People who choose business models that do not allow them to save for the future usually make that choice with full foreknowledge. No one forced him to be a writer. But I guess his 'contributions' mitigate that and mean that we should all empty our bank accounts and give him all our money (see? I can exaggerate, too!)
Writers write because they have to write. It chooses them, and it is rarely the other way around. And who is asking you to empty your bank account? Really, go find another strawman (see, I can be sarcastic too!).
I simply refuse to believe that such a prolific author (and here's the surprise twist: I have read a great amount of his fiction and consider it to be amazing. My list is Schrodinger's Cat, Historical Illuminatus, and Illuminatus!) made less than I make after considering COLA and inflation.
Believe what you want, if that helps rationalize your ideology.
My entire reason for replying to this particular sub-thread was the assertion that Robert's situation proves that copyright is a lousy way to make a living.
I wasn't making that argument, so your point is irrelevant. What I resent is the implication that writers and artists deserve hardship for being so dumb as to rely on copyright. Not everyone can or should live the life of a prudent little burgher. That doesn't mean they deserve our contempt.
As for his contribution to civilization, I'll reserve judgement on that until I see whether his works ever become more mainstream.
You haven't been paying attention. So, you think Douglas Rushkoff isn't mainstream? How about Boing Boing? How about Slashdot? Or do you not believe something isn't influential until it's on TV?
He also has a cult following--my suspicion is that less than one-tenth of one percent of people know anything about him whatsoever...
Cult following . . . accurate, perhaps, but cult is a loaded word. Even assuming you didn't mean that pejoritively, you should know that it often takes several generations for visionaries and original thinkers to disseminate their ideas through society. In that sense your decision to withhold judgment is prudent. Nevertheless, seeing as how your suspicions are based on some number you just pulled out of your ass, it counts for exactly jack and squat.
To swing to the other end of the spectrum in this discussion (and hopefully less vehemently and violently than you managed to), I don't believe that Robert Anton Wilson has cause any noticeable change in current society. I see no significant contribution (yet--perhaps one day he will be required reading in grade school--but with the way the world is going, I doubt it).
Perhaps I was too strident in my initial response. For that I apologize. However, I would argue that yes, in fact he *has* and *is* changing our society, one mind at a time. His influence on what used to be called the counterculture is enormous and growing, and it is from that fringe where new ideas emerge. Prometheus Rising and Cosmic Trigger are significant, seminal philosophical works, and in the thirty or so years they have been in print they have proven far more influential than any outward societal changes would suggest. To quote the man himself, "I think politics is always the last place, the very last place, where important changes register. They register in science, then in technology, then in economics and in social affairs. And then finally the politicians have to adjust to them."
But don't send him any money, it's no skin off my back. Peace unto you.
This society values Paris Hilton more than Robert Anton Wilson, so that's no reflection on how he has enriched us. I remain confident RAW will be remembered and valued long after she, you and I are forgotten piles of dust...
"I have to take issue with your reply."
Issue away.
"1) I didn't say a damned word about the Internet in my post. RAW knew the terms of the contracts he signed (or he should have) and could have chosen not to sign them. He could have self-published, self-marketed. This/did/ happen before the Internet."
Hence he deserves nothing but our contempt, right? The point is, alternative models of income for writers and artists were hardly tenable before the Internet, and even today they are marginal. RAW is a professional writer and supported himself as such through the most sensible means available at the time. But you go right on feeling smug and superior, it suits your pedantry.
"2) Is the accusation that I haven't read any of his book supposed to be some sort of sleight? The implied tone from the text says 'yes', yet I can't fathom why that would be the case."
Bravo, you get points for reading comprehension. Let me spell it out for you, since you seem to need a little help in this regard - if you were familiar with his writing, perhaps you would understand his contribution to civilization (though I doubt it), and that might mitigate your heartless libertarian pretense. So endeth the lesson. Now go shove that copy of the Fountainhead you keep under your pillow right up your arse, I'm through with you.
Most of his books were published long before the Internet and before intellectual copyright became such a cause celeb. But you would know that if you'd read any of his books.
All 5 people, huh?
You might want to look at the number of posts on this thread again, you self-righteous fool. I hope you are a janitor at that hospital, because you have the bedside manners of a fucking Republican.
Now do the world a favor and go kill yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
People who choose business models that do not allow them to save for the future usually make that choice with full foreknowledge. No one forced him to be a writer. But I guess his 'contributions' mitigate that and mean that we should all empty our bank accounts and give him all our money (see? I can exaggerate, too!)
Writers write because they have to write. It chooses them, and it is rarely the other way around. And who is asking you to empty your bank account? Really, go find another strawman (see, I can be sarcastic too!).
I simply refuse to believe that such a prolific author (and here's the surprise twist: I have read a great amount of his fiction and consider it to be amazing. My list is Schrodinger's Cat, Historical Illuminatus, and Illuminatus!) made less than I make after considering COLA and inflation.
Believe what you want, if that helps rationalize your ideology.
My entire reason for replying to this particular sub-thread was the assertion that Robert's situation proves that copyright is a lousy way to make a living.
I wasn't making that argument, so your point is irrelevant. What I resent is the implication that writers and artists deserve hardship for being so dumb as to rely on copyright. Not everyone can or should live the life of a prudent little burgher. That doesn't mean they deserve our contempt.
As for his contribution to civilization, I'll reserve judgement on that until I see whether his works ever become more mainstream.
You haven't been paying attention. So, you think Douglas Rushkoff isn't mainstream? How about Boing Boing? How about Slashdot? Or do you not believe something isn't influential until it's on TV?
He also has a cult following--my suspicion is that less than one-tenth of one percent of people know anything about him whatsoever...
Cult following . . . accurate, perhaps, but cult is a loaded word. Even assuming you didn't mean that pejoritively, you should know that it often takes several generations for visionaries and original thinkers to disseminate their ideas through society. In that sense your decision to withhold judgment is prudent. Nevertheless, seeing as how your suspicions are based on some number you just pulled out of your ass, it counts for exactly jack and squat.
To swing to the other end of the spectrum in this discussion (and hopefully less vehemently and violently than you managed to), I don't believe that Robert Anton Wilson has cause any noticeable change in current society. I see no significant contribution (yet--perhaps one day he will be required reading in grade school--but with the way the world is going, I doubt it).
Perhaps I was too strident in my initial response. For that I apologize. However, I would argue that yes, in fact he *has* and *is* changing our society, one mind at a time. His influence on what used to be called the counterculture is enormous and growing, and it is from that fringe where new ideas emerge. Prometheus Rising and Cosmic Trigger are significant, seminal philosophical works, and in the thirty or so years they have been in print they have proven far more influential than any outward societal changes would suggest. To quote the man himself, "I think politics is always the last place, the very last place, where important changes register. They register in science, then in technology, then in economics and in social affairs. And then finally the politicians have to adjust to them."
But don't send him any money, it's no skin off my back. Peace unto you.
This society values Paris Hilton more than Robert Anton Wilson, so that's no reflection on how he has enriched us. I remain confident RAW will be remembered and valued long after she, you and I are forgotten piles of dust...
"I have to take issue with your reply." Issue away. "1) I didn't say a damned word about the Internet in my post. RAW knew the terms of the contracts he signed (or he should have) and could have chosen not to sign them. He could have self-published, self-marketed. This /did/ happen before the Internet."
Hence he deserves nothing but our contempt, right? The point is, alternative models of income for writers and artists were hardly tenable before the Internet, and even today they are marginal. RAW is a professional writer and supported himself as such through the most sensible means available at the time. But you go right on feeling smug and superior, it suits your pedantry.
"2) Is the accusation that I haven't read any of his book supposed to be some sort of sleight? The implied tone from the text says 'yes', yet I can't fathom why that would be the case."
Bravo, you get points for reading comprehension. Let me spell it out for you, since you seem to need a little help in this regard - if you were familiar with his writing, perhaps you would understand his contribution to civilization (though I doubt it), and that might mitigate your heartless libertarian pretense. So endeth the lesson. Now go shove that copy of the Fountainhead you keep under your pillow right up your arse, I'm through with you.
Oh, you're sure he was also a genius? Well, thanks for confirming that for us, dude, your comments are so enlightening...
Being on the fringe of this society of violent, ignorant apes strikes me as a mark in his favor.
Most of his books were published long before the Internet and before intellectual copyright became such a cause celeb. But you would know that if you'd read any of his books.
All 5 people, huh? You might want to look at the number of posts on this thread again, you self-righteous fool. I hope you are a janitor at that hospital, because you have the bedside manners of a fucking Republican. Now do the world a favor and go kill yourself.