First, this is a secondary discussion. Mastery? That wasn't the argument. The argument was about whether writing books can exist separate from monetary compensation.

Second, as has been mentioned to you in another comment, mastery is not directly related to having been paid for your art. There are acknowledged poets whose work was published posthumously. They didn't live off it.

(The quote was by Stephen King, by the way. Regardless of what you think about his literary skill, the man sure can speak about writing).

If you don't care about quality then I guess you are right.

I never said I didn't care about quality, just that the discussion you entered was about whether books would exist without payment and whether only the "insane" would still write. You seem to want to take the argument on a tangent, but please read again the post which sparked this thread. What the original comment asserted was patently false.

"'But you're Philip Glass! What are you doing here?' It was obvious that I was installing his dishwasher and I told him I would soon be finished."

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2001/nov/24/arts.highe...

Whats your point? Are you suggesting society would be better off is Philip Glass never had become a professional composer?

I mostly wanted to share that fun anecdote.

I don't think anyone suggested that. Society may be better off despite Glass never becoming a professional composer, though.

Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying, but Glass did become a (quite successful) professional composer and performer.

Sorry, occasionally my grasp of English is lacking.

I meant that, while Glass not becoming a professional composer would have been bad by itself, it may be a reasonable loss compared to the advantages.