After the last word

On April 22, nearly two and a half years after Joan Didion's death, a slim but arresting volume titled Notes to John appeared on shelves. Published by Knopf, the collection comprises fragments: personal memos, tender jottings, reminders to herself, and letters addressed to her late husband, John Gregory Dunne, after his death in 2003. In true Didion style, even her unfinished, offhand scraps shimmer with clarity and literary precision. But reading Notes to John is a disquieting experience: you are tugged in close, into the bone of her grief, and yet held at arm's length. It is as if you've found someone's diary under their pillow and, despite knowing better, can't stop turning the pages.

That tug-of-war between public and private, between a writer's legacy and their consent, is the central tension in publishing a dead person's notebooks. It's a literary act and a voyeuristic one. Notes to John may be the catalyst, but the phenomenon is hardly new. From the exhaustive curation of Virginia Woolf's diaries to the belated release of Franz Kafka's letters (which he explicitly asked to be destroyed), publishing posthumous writing has become a well-oiled machine. The ethics, however, remain as blurry as a half-erased pencil note in the margin of a draft.

The author is absent

There is something particularly vulnerable about the genre of the note. Unlike novels or essays, letters and diaries are not written with an audience in mind; at least, not a public one. And yet, perhaps paradoxically, they often reveal more than an entire memoir. In Didion's Notes to John, her sentences are brief, sharp, sometimes halting. "I never feel guilty about working," she writes, somewhere between dream and discipline. It's devastating in its casualness. But should we be reading this?

When you hold a writer's diary, you are confronted with the illusion of intimacy. But the writer is gone. They cannot clarify, redact, or resist. Their editor is often a family member, a literary executor, or a publisher with contractual rights but not always moral ones. Shaun Usher's Lists of Note and More Lists of Note anthologise lists written by the famous and the long-dead: Da Vinci's shopping notes, Marilyn Monroe's acting prep, Isaac Newton's sins, presented with curatorial glee. They're fascinating, yes, but they also decontextualise deeply personal documents into coffee-table curiosities.

Dead men do tell tales

In Kafka's case, the betrayal was flagrant. He instructed his friend Max Brod to burn all of his unpublished manuscripts. Brod didn't, and the result is that much of Kafka's genius, The Trial, The Castle, his heartbreaking letters to Milena and Felice, came to light only after his death. Without that breach of trust, there would be no Kafka in the canon. So was Brod wrong? Legally, no. Literarily, certainly not. Ethically? Well.

Virginia Woolf's diaries and letters were curated posthumously first by her husband Leonard Woolf, and then by his nephew, Quentin Bell. Leonard admitted to cutting large swathes of material. Her personality, her flirtations, her frustrations with the Bloomsbury crowd, these only surfaced in later, more complete editions. Each round of publication brought her closer to her readers and arguably farther from the version of herself she wanted to project.

We are reading a Woolf curated by Leonard, filtered through edits and omissions; we are mourning a Didion arranged by her editor, not by Didion herself. The issue at hand is not just literary but legal. The ownership of the "self" after death falls into ambiguous hands, sometimes the estate, sometimes the publisher, sometimes the reader's projection. In Didion's case, her longtime editor Shelley Wanger helped assemble the notes, presumably with care and intention. But Didion, famously in control of her image and language, is no longer here to confirm whether she wanted these fragments to be seen.

The romance of rawness

There's something addictive about the "raw" version of a writer. We crave the uncut, the messy, the bloodied first draft. That desire is partly what fuels the publication of these private documents. They allow us to feel like we've accessed something real, beyond performance. The literary world, in turn, benefits from this hunger. Editors gain prestige for unearthing unpublished material. Publishers reap sales from both completists and the newly curious. Fans post screenshots of notes that feel like confessions. Everyone wins, except maybe the person who wrote them.

This urge isn't limited to literary estates. Think of how Anne Frank's diary was originally edited by her father to remove parts about her sexuality and frustration with her mother. Later, full editions emerged, richer and more complicated. Readers rejoiced, but the diary's shift from personal record to historical document carries a cost. Somewhere, the lines blur between honouring a voice and exploiting it.

Afterlife in the internet age

Today, we all keep fragments: Google Docs with no title, iPhone notes about dreams or shopping or shame. If we're writers, perhaps we think some of these might be useful for a future essay, a novel, a letter we mean to write but never do. But what if, after we die, someone else decides what deserves to be seen?

The politics of posthumous publication are not just about famous authors; they are about all of us. In the digital age, where drafts and thoughts live forever in clouds and caches, anyone's notes might outlive them. The desire to know a person more "authentically" can too easily become a desire to know them without their permission.

Copyright adds another layer of complexity. A note never meant for publication occupies a murky legal space; its ownership is uncertain. Grief, nostalgia, even a stray sentence from a dead woman to her dead husband all become subject to claims, though they resist easy commodification.

In The Year of Magical Thinking, Didion wrote about keeping John's shoes after he died, irrationally believing he might need them. Notes to John feels like an extension of that magical thinking, a belief that speaking to the dead can somehow keep them present, or that reading their words might bring them back. Yet publishing such words transforms a private ritual into a public spectacle.

The dynamics of posthumous publication often benefit publishers, estates, and readers, while consent from the author remains absent. As readers, we inherit both the privilege and the burden of that imbalance. We are owed nothing, and yet we often take everything. To read Notes to John is to be moved, but also to be implicated. The dead may not speak for themselves, but they wrote. That, sometimes, must be enough.