/lit/ - Literature

>>23266110
>which calls into question if the acclaim or popularity of a work is deserved.
Only if you buy into the premise that acclaim and popularity should inherently be a metric of quality, which is obviously nonsense and can only happen in a pipe dream fantasy world.
>The sense in which "unnaturalness" is bad, is that it draws attention to something for reasons other than its merit.
It's virtually impossible to define "merit" in the context of art. It's all based on some vague notion of universal perception of aesthetic, which is significantly more flimsy than even the most flimsy soft sciences. In fact, it's not a science at all. That's why they call it an art.
>If a famous musician decides to become a novelist, his first book will probably sell well even if it is terrible
It will sell well among the demographics it was intended for. I don't see how that's a bad thing. That's just a market doing what a market does.
>it will likely be marketed disproportionate to the authors experience or the book's worth
What do these loaded terms even mean? How do you measure disproportionality between sales and the "quality" of art product? How do you measure a book's "worth"?
>If every Hugo award is given to the author with the highest literary ESG score then the award loses value as a means to recognize quality
Awards in the arts have always meant exactly fuck all. The entire concept was created by entrepreneurs looking at sports and saying "look at all the money they're making, let's figure out a way to exploit art in a similar way". Except, unlike sports, art has nowhere near the level of consistency or objectivity in identifying someone's value in performing it. The whole thing is super forced and barely useful to begin with.

>>22900493
Except that the marxist observation on the rate of profit only really makes sense within the LTV but not in the real world.
Marx claims that the rate of automation is inversely proportional to the rate of profit because within the LTV the human work that goes into a good determines its value.

But that is horseshit.
Neither does human work determine the value of a good, nor does automation necessarily lower the value. It may lower the costs, but beyond that it really doesn't have that much of an impact.

Take beef liver as an example.
You can slaughter a cow and sell its liver. It doesn't matter if it was cut out by a human or a machine. A pound of beef liver will never cost more than five bucks, because nobody fucking wants it.

The drop in rates of profit you are seeing in modern day economies is mostly due to monetary shenanigans and the central banks fumbling their price stability schemes.
It's not even conceptually related.

>>18536208
There was a thunderstorm last night and i didn't sleep much, sue me.

>>18210087
>Reading God Emperor
>Leto II thinks about getting a massive prosthesis dick to scare people