Thanks for your comment (and sorry for the delayed response). I partly agree and partly have something to say in response. The point you make that I find compelling is that inequality assures commonality, and commonality is important. But I do think we are missing out on something by virtue of attentional inequality.

I guess the reason for this is based on my experience of consuming art. This happens frequently: authors I love I only hear about by chance. Authors I hear about constantly I don’t love. I don’t imagine I’m alone in this; moreover, I have no reason to think that as of the time of writing, I have chancily discovered all the writers I will love. Accordingly, I imagine a future in which some of the attention lavished on the few (who, incidentally, will often by people from fancy MFAs with good connections living in expensive cities, a fact that should make one suspicious — why think literary talent is concentrated in such people?) gets more spread out. Then maybe I’ll hear about, rather than discovering by chance, authors whom I love, and my reading experience will be improved.

At the same time, this doesn’t speak to the point about commonality. My scenario might well result in there being so many authors given attention that we can’t coordinate on any, and culture evaporates. It’s a tension, and I don’t know what to say about it.