction". Must be total and witnessed.

But I get the whole bury the past thing. Maybe he saved too much truth, maybe there was copyright infringement. Propietary, anyway.

Remember Mega Upload? Remember the raid on Guardian offices to destroy hard drives?

Edit: Oh I see. He didn't want anyone to else to view his unfinished work, for whatever reason.

Too bad. Kind of selfish?

Like when some eccentric rich person dies and leaves all their wealth to a cat, or ancient rich people that bury all their belongings with them, so nobody else can benefit from them. Is that what this is?

a reply to: intrptr

I do, and I also remember Comy destroying a ton of HDDs as well.

j/k

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Agreed!

Tolkien's son butchered the last few as well, you can easily see where they switched off

a reply to: Butterfinger

Too bad. Would rather see an unfinished work than not at all. Maybe the disease he suffered from skewed his later work so bad that as he declined he looked at the gibberish he was writing and said, wtf?

Alzheimers is like that.

Who was that lady that painted pictures right up to end showing the mental deterioration?

Alzheimers is insidious.

a reply to: Butterfinger

That's right. I knew there was another author that happened to. I wanted to say Tolkien but I wasn't sure.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Also Frank Herbert. His son's books just....ugh

a reply to: intrptr

It is rarely that I disagree with your posts, in fact this may even have been the first time. Anyway...

At the end of the day I can understand it. If you were working on something that wasn't up to your usual quality, would you want people picking over it after you are gone? We are talking about a writer and not a scientist or inventor of great things. It's an unfinished or possibly barely started attempt at a novel.

Disclosure: He is one of favourite authors and, I will always abide by the wishes of the recently departed. At least it was done in style! A vintage steam-roller, who'd a thunk it?

a reply to: LightSpeedDriver

At the end of the day I can understand it. If you were working on something that wasn't up to your usual quality, would you want people picking over it after you are gone? We are talking about a writer and not a scientist or inventor of great things. It's an unfinished or possibly barely started attempt at a novel.

I see it more like unreleased music by musicians. There could be gems in there. If a writer he could have volumes of prose, poems, short stories, that maybe he thought weren't polished enough, but his fans would love to see, since he is no longer writing.

Destroying an authors repository is just selfish... and within his rights.

se la ve

a reply to: intrptr

I heard Monet's eyesight was degrading as he aged, and I think every year he painted the same scene, and you can see what he was seeing as his illness progressed.
But I can understand why some artists don't want people to see how they work before showing the finished product. It would be like showing your nakedness beneath your nakedness. Does that make sense? haha

Also, it's like when Roy Orbison died, his wife released a few songs he never published because he didn't think them as good enough for it. But some were truly good songs.

a reply to: NowanKenubi

But I can understand why some artists don't want people to see how they work before showing the finished product. It would be like showing your nakedness beneath your nakedness. Does that make sense? haha

Yes, it does. But destroying it upon their death, that removes it forever...

We have been faced with this with monument destruction. Regardless how we feel about history, erasing it (or steamrolling it) lessens us, imo.

originally posted by: intrptr
Oh I see. He didn't want anyone to else to view his unfinished work, for whatever reason.
Too bad. Kind of selfish?

It's an artistic thing. Anything incomplete is flawed by definition, and even the written portions will be unpolished.
No artist wants to have substandard work exposed to public attention.

originally posted by: Excallibacca
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Also Frank Herbert. His son's books just....ugh

Never read his sons ones. Pretty sure it happened to Robert Jordan too. Though I stopped reading his series well before that. I couldn't handle it anymore.

Then there's always the pile of # that happened with Conan after Robert Howard killed himself and everybody stole his stories and characters and did whatever they wanted.
Especially L. Sprague de Camp

a reply to: intrptr

I agree. That is a sad loss. But the difference is that it is the author who wants it destroyed, not a mob. And we have to respect that.

a reply to: Butterfinger

Two or three times I saw a guy in Liverpool city centre who looked like Pratchett and wore the same style of black jacket and a big black hat. Can't be many people who shared that style and I've often wondered if it was really him.

It's no bad thing they honoured his last wishes and a credit to them. Better still the eccentric bugger had his leftovers scrunched by equally quirky methods.

It would have been even better to place them in a malevolent chest of sapient pearwood.

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: Excallibacca
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Also Frank Herbert. His son's books just....ugh

Never read his sons ones. Pretty sure it happened to Robert Jordan too. Though I stopped reading his series well before that. I couldn't handle it anymore.

Then there's always the pile of # that happened with Conan after Robert Howard killed himself and everybody stole his stories and characters and did whatever they wanted.
Especially L. Sprague de Camp

I didnt know that about Herbert, or Jordan! I'll have to go back and check that out!

I agree with the Conan point, the same goes with Lovecraft. Of course Howard, Lovecraft and the like borrowed from each other's mythos(lovecraft mainly), but after those two passed, the heirs were not apparent and so they were summarily cannibalized.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Butterfinger

Two or three times I saw a guy in Liverpool city centre who looked like Pratchett and wore the same style of black jacket and a big black hat. Can't be many people who shared that style and I've often wondered if it was really him.

It's no bad thing they honoured his last wishes and a credit to them. Better still the eccentric bugger had his leftovers scrunched by equally quirky methods.

It would have been even better to place them in a malevolent chest of sapient pearwood.

Glitch in the Matrix, you know that! Take note, because there will be a Mandela effect on Pratchett one of these days!

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: intrptr
Oh I see. He didn't want anyone to else to view his unfinished work, for whatever reason.
Too bad. Kind of selfish?

It's an artistic thing. Anything incomplete is flawed by definition, and even the written portions will be unpolished.
No artist wants to have substandard work exposed to public attention.

What does he care, he's dead.

originally posted by: NowanKenubi
a reply to: intrptr

I agree. That is a sad loss. But the difference is that it is the author who wants it destroyed, not a mob. And we have to respect that.

Imagine if King Tut had said he didn't want anything buried with him.

"Melt down all my gold and give it to the poor."