[lapcat]

> Ok, but nothing in your comment helps me change my mind about what you original point was, as that still looks like you asking "where do they get their inspiration? Autobiographical experience!" and me saying "being inspired by reality isn't any less copying than being inspired by existing canon".

The question is about royalties for writing. You seem to argue that writers don't deserve royalties because all writing is derivative, "a series of footnotes to Plato" as A. N. Whitehead put it. My argument is that good writing, indeed great writing, is not merely derivative, otherwise it wouldn't be interesting. Great writing is a rare talent, I might say divinely inspired if I believed in the divine, so I'll say genetically inspired instead. I think that writers need to be supported, protected, encouraged financially so that they can continue to exist and write great material for our benefit and enjoyment. The alternative is bleak: if writers are not supported via royalties, then the only financially viable "art" will inevitably be mass-produced, mass-marketed pablum. That's a depressing prospect.

Of course super-famous writers make a ton in royalties, but it's actually the other writers for whom royalties are crucial. In a lot of cases, royalties make the difference between survival and destitution.

> To me, Strata by Terry Pratchett is clearly derivative of Ringworld by Larry Niven. I'd say it's not just good, entertaining, interesting, but also that it's superior to the original… and yet, still derivative.

I haven't read Stata, but I thought Ringworld was overrated, so I'm inclined to believe that another work could be superior.

> That would be a biography not an autobiography.

I meant "faked" autobiographical writing. Writing in the autobiographical style. I'm sure you can ask OpenAI or whatever to write an autobiography. Hell, some actual "nonfiction" autobiographies are quite fake (and frequently ghostwritten).

[ben_w]

> You seem to argue that writers don't deserve royalties because all writing is derivative

You're interpreting my words rather creatively there.

And by creatively, I mean "wrong".

I'm being more inclusive, not exclusive, for where the work is done.

To take a different tack: it makes sense for many authors to go to a publisher and have a back-and-forth with an editor and end up with only 10% of the gross sales, and this implies that 90% of the value isn't really coming from the author (in most cases and almost all the famous authors are exceptional).

> The alternative is bleak: if writers are not supported via royalties, then the only financially viable "art" will inevitably be mass-produced, mass-marketed pablum.

I think we already live in such a world: as you agree, most authors cannot sustain themselves from just the writing, only rare exceptions like JK Rowling and Stephen King. As the rest only barely make do, I assert that this demonstrates they are forced to do exactly what you decry.

(There's a lot of free stories distributed on reddit etc., some even have patreon set up. I don't think that makes a difference either way).

[lapcat]

> it makes sense for many authors to go to a publisher and have a back-and-forth with an editor and end up with only 10% of the gross sales, and this implies that 90% of the value isn't really coming from the author

I'm not arguing for any kind of philosophical "labor theory of value". My point is very practical: writers need royalties. Yes it sucks for the writers that they only get 10-20% of the sales, but it's infinitely better than 0%!

> as you agree, most authors cannot sustain themselves from just the writing, only rare exceptions like JK Rowling and Stephen King.

I don't agree with that and didn't say it. In fact it's empirically false. I said that in the hypothetical scenario with no royalties, most authors wouldn't be able to sustain themselves. In the real world, there are a lot of professional writers other than Rowling and King who make a decent, good, or even great living.

The reason that the film writers and actors are going on strike is that streaming and AI are an existential threat to them. But it can't be an existential threat if they don't exist in the first place. Professional writers and actors do exist aside from the super rich and famous ones (who are striking more in solidarity than from personal fear). Of course show business is very difficult to get into; nonetheless, it's a lucrative industry supporting countless professionals. And most of them need their royalties, because they don't get the giant unfront checks that the big stars do.