Last week, during my vacation, I sat down a few times with Penguin Classics’s Essays and Aphorisms by Arthur Schopenhauer.* I liked how modern so much of them seems. Parts of the section on books and writing could practically have been published today by some curmudgeon or other. I thought it was a bit funny how Schopenhauer’s problems in that area are not just not “worked out” yet or something, but are the kind of thing still being actively lamented. I think I’ll be sharing some of my favorite bits in the coming weeks. Like this one:
A multitude of bad writers lives exclusively on the stupid desire of the public to read nothing but what has just been printed: the journalists. Well named! In English the word means ‘day-labourers’.
One of the things Schopenhauer likes to do is explain how many types of writer there are, and what the types are. It changes from aphorism to aphorism. First there are three types, then two, then three again. This passage is from a section contrasting two types: those who write for money and those who write because they have something to say. Schopenhauer is not at all fond of the “day-labourers” (but isn’t that a good jab?). “Payment and reserved copyright are at bottom the ruin of literature.” Them’s fighting words—I certainly wasn’t expecting him to go after copyright but find it very interesting that he did. Very interesting indeed, especially with the renewed contemporary interest in the question of whether intellectual property law is necessary or beneficial.
Of course, it’s no surprise to read about “the stupid desire of the public”; there are a lot of problems here with the public and its relationship with books and writing. But I wasn’t quite expecting a complaint about journalists. Of course now, the public still wants to read what’s just been printed—or, rather, published—but the day-labourers seem no longer to be the best at responding to that desire and are reduced to metajournalism to explain their importance, and why they should keep getting paid. Well, journalists, Schopenhauer says you’ll be much better writers anyhow when you work “for nothing or for very small payment,” so take heart.
In terms of books, how do we know if someone is writing only for money, rather than because he has something to say? I like the answer:
They think for the purpose of writing. You can recognize them by the fact that they spin out their ideas to the greatest possible extent, that their ideas are half-true, obscure, forced and vacillating, and that they usually prefer the twilight so as to appear what they are not, which is why their writings lack definiteness and clarity. You can soon see they are writing simply in order to cover paper: and as soon as you do see it you should throw the book down, for time is precious.
I’ve just been reading about this – 19th century German copyright, I mean. Not that I understand it, exactly. Schopenhauer is in the middle of an argument about German culture, and even the creation of an entity called “Germany.” He wants Culture to remain under the control of aristocratic Germany, or the state – writers should be supported by princes, at universities, or with pensions. Goethe constantly struggled with this problem – who was he writing for? Near the end of his life, he was able to negotiate the first Germany-wide copyright for his collected works. But there had to be a Germany before there could be a Germany-wide copyright.
The fact that Schopenhauer himself failed in his attempt to become a university professor and lived off of his father’s banking investments is irrelevant to the argument.
If philosophy didn’t terrify me, you would have convinced me to read this.