Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue_ronin
That's not the point at all. I can read them whenever I wish. It's the fact that I (or anyone else) cannot derive works from them for what is in effect a century after their introduction. We cannot quote them extensively, rewrite, transform, reuse... I'm in the theatre -- there are plays to be written about questions Heinlein asked, or statements he made about human nature, etc.
Or pulling together a master collection of the man's work, done out of admiration, in an easily transformable or specifically beautiful format. Or whatever. The man and his wife are dead, he cannot be importuned to create any more works, no matter how much we pay him (or his inheritors.)
The miracle of For Us the Living is a perfect example: Written in 1938, it was not published until 2003 -- it will enter public domain in 2098 in the US.
Culture is not passive. It reacts, infuses, refolds and adds. What is changed is both what is added and something new. Think of someone like Beethoven, reusing music from Mozart.
I am not comparing myself to Beethoven, nor Heinlein in regard to their genius. What I mean is that the problem is an environment of fear and (im)permission instead of creativity/love, and the locking up of culturally significant works for the benefit of what are largely corporations.
Reducing these ideas to pricing:
when I did not mention that at all (you are not quoting me, you are quoting a straw man) simply demonstrates how much of our ideas about everything in culture have been captured by the interests of business.
I hope you understand. 
m a r |
You, sir, have most aptly summed up the whole problem with our culture as it stands in relation to the almighty 'business model'. Bravo!