“On meurt deux fois, je le vois bien :
>
Cesser d’aimer & d’être aimable,
>
C’est une mort insupportable :
>
Cesser de vivre, ce n’est rien.”
This 18th-century French verse suggests we die twice. The first death, an unbearable one, is to cease being loved. The second, ceasing to live, is comparatively nothing. This idea echoes in a cynical piece of industry wisdom: “The only good author is a dead author.” This provocative phrase thrives in the corridors of publishing houses and academic halls. It captures a fundamental tension between a creator’s life and their work’s legacy. For some, it is a dark joke about difficult personalities. For others, it is a serious critical principle. The saying reveals deep truths about art, commerce, and the long shadow of time.
. Source
A Publisher’s Lament
From a publisher’s perspective, the saying is a weary sigh. Living authors can be challenging partners. They might miss critical deadlines, stalling a book’s entire production schedule. Furthermore, their manuscripts may require substantial editing, consuming valuable time and resources. Creative disagreements often arise over cover designs, marketing strategies, or even minor textual changes. These conflicts can strain professional relationships.
Financial negotiations add another layer of complexity. Authors may have high expectations for advances and royalties. These demands can clash with a publishing house’s budget. Consequently, the daily work of publishing can feel like a constant negotiation. The dead author, in contrast, presents no such problems. Their work is complete. They cannot object to a new paperback cover or demand a larger marketing spend. They are, in a commercial sense, perfectly compliant.
The Critic’s Long View
In academic and literary circles, the phrase carries a different, more philosophical weight. Critics and scholars often argue that true literary merit requires temporal distance. Assessing an author’s work while they are still alive is difficult. Their contemporary fame, or lack thereof, can cloud objective judgment. Personal relationships and public persona can also influence reviews. Therefore, many believe a writer’s ultimate contribution can only be measured long after their death.
This perspective champions the test of time. A work’s enduring relevance becomes the ultimate measure of its quality. Only after decades, or even centuries, can we see if a book transcends its era. This long view allows critics to analyze an author’s entire body of work, or oeuvre, as a complete entity. It helps them trace thematic development and identify lasting cultural impact without the noise of the author’s living presence. An author’s death provides a definitive endpoint, allowing for a more complete and objective analysis of their legacy.
Historical Roots of a Cynical Saying
The phrase has a long and documented history. Its first known appearance in print dates back to the late 19th century. Researchers trace the expression to an Ohio newspaper from 1886. The article humorously described a policy where authors had to agree to die before publication. This protected the publisher from complaints about proofreading errors. It clearly established the saying’s origins within the practical frustrations of the publishing industry. Source
However, the adage quickly migrated from commerce to criticism. By 1895, it appeared in a column in the Pittsburgh Commercial Gazette. This marked its entry into the world of literary evaluation. Interestingly, the author of this column challenged the idea. They argued against the notion that all good authors are dead authors. This early debate shows the immediate tension between valuing established classics and recognizing contemporary talent. The saying had found its second life as a topic of critical debate.
An Enduring Academic and Creative Debate
The 20th century saw the phrase become firmly embedded in academic discourse. Scholars like Irving Babbitt of Harvard University used it to describe a teacher’s dilemma. When designing a curriculum, it is often safer to choose established, deceased authors over contemporary ones. This pragmatic approach avoids the risk of championing a writer who may later fall out of favor. The debate continued in educational forums, with many arguing that this mindset stifles student engagement with new literature.
. Irving Babbitt – Harvard University Department of Comparative Literature
The sentiment also found a home in other creative fields. Theatrical producer Jed Harris reportedly told playwright Thornton Wilder that