According to Project Gutenberg, the works of Edgar Allan Poe are not copyrighted in the country of his birth the United States of America.
So you can download the works of Edgar Allan Poe (1809-1849) for free.
His work contributed to the development of the sci-fi genre.
Alas, he was not beloved by his generation or generations to come, as Dr Spock or Captain Kirk creator Gene Roddenberry. The grim view of life in the works of this Gothic writer didn't fit with the ethos of his time:
"Poe, too, showed an alternative to the optimism and complacency and materialism of his age, a dream of beauty and primal unity which always contained the probability of terror and darkness. Few people at the time heeded him, but since his death, and particularly in the twentieth century, his voice has been widely heard and recognised, like the meaningful shape from the past so beloved of Gothic writers." _ John S Whitley, School of English and American Studies, University of Sussex (Introduction to Tales of Mystery and the Imagination) The reason I'm sharing this with you is because I read it and thought it interesting and relevant - feel free to disagree on any points.
When I read his stories I'm struck by his keen eye for human failings - they are after all as much a part of our nature as our virtues. But I understand why his work offended polite society.
I'm all for a polite society but I'd like to believe that it's possible to be polite, honest and forthright.
As long as we champion our right to freedom of speech, we should allow people to disagree.
Basically, if I disagree I'll unfollow you. Polite society does ostracization quite well normally.
And it seems the online community is hell bent on tailoring personal realities to fit narrow perspectives in an effort to maintain maximum stability and minimize discomfort and maximize sales. If it's so comfy and warm online, is offline reality too much for people to bear?
This mental disconnect may be causing the problems developing in our "real shared reality" where the society is no longer so polite.
So this great online questing for connection between mind, body and spirit and such may all be for nought in the end.
What if it creates "impatience", "rudeness", "bullying" and downright "mean-spiritedness" - maybe even "murder".
Where does the greatest benefit to humanity lie? To lie or not to lie - online or offline? And people think Hamlet is confusing. Someone said to me last week: "People used to provide good service without talking about it and now all they seem to do is talk about it but they fail to provide good service."
That's the problem!
I adore the sharing aspect of social media but it's only really good when its genuine - you recognize the "spark" when it's there even if its centuries old, even if it's thrown together in a pique of inspiration by a no one-in-particular, an individual with something to share for the sake of it. Poe opens his short story The Man of the Crowd with a quote: "This great evil, not to be able to be alone."
The protagonist in this short story follows a man through the city who is always in a crowd - he's lost, always lost even in a crowd.
It could be the first ever description of a social media fiend. People want to be individuals but they NEED to be part of the crowd. I use the word fiend for humour.
Real fiends relish fiend-dom so I doubt they'd be offended. I don't really want to hurt anyone's feelings.
But I know doctors and researchers are concerned about the effect this addiction or obsession is having on the development of the brain in young people - this need to be connected to multiple platforms, this need to be stimulated all the time.
Apparently, boys are boys until at least the age of 24 and often never grow up - so where this leaves them is anyone's guess. ;) I've started wondering about something else. I've started wondering about the need to be influential - the need to have power over other people's opinions without actually contributing anything to the conversation apart from RT. Most anyone is capable of communication but there's the great fear of "having nothing to contribute" or "saying the wrong thing" or "being vulnerable". Fiends often go on and on about the power of social media and how great it is for freedom of expression and sharing - but in the next breath they lay down the rules by Tweeting out lists about social media #failure.
For example they scorn someone who claims to be published when they are only self-published.
So to be cool you need to have a publishing deal with the "old media".
Edgar Allan Poe was paid only $9 for the work which made him a household name, The Raven.
He self-published a lot of work as the editor of various publications. So-called "writers" think that they will be able to make money from writing online - it's an interesting concept since writers and artists have always struggled to make a living off their craft - perhaps social media will change this eventually. I don't count self-help books.
They are not cultural heritage - most of them describe a process, or someone else's philosophies from a personal perspective.
Do they add value to cultural identity? Do they contribute to the development of new ideas? Are romance novels cultural heritage? (I'm expressing an opinion - it's just MY opinion and I'd be interested in your opinion) I'm probably wrong here because I haven't done any research but the writers making money online are well-established names, people who write great copy (as in advertorial), marketing & PR types, or they sell self-help advice - published by a publishing house or self-published.
I'm sure there are probably a few savvy writers making money. Perhaps Australian crime writer Gabriel Lord who is currently enthralling young readers with her series Conspiracy 365.
She's got teacher-librarians on her side. Now there's power!