[HN Gopher] What major works of literature were written after ag...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       What major works of literature were written after age of 85? 75?
       65?
        
       Author : paulpauper
       Score  : 121 points
       Date   : 2026-03-28 16:29 UTC (3 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu)
 (TXT) w3m dump (statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu)
        
       | mellosouls wrote:
       | I think this is pretty common across different creative forms
       | albeit with different age ranges but constrained at the higher
       | end.
       | 
       | So the greatest physics, maths, poetry and pop music are done by
       | people in their 20s.
       | 
       | Literature (esp novels) seems to occupy an older range, perhaps
       | 30s to 50s. Perhaps classical music and philosophy also? I don't
       | know about the visual arts.
       | 
       | I interpret it as the former requiring the creative fireworks of
       | youthful neural elasticity and the latter the depth we associate
       | with lived experience and wisdom.
       | 
       | Naturally there are outliers (general relativity in Einstein's
       | early 30s, Shakespeare word play till his late 40s) but I think
       | in general these rules of thumb seem to be a good guide for the
       | _very highest_ achievers and for the most creative periods for us
       | mere mortals.
       | 
       | Mediocrity of course is unconstrained by age.
        
         | bee_rider wrote:
         | On the bright side, most of us were never candidates for
         | inventing relativity, really. I wonder if our mediocrity
         | remains stable, of if we lose a proportional amount of
         | capability as the luminaries did.
        
           | sunrunner wrote:
           | I'll have you know my mediocrity is directly proportional to
           | my age.
        
             | bee_rider wrote:
             | Probably sigmoids
        
             | antisthenes wrote:
             | I've reverted to the mean more times than I can count!
        
         | f1shy wrote:
         | > So the greatest physics, maths, poetry and pop music are done
         | by people in their 20s.
         | 
         | I can, just from feeling, agree to the pop music. About math I
         | would cite the example of Gilbert Strang, who made many books
         | at advanced age, including one at age 86 or other publications
         | well over the 70s. Another example (well not math, but CS)
         | Donald Knuth. I do not know how is the whole statistic, but
         | writing good books, even text books, does not seem to be
         | teenager thing.
        
           | HappyPanacea wrote:
           | Serre is known for being active in old age as well
        
         | tgv wrote:
         | The best works of Bach and Beethoven are from later in their
         | life, although neither lived to be 85 (65 and 57,
         | respectively), and also wrote great works in their younger
         | years. Bruckner kept improving with age. There are also
         | composers who lost it at a later age: Ravel, famously.
         | Classical music is difficult, so experience does allow a better
         | overall view, something which a lot of short works (such as pop
         | songs) don't need.
        
           | IAmBroom wrote:
           | Ravel wrote his most famous work, Bolero, after age 50, and
           | suffered a traumatic head injury a few years later. Not a
           | good example, except perhaps that the odds of bad things
           | happening increase with longevity.
        
             | tgv wrote:
             | He wasn't happy with the Bolero, and it certainly wasn't
             | his best work. The piano concerto in G was also late, and
             | that's definitely better. I didn't know about the head
             | trauma.
        
           | MyHonestOpinon wrote:
           | If I remember correctly. Bach had about 20 children and he
           | dedicated a lot of his time to their education. A few became
           | very successful musicians. It is an example than later in
           | life a lot of our value is not so much on doing, but helping
           | form the new generations.
        
         | somenameforme wrote:
         | I think a lot is driven by environmental rather than genetic
         | factors. For instance the article mentions that both The Road,
         | and No Country for Old Men were written when Cormack was in his
         | 70s. But very few people in their 70s are even trying to write,
         | let alone get published.
         | 
         | I think there's something similar in chess where players tend
         | to peak around their mid to late 30s. But a major issue there
         | is that that's also the age that most players are having
         | children and developing ever more interests. And they're
         | competing against the younger generation which is still
         | dedicating 100% of their life, and time, to chess. Absent some
         | monumental edge, that's a battle you're going to inevitably
         | lose - even if aging factors did not exist.
        
           | Imustaskforhelp wrote:
           | 100% true about chess but I think there's more nuance to it.
           | 
           | In 6th grade, I had gone to a chess coach who were a friend
           | of my father (technically my father knew his father very
           | well). It was my birthday/a day close to it IIRC and I wanted
           | to learn chess. He was an international-master (or close to
           | it) /National-master (I think he just had one norm less) and
           | he told me about his story and everything, but he said that
           | in a way, he does feel like if he had put the efforts within
           | something like finance for example, he really could earn more
           | than 10 times the money but he said that he really loved
           | chess with a passion. I think that is another element and I
           | think he was within his 30's. Not everyone makes it even that
           | big within chess aside from a very few at the top
           | 
           | You are sort of right in the manner that, as teens grow and
           | the focus of life/dedication from teenage years on solely
           | getting good at chess, diversifies into for example
           | relationships/money-aspects, the mind simply doesn't have
           | enough competition to play chess Comparing this to a 18 year
           | old or 17 year old who just wants to get best at chess and
           | doesn't really want anything else other than chess with their
           | complete and utter dedication.
           | 
           | (There is also another theory recently within Chess of the
           | pressures of being the world champion, from Ding Liren to
           | Gukesh, both have faced tremendous losses after being the
           | best, Gukesh has even lost 75 points after being the world
           | champion, which I believe also has to be because of how many
           | eyes/the pressure building up)
           | 
           | I still like playing chess but all of this makes me also
           | appreciate all the chess players as well in a bit-more behind
           | the scenes manner too. At professional level, calling it
           | taxing sport mentally might even be a bit of an
           | understatement especially for the people within their 30's.
           | 
           | another thing I personally like about Ding and Gukesh both is
           | that they are both humble. They might win or lose but with
           | the brief time that they both had/will have the crown is with
           | their own humbleness. I really like them both a lot. Hope
           | history remembers both their struggles and their humbleness.
        
             | randomNumber7 wrote:
             | Magnus Carlsen is still absolutely destroying anyone else
             | in his 30s. By far.
             | 
             | He didn't compete for the world champion becaue he didn't
             | want to put in the effort for the preparation (again). Also
             | it would have been boring if he played it because he would
             | have won again.
             | 
             | He intentionally starts with subobtimal openings at major
             | turnaments because of boredom and still wins.
        
           | zulux wrote:
           | Sort of confirm: I'm older, and my mind is fine, I just don't
           | _care_ as much anymore. I 'm comfortably numb as the song
           | goes.
        
           | Morromist wrote:
           | Yeah. there is some obvious logic that one can use here
           | without having to look at data.
           | 
           | Not everyone survives to write to an old age.
           | 
           | Old people have health problems that can prevent them from
           | work, like going blind.
           | 
           | People who write a great work at an old age will not have the
           | time and energy to do all the non-writing parts of making the
           | great work seen by readers - which has always been a big part
           | of writing. Like getting their book in bookstores,
           | advertising it, etc.
           | 
           | If someone is a very talented writer they are likely to write
           | great stuff before they get old and may spend their old age
           | preening and working on their legacy instead of new works.
           | They will already know they're a great writer, so the drive
           | to make another great work is lessened.
           | 
           | If someone is already an accomplished writer more of their
           | time will be taken up with invitations to speak, being on
           | award panels, doing interviews, writing introductions.
           | 
           | There is less financial incentive to write a great work when
           | you're very old.
           | 
           | It is harder to be part of a literary salon full of smart
           | people that help you grow your creativity when you're very
           | old.
           | 
           | As people grow older they become more alienated from the
           | zeitgeist and are better at connecting with their own
           | generation.
        
           | randomNumber7 wrote:
           | It's very clear from looking at chess, but also e.g. online
           | gaming and sports that people in their 20s have the strongest
           | cognitive capabilities, especially "processing speed".
           | 
           | But on the other hand, the world is very complicated and you
           | can't know much in your 20s. I'm today a much better
           | programmer than 10 years ago, even with slightly less brains.
           | You are not going to write an impactfull novel without live
           | experience.
           | 
           | How that declines varies and some people still have most
           | cognitive capabilities in their 70s.
        
         | allturtles wrote:
         | Yeah there are quite a few exceptions to this. I've been
         | (re-)reading _The Making of the Atomic Bomb_ , and two of the
         | four people directly involved in the discovery and explanation
         | of nuclear fission were 60 (Hahn and Meitner) the other two
         | (Frisch and Strassman) were in their mid-to-late 30s. Shortly
         | after, Bohr (53) figured out that the oddities of uranium's
         | fission behavior were due to the different activation energies
         | of U-235 and U-238.
         | 
         | I think the best place to look for major works late in life is
         | probably historical writing, which calls for accumulated
         | knowledge and wisdom. Looking at the four most recent winners
         | of the Pulitzer Prize in history from 2023-2025 [0], all appear
         | to be north of 50 based on their Wikipedia pages (which give
         | dates of education if not dates of birth), and one is in her
         | 70s [1].
         | 
         | [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulitzer_Prize_for_History
         | [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqueline_Jones
        
         | TimPC wrote:
         | I think pop musicians are capable of doing greater works later,
         | but the perception of pop works are so heavily influenced by
         | the image/presentation of the artist that we view the works as
         | lesser. I don't think there is something fundamentally
         | different about pop music that leads to best works being
         | earlier relative to other genres of music beyond that.
        
           | quesera wrote:
           | A great deal of pop music, performed by teens-20yos, is
           | written and produced by seasoned professionals who are in
           | their 30s-40s-50s.
           | 
           | The exceptions to that pattern are remarkable.
        
           | musictubes wrote:
           | If we limit the definition of pop music to what charts I
           | think it makes all the sense in the world that it is a young
           | person's game. So much of what drives chart success is what
           | is in fashion at the time. Trend setting will always be the
           | domain of youngsters.
           | 
           | If we expand the definition of pop music to all music that
           | isn't classical/jazz/experimental, etc. then older, more
           | experienced musicians should be able to do quite well. Frank
           | Sinatra honed his craft over the decades. I think the stuff
           | he did in his 40s and 50s is probably his best.
        
         | abetusk wrote:
         | I think this is a gross cultural misconception. Most scientists
         | do their best work in their 30s and 40s. See [0].
         | 
         | My take on this is that it takes about a decade before
         | experience, knowledge and wisdom can be used to see a bigger
         | picture to make a breakthrough.
         | 
         | [0] https://priceonomics.com/at-what-age-does-genius-strike/
        
           | mellosouls wrote:
           | A useful link but note:
           | 
           | a) the curve indicates 30s not 40s
           | 
           | b) there is no breakdown into theoretical vs experimental
           | research, or scientific field; theory I would expect to be
           | over-represented at the younger end especially as the science
           | discipline becomes "harder".
           | 
           | Overall I would say it lends credence to the idea physics is
           | a young person's game at the very highest levels.
        
             | abetusk wrote:
             | a) the inflection point is in the high 30s. Further
             | $\int_{40}^{50} f(x) dx > \int_{20}^{30} f(x) dx$.
             | 
             | b) true there is no breakdown but I would expect the exact
             | opposite as fields get harder. More context requires more
             | training and familiarity, which I would expect to increase
             | age.
             | 
             | My point is that I think there's a bias in the field
             | towards the youth narrative but the majority of discovery,
             | even in physics, happens at a later age.
        
         | elcapitan wrote:
         | > I interpret it as the former requiring the creative fireworks
         | of youthful neural elasticity and the latter the depth we
         | associate with lived experience and wisdom.
         | 
         | That being said, I think an interesting factor would also be
         | which of those who wrote major works in their later age already
         | did a decent amount of writing in their earlier years. Even if
         | you have life experience, I would imagine that you will have to
         | build up the "muscle memory" of writing skills in your more
         | elastic years (e.g. by becoming a successful writer after a
         | lifetime of journalistic work or just minor literary works).
        
         | sp527 wrote:
         | > So the greatest physics, maths, poetry and pop music are done
         | by people in their 20s.
         | 
         | I think there's a chance this is itself a type of selection
         | bias, because you're over-indexing on the famous. And fame has
         | consequences.
         | 
         | Many music artists end up trapped by their own fame (and
         | attendant expectations) and fail to update themselves over
         | time, thus falling out of the limelight. But there are plenty
         | who defy this trend. Tiesto, David Guetta, Kaskade, and Armin
         | van Buuren in EDM, for example. Coldplay is another great
         | example. Love them or hate them, they're still putting out
         | chart toppers.
         | 
         | Something similar is true for scientists in my opinion. I think
         | Richard Hamming had the most incisive analysis of this in 'You
         | and Your Research' [1], which is worth reading in its entirety.
         | 
         | > But let me say why age seems to have the effect it does. In
         | the first place if you do some good work you will find yourself
         | on all kinds of committees and unable to do any more work. You
         | may find yourself as I saw Brattain when he got a Nobel Prize.
         | The day the prize was announced we all assembled in Arnold
         | Auditorium; all three winners got up and made speeches. The
         | third one, Brattain, practically with tears in his eyes, said,
         | "I know about this Nobel-Prize effect and I am not going to let
         | it affect me; I am going to remain good old Walter Brattain."
         | Well I said to myself, "That is nice." But in a few weeks I saw
         | it was affecting him. Now he could only work on great problems.
         | 
         | > When you are famous it is hard to work on small problems.
         | This is what did Shannon in. After information theory, what do
         | you do for an encore? The great scientists often make this
         | error. They fail to continue to plant the little acorns from
         | which the mighty oak trees grow. They try to get the big thing
         | right off. And that isn't the way things go. So that is another
         | reason why you find that when you get early recognition it
         | seems to sterilize you. In fact I will give you my favorite
         | quotation of many years. The Institute for Advanced Study in
         | Princeton, in my opinion, has ruined more good scientists than
         | any institution has created, judged by what they did before
         | they came and judged by what they did after. Not that they
         | weren't good afterwards, but they were superb before they got
         | there and were only good afterwards.
         | 
         | My view is that fatalistically assuming that age is an obstacle
         | to creative output obscures the hidden variables that are
         | genuinely determinative.
         | 
         | [1] https://jamesclear.com/great-speeches/you-and-your-
         | research-...
        
           | mellosouls wrote:
           | _I think there 's a chance this is itself a type of selection
           | bias, because you're over-indexing on the famous_
           | 
           | Not in this case, no, at least as far as the music goes.
           | 
           | My user-name here is taken from a Northern Soul record as its
           | the music that means the most to me. The genre is obscure
           | almost by definition.
           | 
           | I would guesstimate the proportion of the hundreds
           | (thousands?) of records so classified and celebrated made by
           | people under 30 to be over 95% and that correlates with my
           | (admittedly subjective) experience of the best music of other
           | pop genres.
        
       | gmuslera wrote:
       | Major=got popular enough? That doesn't need to be fully
       | correlated to the quality of the work.
        
         | Kreutzer wrote:
         | Right. And "written" isn't the best way to describe these,
         | rather they are "published" after so-and-so.
        
         | chmod775 wrote:
         | Popularity is _an_ indicator of _a_ quality (appeal). If the
         | author intends to write something with wide appeal and
         | succeeds, they 're probably good at their job. Now something
         | can be popular and read by many people without necessarily
         | appealing to them, but that's another story.
         | 
         | What is important to keep in mind is that works of literature
         | have more than one quality, and even "great" works exceed at
         | often just a few, while being mediocre on other axis. Many are
         | considered great merely for being first or having an outsized
         | influence on works that came after, even though later works
         | improved on it and did the same thing better!
        
       | OtherShrezzing wrote:
       | This is a disappointing statistical modelling technique.
       | 
       | The author asked LLMs to produce lists of data which are readily
       | available on the likes of wikipedia. Author date of birth, list
       | of publications, and publication release date are all fairly easy
       | to get hold of. They just need formatted appropriately. The LLMs
       | produced a few false positives, and missed out some prominent
       | works.
       | 
       | I get that this is just the author working in public & writing
       | about what they're up to, but the number of avoidable errors
       | introduced by the methodology make reading it a poor use of time.
        
         | NetMageSCW wrote:
         | Fairly easily feels like it is doing some heavy lifting here.
         | How much code would it take to produce a list of authors of
         | major works (whatever that means), and their age when the work
         | was published?
        
       | latexr wrote:
       | > In trying to come up with some good examples I asked LLMs.
       | (...)
       | 
       | > So I tried to cast the net more broadly and asked LLMs (...)
       | 
       | > EDIT: also hunted down several mistakes, as one would expect
       | from LLMs; thanks to commenters.
       | 
       | This is a slop post. You can't trust any of the data. It's
       | baffling and worrying the author apparently understands mistakes
       | from LLMs are to be expected but still decided to publish without
       | doing due diligence.
        
         | lynndotpy wrote:
         | "Source: I made it up" was a meme meant to be deployed in
         | conversations between children online. And now we're seeing the
         | phrase deployed sincerely and almost verbatim in the annals of
         | the most prestigious institutions of thought.
         | 
         | Things seem a bit more dire now.
        
         | salviati wrote:
         | You're pushing back against openly using LLMs to assist in
         | research for writing articles.
         | 
         | In my opinion the effect of your pushback is nudging people to
         | not disclose their use of LLMs. I'm not sure that's what you
         | want.
         | 
         | In other words, if every time someone says "I used an LLM to
         | assist me with this article" they get backslash, these people
         | will not stop using LLMs. They'll stop telling that they did.
        
           | asimpletune wrote:
           | I don't think the problem is that they used an LLM to write
           | the article. It seems that the commenter takes issue with
           | them using the LLM to get the data to analyze.
        
             | latexr wrote:
             | _And_ not even verifying it before publishing.
        
       | candlemas wrote:
       | John Milton was 63 when Paradise Regained and Samson Agonistes
       | were published.
        
         | marstall wrote:
         | and he wrote them when he was completely blind!
        
           | IncreasePosts wrote:
           | Well, his amanuenses and slave-daughters wrote them, he just
           | spoke the words
        
       | FelipeCortez wrote:
       | This is actually a good fit for a Wikidata SPARQL query you can
       | run here https://query.wikidata.org/:                 SELECT
       | ?work ?workLabel ?author ?authorLabel ?publicationDate
       | ?ageAtPublication       WHERE {         ?author wdt:P569 ?birth .
       | ?author wdt:P570 ?death .         ?author wdt:P800 ?work .
       | ?work wdt:P50 ?author ;               wdt:P31 wd:Q47461344 ;
       | wdt:P577 ?publicationDate .
       | FILTER(?publicationDate <= ?death)
       | BIND(YEAR(?publicationDate) - YEAR(?birth) AS ?ageAtPublication)
       | FILTER(?ageAtPublication > 60)                SERVICE
       | wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en". }
       | }       ORDER BY DESC(?ageAtPublication)       LIMIT 300
        
         | tantalor wrote:
         | Can you filter by "major works only"?
        
           | FelipeCortez wrote:
           | that's kind of what P800 (notable work) is doing, but you can
           | try some approximations to "major work" with "has both an
           | English Wikipedia page and a Goodreads link":
           | ?work wdt:P50 ?author ;             wdt:P577 ?publicationDate
           | ;              wdt:P8383 ?goodreadsID .            ?article
           | schema:about ?work ;                schema:isPartOf
           | <https://en.wikipedia.org/> ;
           | schema:inLanguage "en" .
        
             | throw4847285 wrote:
             | I don't think that's what they meant by major.
        
               | par1970 wrote:
               | Why?
        
         | carefulfungi wrote:
         | Wow - this is super cool. Thanks for sharing!
        
         | OfirMarom wrote:
         | This is actually very awesome. Had no idea about this.
        
         | andai wrote:
         | How can I learn more about this? I looked into it recently but
         | didn't get very far.
         | 
         | This seems like the kind of thing that should be more widely
         | known, and have some good tutorials written for it :)
        
           | FelipeCortez wrote:
           | The Wikidata documentation is good:
           | 
           | https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Introduction
           | 
           | And you can find lots of SPARQL examples here:
           | 
           | https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:SPARQL_query_service/.
           | ..
        
         | CobrastanJorji wrote:
         | This is a very cool query tool that I haven't seen before,
         | thanks! (Also the syntax drives me a little batty).
         | 
         | I tried modifying it to give me authors whose first publication
         | (any publication at all) happened after 60 years old, but also
         | who had at least one wdt:P800 work. I got people like Cato the
         | Elder, Josephus, and William of Tyre.
         | 
         | I tried again for only people born in the 20th century, and I
         | got some results (plus quite a bit of wrong answers, presumably
         | something about the query or data)! Oddly quite a few of the
         | results are from criminals who wrote an autobiography after
         | their release, including Henri Charriere and the infamous Nazi,
         | Albert Speer.
        
       | shrubble wrote:
       | Douglas Southall Freeman wrote the definitive biography of Robert
       | E Lee over twenty years, publishing it when he was 49; he then
       | went on to publish his seven volume biography on George
       | Washington when he was 62 (he finished the sixth volume on the
       | day he died; the seventh was completed by his research
       | assistants).
        
       | ralferoo wrote:
       | (complete sidetrack)
       | 
       | I think this graph is a great illustration about how anonymising
       | data is hard. It's very easy to isolate individual authors from
       | this list, because there are clear diagonal lines because the
       | year and age are increasing in lockstep. This also suggests there
       | aren't actually that many authors in this collection, because of
       | these strong diagonals everywhere.
       | 
       | There's probably also some erroneous data here with a bunch of
       | points representing material written by people at age 34 between
       | about 1920 and 1940 (an obvious horizontal line) when most of the
       | rest of the graph doesn't show any strong horizontal bias for a
       | specific age.
        
         | Gander5739 wrote:
         | > This also suggests there aren't actually that many authors in
         | this collection
         | 
         | There are 200 according to the website.
        
       | wodenokoto wrote:
       | > asked LLMs to compile list of 10-20 writers considered canon in
       | each decade since 1800, then identify all their notable works and
       | years of publication. After some iterations with coding agents I
       | got over 2,000 works by 200 authors.
       | 
       | Wait, so the source data is just LLM hallucinations? It makes
       | sense to use an LLM to build the data collection, but not to
       | build your source data.
        
         | dyauspitr wrote:
         | LLMs cite. So hope they did their due diligence.
        
           | ijk wrote:
           | It feels a lot like storing your data as an essay in a Word
           | doc instead of a spreadsheet. It can work and all of the math
           | is _probably_ correct, but it 's very much the wrong tool
           | when the structured data was right there to be used instead.
        
             | dyauspitr wrote:
             | The structure data is scattered all over the place. This
             | does the very important thing of aggregating them, and
             | bringing them together. If you had to manually do that it
             | could take weeks.
        
               | Retric wrote:
               | What's the point of getting the wrong answer quickly?
               | 
               | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47587662
        
               | dyauspitr wrote:
               | Well, we're just going in circles now. I just said LLMs
               | cite what they find so it's not going to be the wrong
               | answer if you do your due diligence.
        
               | uoaei wrote:
               | Do extra work in step 2 because you got lazy in step 1 is
               | not my idea of efficient or complete.
        
               | bryanrasmussen wrote:
               | that depends how much more quickly and efficiently you
               | can do the extra work in step 2 than in step 1.
        
               | Retric wrote:
               | In this case it's strictly less efficient.
               | 
               | You can only correct for missing entries by doing the
               | same work you'd need to start from scratch. But after
               | that you now have a second list to consider.
        
               | NetMageSCW wrote:
               | It's a long way from got lazy to didn't write their own
               | Internet scraper to scan for books, author's age and
               | opinions.
        
               | Retric wrote:
               | Missing entries don't get corrected by looking at the LLM
               | output. That only helps when the LLM makes something up
               | from thin air or mangles the output.
               | 
               | Of course it's not the kind of question you can get an
               | objectively correct answer for, but you could come up
               | with the correct answer for a given methodology.
        
           | Ajedi32 wrote:
           | What do you mean by due diligence here? Manually checking
           | 2000 citations sounds a lot harder to me than just pulling
           | the data from a reliable source to start with.
        
         | cowboylowrez wrote:
         | This is in my opinion a better use of tech that has an error
         | rate (hallucination), you just assume that its a fuzzy search,
         | and sample the results to see how you did. I'd like to see a
         | few from the results for sure!
        
       | thinkingemote wrote:
       | "The accepted notion is that age confers a spirit of
       | reconciliation and serenity on late works, often expressed in
       | terms of a miraculous transfiguration of reality....But what of
       | artistic lateness not as harmony and resolution, but as
       | intransigence, difficulty, and contradiction? What if age and ill
       | health don't produce serenity at all? "
       | 
       | Thoughts on Late Style by Edward Said
       | https://www.edwardsaid.org/articles/thoughts-on-late-style/
        
       | arduanika wrote:
       | George R. R. Martin completed his cycle "A Song of Ice and Fire"
       | when he was...wait...I'll get back to you on this one.
        
         | chuckadams wrote:
         | Hasn't he publicly stated that he's given up on completing it?
         | TBH if that is the case, I kind of respect him more for that.
        
           | justin66 wrote:
           | > Hasn't he publicly stated that he's given up on completing
           | it?
           | 
           | No.
        
       | apparatur wrote:
       | covfefe was at ~71
        
       | rjtavares wrote:
       | Opened it just to check if Saramago was there, and indeed, he is.
       | 
       | For most of his professional life he was a journalist. He
       | published his second novel at 55, only found his narrative style
       | at almost 60, then wrote 15 novels (and won a Nobel) after that.
       | What an amazing career.
        
       | OJFord wrote:
       | > Also interestingly, the trend in that graph keeps going up in
       | recent years... but it looks to me like this is driven by lack of
       | major works from young authors. It may be how my sample is
       | constructed.
       | 
       | Isn't that because older authors have had more time to gain
       | notoriety, their earlier works to be deemed 'major' in
       | retrospect?
        
       | bethekidyouwant wrote:
       | I feel like Cormac McCarthy famously took 20 years to write his
       | novels so does it really count if you finished it when you were
       | 72?
        
         | Synaesthesia wrote:
         | It counts more! His novels are mind-blowing. Blood Meridian is
         | unsurpassed IMO
        
           | bethekidyouwant wrote:
           | No counts less? he didn't write the work when he was 72. If
           | started it when he was 52...
        
       | keiferski wrote:
       | It's difficult to be a truly interesting person with a unique
       | perspective on life, _and_ have the skills to transmute that
       | experience into a work of art, when you're young. You simply
       | haven't logged the hours in the world, and I kind of don't trust
       | your opinion on something if you haven't.
       | 
       | Not sure if I'd call him a major writer, but Raymond Chandler is
       | one of my favorites and I think he's a good example. To me there
       | is a fundamental difference between his crime stories, which show
       | the results of corporate life, alcoholism, personal tragedy, war,
       | etc. and a more modern crime writer that's just writing a genre
       | piece with all the right pieces, but no actual personal
       | experience.
        
       | CobrastanJorji wrote:
       | There are a suspicously large number of very straight diagonal
       | lines on those graphs with identical slopes. I might predict that
       | they are individual famous authors that released a lot of works,
       | but the slopes are all identical. What's going on there?
        
       | ikidd wrote:
       | That doesn't bode well for GRR Martin getting the last book done.
        
       | seanhunter wrote:
       | Well the canonical example is Diana Athill who had a long and
       | distinguished career at a literary editor for people Phillip
       | Roth, John Updike, Margaret Atwood, Jack Kerouac and others, then
       | retired at the age of 75 and started writing her own novels and
       | memoirs and is considered one of the greatest writers in English
       | of the 20th century. "After a funeral" is I think the one of hers
       | I read and it's amazing
       | 
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_Athill
        
       | lkm0 wrote:
       | Beyond the data science interest, isn't this sort of charting
       | powered by the "my time's running out and I still haven't left my
       | mark in history" intrusive thought? Purely from a fitting
       | perspective I'd wager the correlation is close to zero, because
       | "major works" will be different in a century, and again changed
       | in two. Shakespeare was not very popular in the 17th per
       | wikipedia. As George Orwell put it, it's much easier to write
       | when you do it for a purpose that matters to you. Hugo wrote
       | Notre-Dame mostly to rant about architecture; creating a major
       | work for the purpose of staving off fears of being forgotten I
       | feel is not enough in itself
        
         | randomNumber7 wrote:
         | It could be the feeling that you are more capable compared to
         | others and actually missed something if you don't find an
         | appropriate use for it.
        
       | boznz wrote:
       | For me my 60's was the best time to start writing fiction, before
       | then I always had excuses why I would not write, now with much
       | more free time, experience and no money worries, I can think back
       | on all those thousands of novels I read, knowing I could write a
       | better one. Writing is also one of the cheapest retirement
       | hobbies you can have and you are also more likely to experiment
       | across different genres as you are not pandering to an audience.
        
       | NetMageSCW wrote:
       | It feels like a natural result of life expectancy increasing over
       | 70 (world wide average) only in 2021 and a number of years past
       | publication being required for something to be deemed a major
       | work means it is natural that there are few today. Something like
       | 100%, 110%, and 120% if life expectancy at the author's time of
       | birth might be a more useful measure today.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2026-03-31 23:01 UTC)