It's why I love indie films, indie games, garage rock, zines....
Most books are written about the wealthy?
But also, yes, often about the wealthy. Here's synposes of four of the five current NY Times Bestsellers:
> Over twenty years ago, the heiress Patricia Lockwood was abducted during a robbery of her family's estate, then locked inside an isolated cabin for months. Patricia escaped, but so did her captors — and the items stolen from her family were never recovered.
> Until now. On the Upper West Side, a recluse is found murdered in his penthouse apartment, alongside two objects of note: a stolen Vermeer painting and a leather suitcase bearing the initials WHL3.
And:
> While Maisie believes the boy and wants to help, she must maintain extreme caution: she’s working secretly for the Special Operations Executive, assessing candidates for crucial work with the French resistance.
And:
> There, Stone finds that a dual-pronged threat is hiding in plain sight among the stately houses and exclusive coastal clubs, and the incursion isn't easily rebuffed. These enemies have friends in high places, funds to spare, and a score to settle with Stone . . . and only the cleverest plot will draw them out into the open. From luxuriously renovated homes to the choppy ocean waters, the pursuit can only lead to an explosive end.
And:
> Straight as an arrow special agent Kate O'Hare and international con man Nick Fox have brought down some of the biggest criminals out there. But now they face their most dangerous foe yet-a vast, shadowy international organization known only as the Brotherhood.
Directly descended from the Vatican Bank priests who served Hitler during World War II, the Brotherhood is on a frantic search for a lost train loaded with $30 billion in Nazi gold, untouched for over seventy-five years somewhere in the mountains of Eastern Europe.
These are stories about the elite. You may argue "Well, sure, but people like reading about the rich and powerful because they are more exciting to read about." But that is in itself partially a result of a culture we've built that says that your story is less meaningful if you aren't successful or powerful.
There is something to what you say, but perhaps less than you think. Stories about unjustly downtrodden members of the elite overcoming adversity and opposition to return to their rightful place in the social order (eg. every fairytale princess ever) didn't circulate as oral traditions for centuries due to the patronage of the upper crust. Nor can you really explain the popularity of the current incarnations of these stories (eg. as Disney princesses) that way.
Incidentally, I (vaguely) recall a story about a wizard from an alternate reality seeking out a baby switched at birth with one in our world. Said baby grew up to be a garbage man in our world, but always felt out of place. Said wizard offers to return said garbage man to his rightful place in the magical realm.
Bapr gurl'ir erghearq gb gur zntvpny ernyz ur'f unaqrq n oebbz naq gbyq gb fgneg fjrrcvat bhg gur fgnoyrf.
This was a short story (perhaps even a short-short), and not Zelazny's Wizard World novel (or any other novel).
Poor people telling stories about rich people still enables the poor to have agency in culture building. (And, in fact, it is probably most effective to have them tell stories about the rich so that the rich can be seen from an outsider's perspective.)
1. As an individual, what is the right mindset to have about my creativity? At this level, I agree with you. Looking at the economic trends, the only sane way to create and feel good about it is to do it in my free time, focus on the intrinsic reward and have some other job that pays the bills. I'm very fortunate in that my other job takes good care of me.
But there is another level I think about a lot:
2. At the cultural level, is it good for a society if people can only make art in their leisure time? I consider art to be (among other things) the mechanism by which we define, share, and propagate our culture. Our artworks teach each generation what we value and how we think one should live. They show us what it means to be human.
If that art can only be produced by people wealthy enough to have sufficient spare time (books, poetry, and painting) or giant corporations (film, TV), then you place complete control over your culture in the hands of the rich. Do you remember in the 80s and 90s when it seemed like almost every movie had an anti-corporate angle to it? Did you notice that they all stopped doing that? What should we expect when huge corporations are producing almost every film we see.
Should we be surprised to see that our society is failing to solve inequality when most books are written by the wealthy, about the wealthy, for the wealthy? How are those at the top supposed to understand and care for those at the bottom when those at the bottom don't even have the time to share their stories with them?
I think a just society needs art-makers to be able to focus on their art without worrying about money because it's the only way to ensure that everyone at every economic level gets to participate in defining our culture.