Simply for the fact that I think it's placing too high a nostalgic value on most older literature. I'm not sure I can agree that artists and literature have ever been anything other than a commodity, because essentially with the beginning of the written word popularity has almost always dictated the survivability of a piece of work. The most popular literature is what survives the ages simply due to large quantities out there giving the work a better chance of surviving intact than an obscure piece of work.

Certainly literature is something that is seriously changed over the last 100 years, but if you go back 100 years from 1900 it was dramatically changed at that point as well. The place we've reached in literature is something that is often less intellectual than writing previously has been, but I think that's a result of a reduced value being placed on intellectualism on the whole than it is a result of a commodification of literature as an art form. I think that plenty of literature of great artistic value still is being produced, but the reduced value of intellectualism has prevented much of it from gaining a foothold in popularity that matches it's artistic value. I honestly believe these things are cyclical and with time we will again reach a point where intellect will be valued and with it the literature will again change to mirror the current attitudes of the society producing it.

But perhaps I'm wrong, and the globalization of communications will keep things stymied and a majority of people will continue to discount the value of intellectualism, and many great pieces of literature will be ignored simply because they are too "intellectual" and don't pander to pop-society. I'm no sage, but I'd like to think that the former is more likely than the latter.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point about value in a monetary sense versus value in an artistic sense and what I'm saying can just be ignored, so if thats the case please say so and I'll be happy to revisit my opinion.

Edit: When I blame the globalization of communications, I say that because the rapid dissemination of information allows a relatively small segment of the population to research and discover new things for the whole of humanity, where previously each nation or group of people had groups of thinkers and scientists that were tackling the same problems that other nations and groups were tackling simultaneously. The globalization has allowed this group of people to dwindle in size while still providing a similar level of benefits to a larger amount of people. There may be more people than ever "researching" and "innovating" but I'd be willing to bet that they are a constantly dwindling percentage of the population. (does any of that make sense? I'm not sure I really got my point across there)