Miscellaneous Chatter > Writing

Writing and selling books - the advocation of silence?

<< < (3/3)

What Came Before:

--- Quote from: Callan S. ---
--- Quote from: Meyna ---Tolerance and value are intertwined, in this case. If the perceived value of the products of the specialists is high, then the community will have no issue with giving away any extra food and water (and shelter, indeed) to support them. If the value is low, then, even if there are extra resources to go around, the community might not be so thrilled to give them away. They might even say "do something that we value more, or get back to producing needs."
--- End quote ---
I wouldn't call this tolerance. I'd call it the start of demand, yes, but demand for flattery. This isn't tolerance - it's a kind of 'do I look fat in this dress?' prompt.

Of course the idea behind tenure was pretty much like I was talking about - you get resources regardless of what you write. But that idea apparently has been been twisted. Though I'd blame it not being not even a little lottery based and instead more human decision based (so more 'do I look fat' questions snuck in, just in a more scarfy academic way).

I cross posted with you, so the above might be a few seconds out of date (!). I'll go onto one of your paragraphs

--- Quote ---After all of this pondering, I think that I would have to agree, Callan, with your initial thesis: in our society, specialists who take up writing as a profession depend on there being a niche to fill that is not full to the brim with other writers. On the other hand, there is another aspect to this that I can't figure out, though. Why limit it to only writing? Take your original 200 sample pool. What if 100 of them write a book, and the other 100 make ceramic bowls. The writers depend on buyers for their craft just as much as the ceramicists do. You could have 200 specialists with 200 different crafts and still be left with the same situation. They all depend on acquiring the needs of survival through their craft.
--- End quote ---
The thing with bowls is that if you can make them yourself, you can use them yourself.

So it's not dictating no one else should make bowls.

But with writing - well, unless you intend to only ever read it yourself (I believe an american poetess like that was mentioned on TPB at one point, given she ordered her writings destroyed at her death (but failed to specify every box of her writings!)), then you expect others to read it - if that's for money, well, then either you're advocating a pointless zero sum game, or advocating that others remain silent!

You might have been talking about material goods saturating a market - it's an issue, but it's another issue in regards to how naturally occuring desperation ('we have no plates to eat from'), rather like a natural resource, rapidly runs out and so can't be used to sustain an economy. Thus artificial, man made desperation begins to be heavily relied upon and new exertions of it invented. Since rich men wouldn't be rich for much longer (well, actually probably for the rest of their life time, but not as rich and their discendants might not live like princes...) if we didn't keep it going.
--- End quote ---

What Came Before:

--- Quote from: Callan S. ---
--- Quote from: Madness ---Or is it rather my interpretation of scarcity, what I think Callan means by desperation, distinguish an economic system?
--- End quote ---
That's where my chips/my bet is placed.
--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page