pull down to refresh
But it puts the traditional book publishing flow (buy my book) backward: I will pay you to read my book. Who would do that? Who would do it sustainably? (I think I have an answer to this).
Precisely. But not backward, just into negative territory: the marginal value of your writing is negative, so you must reimburse me for bothering.
Even before the widespread release of llms, it felt like we were drowning in a sea of content. Everywhere I looked there was a new story, a new idea, a new opinion -- many of them artfully expressed
This is mostly why I struggle with fiction at all (#1413116). Anything can happen, anything can be said. Why bother reading yours, or Indeed anyone's at all, then? They don't amount to anything but attempts at infinite search space
Good points on marginal value. Once the authority of legacy media is eroded, the floodgates open, and we must be convinced to dedicate our time.
I'd argue that pre-self publishing (and AI), non-fiction books had more utilitarian value. Those which were published had a proven system or paradigm-shifting idea.
Now, every Tom, Dick and Harry wants to sell their wares via a book. There are many brilliant self-pub non-fiction books, but most are not worth my time because they accrue value mainly for the writer.
The value of fiction (to my mind) is equal to that of non-fiction.
But it's much harder to quantify than an instructional or framework-based manual.
The value is through the active participation of the reader, who creates much of the story and meaning in their mind. It's like exploring a huge world in an RPG as opposed to playing a platformer.
Fiction really activates a different part of the brain. A lot of people want to consume in a passive way, and choose not to participate, but they still love stories (news, movies, anecdotes).
Why bother reading yours, or Indeed anyone's at all, then? They don't amount to anything but attempts at infinite search space
This is a really important and intriguing question. I suspect the answer for most people is that so-and-so (reviewer, professor, aunt, online-forum member etc.) told me it was worth my time.
There is a sociological myth-making aspect to stories that I think is getting somewhat high-jacked by social-media and digital content creation, but isn't necessarily going anywhere. It seems to be crucial to our species.
I suspect the answer for most people is that so-and-so (reviewer, professor, aunt, online-forum member etc.) told me it was worth my time.
that's usually (traditionally? historically?) a decent filter. A work of fiction that has stood the test of time, over generations and generations, has something to it in a way that the latest whatever thing produced today doesn't.
Just because we don't realize something's import today doesn't necessrily mean it is unimportant. I'm confident there will be works published in our era that stand the test of time. The question is, which ones?
Who knows how the English literary canon gets determined, except that its by some arcane wizadry taking place in ivory towers. Most people recoil at the concept, but the truth is, we cannot know and read everything so we need to outsource this decision making to people whose voices we trust.
It's all fiction.
The difference between something like Mastering Bitcoin and There is No Antimemetics Division is just a difference in subject matter.
It took me a minute to figure out what I was looking at in your second link, but I'm glad I took the time to do so. Thanks for sharing.
boooooom, hashtag mindfuck
We are on the same page. The right incentives, barriers and signals fix the flood of content problem.
Discoverability is still problematic, but I believe internet-native money (and other measures) can help there too.
And communities. They will become more important.
I recomend Short Fiat's audiobook 'Digital Sovereignty'. You can find him (and the book) on Nostr via Fanfares.
This is very interesting. Getting people to spend time with your ideas, to let them into their mental space, does seem valuable -- even worth paying for.
But it puts the traditional book publishing flow (buy my book) backward: I will pay you to read my book. Who would do that? Who would do it sustainably? (I think I have an answer to this).
Maybe there is a distinction to be made between entertainment and information such that I will pay to be entertained, but you will pay to get me to entertain your ideas. I don't think so, though.
Even before the widespread release of llms, it felt like we were drowning in a sea of content. Everywhere I looked there was a new story, a new idea, a new opinion -- many of them artfully expressed. But which of these productions was the way I wanted to use my time?
We often used social signals to figure this out: thousands of likes = it's probably not a completed waste of time. Reposted by many friends and people we respect = interesting. But these signals are easy to game. Bots, people who buy social accounts, popular accounts that get paid per comment or repost to boost some content.
The problem is even worse now. Instead of being able to discern somewhat quickly if a thing is worth our time, we now have to spend a little more time even discerning whether the writer put thought into it or if they just copied an output.
I'm pretty sure the solution has to do with paying to post and with the mechanics of something like SN.