= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Zack_M_Davis comments on Open Thread: October 2009 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (425)
Group underrepresenatation isn't even necessary, either. A more general form of the argument carries as long as you agree that "[fiction] isn't a completed project[;] [s]topping the production of fiction in its tracks now would leave us with a corpus of stories that" is suboptimal in some way.
Cf. DH7
Nope, doesn't work. Why do you think new fiction would make the corpus more optimal in any way?
Because the criteria of optimality change over time. If civilization ever becomes so static (or so cyclic) that I agree with people 50 years ago about what makes for a good story, then you can stop writing new fiction. As is, there certainly are some old works that were so good for their own time that they're still worth reading now, despite the differences in values. But I can't fail to notice those differences, and they do detract from my enjoyment unless I'm specifically in the mood for something alien.
If the criteria are always changing & devaluing old works, why do we read things like Gilgamesh or the Iliad or Odyssey? Did they have nigh-infinite value, that they could survive 3k+ years?
As far as I can tell this is just the "spirit of the times" point restated by people who can't be bothered to read our long-winded exchange.
It makes the corpus more complete, if nothing else. Of course we don't want to write all possible books; that's just the useless Library of Babel. But that's physically impossible anyway; within the range that we can apprehend, I'm inclined to say that more books about more topics is better.