Sorry to come to the party a bit late, but since it seems folks are already debating I thought I’d address this point…
Bear in mind that atoms are a little different than letters.
Imagine that “Q” and “U” readily form covalent bonds together and are attracted, or that basic combinations like “The” form frequently and are naturally stable reagents with other words. Or let’s say Z’s are far less common than E’s in the ocean of letters because they aren’t as soluble.
That would be a better analogy. Randomness does not mean equal probability of any occurence necessarily since there are other mechanisms in play.
For example, a simple star is hard to make if all that’s allowed is stirring hydrogen soup. Add gravity, and success is virtually assured - no matter where the atoms are thrown, they’ll clump up and eventually begin fusion.
So, all your allegorical monkeys need create are a few self-replicating paragraphs that mate with each other. If they compete, and the larger more elqouent ones get to reproduce their offspring, then Planet Pulitzer could teeming with literature in a few billion years.
The possibility would also have to be considered that the books produced might not be in a language or style we would recognize, but be literature in their own right. Just as if the evolution process were restarted here on Earth, modern man would likely not emerge from it again, but speciation, the concept of “food”, and reproduction would be recognizable in some fashion.
The “pocket watch” chestnut has similar flaws. Sure, what are the odds of a spontaneous watch, just like that? But if one were to dig back to the fossilized remains of an earlier time in Watch World and find evidence of hand-like tadpoles that swum, and gear colonies that formed like moss, and little clam-like cases that could flip open, but hadn’t evolved works or dials yet, then the puzzle of the watch’s origin becomes substantially clearer.
