Late bloomers, Holmes' copyright shame, Guinness Magi, Unphilosophical living, Scott revival?, Context Collapse.

The irregular review of reviews, vol. XV

Second Act summary

A very good set of notes summarising Second Act in one page.

Another lens I’ll remember is “making yourself a big target for luck”. The book introduced me to Austin’s types of luck:

• Luck from motion — when you get an opportunity because you’re out in the world doing interesting things

• Luck from awareness — when you notice an opportunity is available to you (or you’re open to it)

• Luck from uniqueness — opportunities that come to you because of your unique interests, passions, and projects

Scott Sumner late bloomer

This is an excellent answer from Scott Sumner about why he was a late bloomer. He got a (very) brief mention in Second Act and I was interested to see this.

I can’t analyze exactly why I was a late bloomer, but it was clearly an aspect of my personality. It wasn’t like I was held back by something artificial. I just wasn’t applying myself as aggressively or forcefully as I could have, but when I would get under the gun, I would at the last minute somehow get things done that I need.

I almost didn’t even stay at Bentley. Then I did my dissertation very quickly right before they were going to fire me. I went in ABD. Then, a few years later, I actually got turned down for tenure for lack of publications. Then quickly got a few publications, including the JPE article I mentioned. I got tenure by reapplying under different circumstances.

I was treated actually very well; many schools, I wouldn’t have even survived at. Then, unlike a lot of faculty, I did most of my research after getting tenure, almost none before. I had a very odd career that didn’t fit the normal mold. I didn’t pursue topics that were trendy. I just pursued things I was interested in. Even my dissertation — Lucas was my chair at Chicago, and I did currency hoarding. That’s an odd thing for someone to do studying under Lucas, who’s known for rational expectations theory and so on. I just pursued what interested me.

Sherlock Holmes and the immorality of copyright

Disgraceful behaviour from the Sherlock Holmes estate, reported in the Atlantic, which continued to try and exploit people making Sherlock-inspired films, books, and anthologies, after they lost a copyright case in the courts.

In 2015, the estate filed suit against the makers of Mr. Holmes, an Ian McKellen film adapted from a novel by Mitch Cullin, who complained to a reporter, “It is cheaper for corporations to settle than go to court, and I believe the estate is not only keenly aware of that reality, but that they bank on it as an outcome.” Five years later, it went after the Netflix movie Enola Holmes, contending that the estate owned the stories that defined the version of Holmes “stamped in the public mind.” Both suits were likely privately settled, but with all rights now expired, the estate has turned to what its head of licensing, Tim Hubbard, described in an email as “authenticat[ing] projects and partnerships where our collaborators want to be connected to the source.” (The estate declined to address specific questions about its legal strategies or arguments.)

This is legal bullying. Shame! Shame! Conan Doyle would have been appalled!

The bigger point here is that there is no good legal or moral reason why authors’ work should remain in copyright for decades after their death. It does the public no good, and it gives authors’ children and grandchildren control over work which they ought not to exercise.