The author has a point - investing in literary people today vs. investing in shrines to dead poets.... But I still disagree!!
New writers today are not in the situation John was in- if they don't have a day job they get the dole. John had little to help him in that respect ( the kindness of his friends, and not every young writer/poet back then was so lucky to have such good friends). They don't need to do any courses or even a degree if they have talent. I think she was arguing for writing grants or something.
JK Rowling was teaching English in Spain whilst writing her Potter books (not earning much) and is now a multimillionaire- a best selling author today makes much more than those of John Keats's day. They have the advantage of a far greater number of literate people to read their works and the media to promote them. They have the potential of a global audience.
And to be honest, most of the published works today do not come up to the high standards of what was published in the nineteenth century.
Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell is one exception- this is an outstanding work.
John Keats made virtually no money from his genuis and fully deserves to have his old home restored. Also, his old home does community work for literature- they have events and hold evenings etc as does Clare Cottage. What of the young people that visit the homes of poets and feel very inspired by their lives and works and go on to write themselves? That is worthwhile.
To put my opinion as simply as possible: She can kiss my a**.
Quite so Ennis!