> I think the author skips past the real answer right here. The old books haven’t gone away. Even if we assume there are good new books, they have to compete with the supply of existing books, which grows without bound - unlike the time and attention of consumers.
That's a real phenomenon in music. New works have to compete with the entire body of existing work, some of which is pretty good.
True, but I'd say it's worse for books than for music.
For music there's still plenty of network effects in favor of new music... things like live concerts, radio and DJs playing the latest stuff, playlists that make actual money being all about new stuff, younger people wanting to connect to their own generation, pop culture enthusiasts always chasing the "new thing".
Sure there are oldies stations and DJs and listeners rediscovering vintage stuff, but network effects for books are rarer, there's not that many Dan Browns anymore.
To note, books have a different networks: they can get movie/TV/game adaptions and get pushed to the news forefront, their author can also play the SNS game.
There's still no Spotlight for books, and I'm with you how tougher than other media it is.
I heard a joke that you don't write a political book for people to read, you write it so you can go on all the talk shows to be interviewed about your book.
That is of course not a joke at all depending on the field. It's kinda like being published in prestigious papers.
While specialists and enthusiasts will enjoy and peek at the content, being recognized as someone who writes about the subject and can be presented as an expert of the field can absolutely be the main impact for the author.
I don't think that's true at all, plenty of my friends has some kind of aversion to "old" music because they could not "get" the aesthetic.
Plus I'm sure most people are sick of Fur Elise.
More “evergreen” genres like classical, jazz, soundtracks, and also stuff by established artists? Surely!
But pop music recordings get “too dated” quite fast for the mainstream and mainstream audiences. This kinda keeps Spotify and Radio charts fresh and newer artists make some money. IMO of course!
EDIT: Wait! One thing however where you’re right and I’m wrong is with live concerts. Today older legacy acts compete and often surpass attendance of newer acts.
Yeah I would say books got it worse, there's a strong tradition of re-arranging old classics in new music, e.g.: kamasi washington remaking clair de lune. so listening to old pieces are not only rewarding, it's even necessary.
And movies and TV. Why try some random new stuff when any of the classic movies is both guaranteed to be good and probably available for free from the library's DVD collection?
I feel a reader or a music lover is more likely to delve into the past than a gamer or movie watcher. I cant remember meeting anyone that was put off by the age of a book or a song, but have recommended games and movies to hardcore gamers and self labelled cinephiles and they were written off immediately due to age.
eg: What's it like to be a teenager alongside the rise of AI? It's a hell of a lot different than the old sci-fi imagines, and old sci-fi generally skipped to the 'end-phase-ubiquitous-AGI' instead of focusing on the transitionary 'awkward teenage' period of the technology.
> What's it like to be a teenager alongside the rise of AI?
That's a tough question? Going to college and taking on debt no longer looks like a good choice. What to learn that won't be heavily devalued in four years?
and the author of course is only sampling a very tiny dataset of the works pushed by the algorithm. Many authors like me will never get on their radar.
That's a real phenomenon in music. New works have to compete with the entire body of existing work, some of which is pretty good.