In the third act of Steven Levy’s book we see the first generation of hackers who had garnered interest in their craft not out of intellectual curiosity or a sense of community understanding. Rather, as Ken Williams best put it, out of greed.
Ken Williams entered the world of programming not due to any duty to the hacker imperatives of the long-gone MIT scholars, nor did he (initially) aim to change the world for the better as did the now-corporate Hardware Hackers. He simply wanted to get rich. Nevertheless, it is not as if he was a heartless, unappeasable monster in his youth. Truly, there was no evil in his intent, but blatant honesty. Computers made money. He wanted money. Seemed like a straightforward exchange.
As he developed his skills, slowly but surely he began to grant some respect to the Beast and its handlers, witnessing the power and influence It could provide. And, in some way, this was only feasible because of the monetary incentives to begin with. A brand new type of hacker was born; an inverse kind, who found the magic of computing in the process of generating income, rather than generating income in the search of the magic of computing.
Ken Williams was not born with no silver spoon in his mouth, however. He climbed the ranks, launching himself upwards job after job through incredible effort and sleepless nights. He would lie and cheat where he deemed necessary, but always worthwhile if he won and took yet another step. Still, in all his professional pursuits, it was the creative spark of his wife who made the real difference. Born out of storytime and the social recluse background of fellow hackers, Roberta Williams fell in love with video games. She loved them so much, found so much art in them, that she wanted to make her very own. Though the book is not explicit on her possible monetary intentions, which she evidently shared with her partner to some degree, this was evidently an act of pure creativity. She wanted – needed – to relay this aesthetic product from her mind to physical reality. Indeed, there is no more genuine and honorable desire than that of creating art. It was Ken who would push hard to maximize the profits, and his work would pay off exponentially, so much so that he could now live his dream life in the woodlands and lead his company. A company that would uplift some genius hackers, fight corporate giants, collaborate with fellows, but would ultimately, at all else, seek to make money.
While video games were not the most sought-out after form of entertainment in the world, they were by this point in time fairly popular. There was no longer a notion of giving power to the people: they already have it! In addition, for programming purposes, video games were not a Tool for Tools, at least not directly. To seek to create them with monetary incentives at the forefront was an entirely different matter than all preceding hackers.
Therefore, from this emerges Ken Williams as a truly controversial figure remarking the neomodernist era of hackerism. He was no saint of computation, he fundamentally did not seek out the beauty that laid within the code. He would eventually come to grow distasteful of the hacker spirit which inhibits profits, opting to overwrite it with the desires of the market, even. Notwithstanding, he was no megalomanic either, and his work would pave the way for some proper hackers to make a living out of their work and distribute their valuable programs. Their countless hours, at long last appreciated by the public eye and immediately recompensed. So, where does that leave us? What does his life teach us about ignoring the Hacker Ethic, albeit occasionally coinciding with it? What does it say about the new world?
The answer to such questions boil down to idealist pretenses, I suppose. Wherever you believe the value of computational thinking lies, you will find it just for there to be a pursuit to such ends. Yes, it is immediately easy to vilify the capitalist desires of the corporations and third generation hackers, and I cannot fault anyone for that, for I do too. But I believe the narrative to be somewhat deeper than simply stating “money = bad”. The very act of involving a corporate structure in itself is bound to stifle creativity and freedom. There are simply more responsibilities, more circumstances that will prevent natural flow of intellect and art.
Yet, there is something wrong beyond this: I find the most tragic of all to be the intentions. I am an idealist at heart, but (at least, try to be) pragmatic in decisions. There is nothing pragmatic about the soul-bound desire of making money first, and happening to create art second. Naturally, in the world we reside there will be obstacles that will prevent anyone from dedicating themselves entirely to the pursuit of beauty and academic achievement. We witnessed this in the True Hackers, who tore their social and professional lives apart. Some balance is needed in your acts, indeed. But ultimately there is no balance to be had in the heart.
This is fundamentally a failure of the structure of incentives in the nation, as all things are. I may come across as a broken record by this point, but all problems can be reduced to that. People will do, on average, that which they believe to be beneficial. Money and greed are symptoms of an ill that permeates much more facets of our lives.
So, can I truly blame Ken? I have a hard time doing so, as he simply was doing what he thought he ought, with no sadism in his heart. But there was no art in his heart either, only as a byproduct in his acts. Yet, comprehending why makes it no less of a tragedy.