Hacker News Reader

Comment by WorkerBee28474 | Hacker News Reader

The conclusion the author should have reached isn't 'authors need more support' but rather 'this is how the world tells authors it doesn't need so many books'.

View on HN

The market isn't that good at detecting and rewarding genius work in the short term. Herman Melville, Edgar Allan Poe as well as Oscar Wilde died poor.

In fairness Wilde’s lack of wealth was largely downstream of his (unjust) legal problems. And Poe suffered greatly from a lack of copyright protection.

They didn’t suffer from a lack of people wanting to read their works, in the way that most modern authors do.

These comments where they somehow suggest more of creativity is not necessary is rather upsetting. Should they then just be doing what the world handsomely rewards, which currently seems to be optimizing ads at a big tech company.

Looks like we need to change the priorities set by the market. Targeted taxes and subsidies are the way to do it.

People are clearly willing to write and publish a book even with no payoff. If you had taxes and subsidies, even more authors would write to the point that most authors can't live off of writing, since clearly they are willing to write enough to flood the supply of books until most authors can't make it.

The whole point of subsidizing was that authors can make a living, perhaps. I am not sure I follow you. But also, if subsidies are a thing, wouldn't you agree that it is better spent on issues like these, however?

There are more books published today than ever before. 96% sold less than 1000 copies when published by the big publishing houses. I feel like that is the strongest sign the market can give that there are too many authors or many of them aren't good enough.

https://www.elysian.press/p/no-one-buys-books

"Good enough" by what metric? I mean all art is subjective.

I agree your argument based on supply and demand. But, my point was that the creative adventures are not rewarded well enough in our system, and somehow things that are terribly meaningless like ad-optimization attracts so much revenue that companies don't know what to do with. This imbalance is upsetting.

Either that, or niches are booming and are getting properly served, either by passion or profit

That's fair. Now if we go with this line of thinking, and push a little bit past the obvious, the seeming difference in earning potential between authors and entertainers - whether YouTube influencers, classical athletes or singers, combined with clear winner-take-all dynamics of the latter groups, is how the world tells us...

... we need more human connection.

It's not just whether or not the content is lighter, more engaging, or hyperoptimized. It's not just that. Maybe what's common between all this, and other high-engagement creations like high-outrage news reporting, is the same instinct: seeking out what's important, by proxy of what we expect others will also seek out and talk about. So, in short, seeking connection.

Just random musings, no real conclusion here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com