--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "davezeltserman" <Dave.Zeltserman@...> wrote:
> Do you think Hammett, Chandler, Westlake, Stout, Jim Thompson, Spillane, etc. would've written the books they did if they didn't have a real prospect of earning an income with their writing?? Under your scenario, probably none of the great crime novels written from the 30s to the present day that we enjoy discussing here (when we discuss books!) would've been written.
Well, the thirties were not an era of abundance, quite the contrary, yet the pulps thrived. What those guys had was a public who read avidly. I am not sure that this is the situation now.
The income from the pulps, from what I've read, was pretty good for those who produced a lot and had a following. I think the novels were icing on the cake for what they made from the pulps. Unless the novels were made into movies, of course.
The problem I see today, besides the smaller percentage of avid readers, is that many people don't want to pay for artistic content of any kind. It's a kind of cultural suicide, seen in the long run. Think about it: a guy thinks that, because he pays for an Internet connection, he has a right to anything he wants. This mindset is lethal for culture. I don't see a solution.
It could be seen as the culmination of a worrisome trend in American thinking: the idea that you can get something for nothing. All that matters is that you want it... an absurd notion, but unfortunately it's become ingrained.
Try to make people see that writers, musicians, journalists and so on need to receive money in order to be able to do their work...
As I said, it's culturally suicidal.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 12 Nov 2009 EST