[dredmorbius]

William Shakespeare (c. 23 April 1564 – 23 April 1616) predates the first modern copyright law, the Statute of Anne (1710), by roughly a century. His income came from performances, that is, asses in seats, not book sales. His posthumous fame came in large part from the fact that those published plays were free from copyright encumberance and could be performed or published without licence fee.

Dickens pioneered the model of serial publication on which other authors of his time (notably Tolstoy) made much comment.

You've failed to mention Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens), who was constantly in debt, damned near killed himself with one of his two possessions (a revolver, the other being a nickel), broke and unemployed in San Francisco. His relative financial flush later in life was largely due to his father-in-law's support. And asses-in-seats on the lecture circuit.

Melville, like many other authors (F. Scott Fitzgerald of Gatsby fame comes to mind) saw a greatly-increased fame after his death, with Moby Dick becoming reestablished on the centennial of Melville's birth, some 28 years after his death. Melville worked during his life as a clerk, sailor, and farmer. His writing career met with very limited financial success. His works were great, no doubt, his income failed to measure up, and could hardly be considered his chief incentive. Later in life, like Twain, Melville benefitted by inheritance and lectures.

[Retric]

The point you seemed to have missed was each of them were populist authors.. To look down on populist writing is to misunderstand western literature.

Further we never got to read a book by Shakespeare because of the lack of copyright at the time. Imagine a world where he had more time to devote to such things.

Similarly Dickens was hampered by being paid by the word.

Melville on the other hand wrote Moby-Dick through the commercial success of less famous works. What happened later in life isn’t particularly relevant here, what’s generally considered the greatest work of western literature was completely dependent on someone being paid for their writing. It wasn’t some breakout novel from a new writer it’s the culmination of serious refinement of his talents that takes not just inspiration and life experience but time.

[dredmorbius]

I don't know where you got the notion I look down on populist authors or its writing. I'm talking about the market of writing itself, and the incentives actually in effect for writers.

Book sales at the time of Shakespeare would have been hampered by a number of factors, including the slow rate of printing presses (about 60--120 impressions/hour), the cost of books (cheap pulp-based paper had yet to be invented), and low literacy rates (25% or less of the population).

It wasn't until all of those were developed, largely during the 19th century, in which printing rates increased roughly a millionfold (wood grape-crush presses to electrically-powered, steel-framed, Linotype-set, continuous-paper-roll web presses), cheap paper, and 90%+ literacy rates), that owning more than a handful of books became common. Development of the paperback further accelerated this, often through the re-issue of out-of-copyright "classics" in low-cost libraries for the everyman.

Even the notion of a bookcase or bookshelf as a notable item of furniture is a surprisingly late development, largely since 1860, and growing markedly in prevalence after 1900, judging by Google's Ngram viewer:

<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=bookshelf%2C%2...>

(A methodology with issues, but a methodology all the same.)

Sales of modern books are largely all but nonexistent. It might not be only a dozen copies (the famous quote fails to account for multiple ISBNs existing per title), but even a few thousand sales isn't going to support much of a livelihood, and there are ~300k English-language titles published traditionally per year (and have been since the 1950s), expanding to a million or several including "nontraditional" publsihing, going off numbers directly from the US Library of Congress's Copyright office, annual letters, and ISBN issuer Bowker.

<https://writingcooperative.com/half-of-all-traditionally-pub...>

Bowker: <https://web.archive.org/web/20150415233658/https://www.bowke...> (2013)

Office of Copyright: <http://www.copyright.gov/reports/annual/2015/ar2015.pdf> (2015)

Library of Congress: <https://www.loc.gov/static/portals/about/reports-and-budgets...> (2023)

My point wasn't that populist works cannot be created. It's that there are other rationales to writing, that most of the Great Works were written without copyright, that chasing dollars leads, as Schopenhauer expresses far more elegantly and cogently than I can, to sludge (now AI-generated sludge, such as these services <https://www.childbook.ai/> <https://www.createbookai.com/collection/mothers-day-books>.

I'm not opposed to great literature. I'm not opposed to authors being paid. I'm not even opposed to reasonable copyright terms. But I'm pretty well convinced that the existing system actually serves all those goals poorly.

Sure, the occasional author goes stratospheric.

But for most people, the reasons for writing a book differ:

- They can't not.

- It's a calling card. (See the parallel HN submission on business books. Most are extensive advertisements for consulting services. <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43940747> Other books essentially sell businesses or systems.

- The writing fills other aims. Book -> Film (asses in seats, or subscription revenues). Advertising bait (mainstay of the publishing industry from ~1860 to, variously, 1950--2000, see my fave Hamilton Holt writing in 1906: <https://archive.org/details/commercialismjou00holtuoft/page/...>.

- Part of some other job. Academics write for tenure, to meet public communications targets, for recognition, or other goals.

- Propaganda. There are organisations which write and sell publications effectively to spread faith and doctrine. Some in the original religious sense, others with political, social, or cultural goals.

- Vanity. Though that may be less successful than other options.

- It's cheap. If the story or idea is in you and can't keep from coming out, why not commit it to the page, or electrons in the cloud? Writing and publishing are cheaper than they've ever been, and if you can break through there's that ever-so-small chance of winning the lottery, sometimes big, often small.

- The materials already exist. A surprising number of books are assembled from lecture notes, speaking points, or essays on numerous topics. (Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations is based on his course lecture notes, taught for several decades at the University of Edinburgh. Feynmans Lectures in Physics similarly. These may not be trivial to edit into shape, but working from an existing structure is often quite useful.

At the same time, chasing a buck gives AI sludge, formulaic genre fiction, tired professional and technical books, straight-up bullshit (Depak Chopra, John Gray (the Venus hack, not the philosopher), Erich von Däniken, etc., etc. One thing about pseudoscience is that its authors and publishers are often grifters taking advantage of gullible audiences and markets. Their bullshit books are actually a sorting and marketing mechanism to other goods and services (e.g., fortune-telling, pyramid schemes, cults, and the like.) All of that is driven by profit, without any regard to quality.

[Retric]

Weekly newspapers showed up over a decade before Shakespeare died. The feasibility of “mass market” books on a technical level are debatable, but he would have effectively been guaranteed a hit for the time based on his skill and reputation even if it was quite expensive for regular people.

> most of the Great Works were written without copyright

English copyright showed up in 1710, US soon followed. So you must have a very different list of Great Works than normal.

As to the economics today, the average advance on a book is ~60,000$. Now you’re going to have to do reasonably well to keep getting those advances but plenty of people are buying books. The percentage of readers are down but there was less than 1/2 as many Americans and under 1/3 as many people globally in 1950.

[dredmorbius]

There may have been something called "newspapers" during Shakespeare's time, if only just barely (Wikipedia's list begins in 1605, four years prior to his death, and in Germany: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_oldest_newspapers>). The first British paper didn't emerge until several decades later (1641, in Scotland).

But most who take even a generous view of that topic put the emergence of the first true mass-market, to use your favourite description, popular newspaper, disseminated widely, published daily, sold cheaply, reliant on mass advertising, and featuring lurid (and often entirely fabulous) reportage, was the New York Sun, published by Benjamin Day.

My earlier reference to Hamilton Holt's Journalism and Media (1909) describes the massive rise of advertising-supported media, and its pernicious impacts on the trade, beginning in about 1860. Mass-circulation required mass literacy, mass-advertising, mass marketing, large-scale print runs, and good which could be sold across a wide area through advertising and mechanised transport. Much as Viagra dominated early online advertising (particularly email), it was patent medicines (usually themselves ineffective, fraudulent, and/or dangerous) which served as the mainstay of early advertising. The book is short (115 large-print pages), information dense, written by an expert practition of the trade of which he writes, and engagingly written. I'd strongly urge you to take it in.

You seem strongly wedded to your views and unwilling to consider alternatives. But that's my whole point: as Schopenhauer notes, and he's hardly alone, the financial motive perverts the art:

Writing for money and reservation of copyright are, at bottom, the ruin of literature. No one writes anything that is worth writing, unless he writes entirely for the sake of his subject.

Commercial journalism is imploding as advertising and attention flee elsewhere. The resulting landscape has a small number of winner-take-all commercial enterprises (the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, in the United States), with most other even major-city papers suffering (Washington Post, LA Times, Boston Globe) if not utterly eviscerated (Chicago Tribune), or vanished entirely in news deserts. The Tribune's local competitor, was acquired by that city's NPR affiliate which was paid millions of dollars to take over the paper. And it's non-profit initiatives which are increasingly serving as the bulwark of journalism, such that it survives, in much of the U.S.

(That those non-profits, notably NPR and PBS are now under direct attack from the present US administration is hardly surprising.)

Again, whether or not you accept that the commercial motive is a negative, what other models for supporting authors might you find attractive. A couple of years ago on discussion of pirated books on Amazon, the question was asked "Would you continue writing novels if you got UBI of equivalent size and weren't allowed to charge for your books?". Writing here, author Charlie Stross (cstross) answered, "That's what I'd call living the dream!"

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35765198>

[Retric]

> Wikipedia's list begins in 1605, four years prior to his death, and in Germany

I’ve generally seen it listed that Shakespeare died in 1616. EX: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespeare

> No one writes anything that is worth writing, unless he writes entirely for the sake of his subject.

That requires you to reject all the people we just talked about. It is to suggest the world would be no lesser without Moby Dick etc etc.

The most generous interpretation is it’s a delusional take where the people he admires must have written it for the sake of art despite living off their art for years. A classic true Scotsman argument devoid of substance.

> You seem strongly wedded to your views and unwilling to consider alternatives.

I’m perfectly willing to engage with reasonable debate but you keep bringing up inaccurate or meaningless points. Books sales aren’t dependent on mass market advertising, you can make a good living if 25,000 people buy your book that’s an infinitesimal fraction of the market.

There’s ~1 Billion English speaking book sales per year, most people can’t hack it despite today being the easiest time to be an author ever the arts are difficult. It’s not a problem of publishers, it’s not a problem of readers, it’s solely an issue of people deluding themselves into thinking they are more talented than they are.