I’ll bring the T-shirts.
You bring the copyright lawyers. We’ll need ‘em.

I would like to know from all of the defenders of the faith (books with “edges”) how it is they expect publishers to hold the fort. Financially, book publishing is a crumbling edifice.

It used to be that the big bestsellers paid for everything else–the debut fiction, the historical works, the quirky non-fiction narratives, the biographies, the literary novels, etc. That business model (so-called) is no longer working. Publishers pay top dollar for the dubious privilege of publshing previously bestselling authors whose audiences have become notoriously fickle. Trying to launch new authors ends in heartbreak 98% of the time. Pop culture-wise, books (even commercial bestsellers) are a dead letter. No one talks about them. Reading is a niche taste. What readership there is, is dwindling. Profits? What profits? Growth? Don’t make me laugh.

It is in this climate that the longsuffering people who bring you the books you love must toil. Only to see their efforts fail again and again. Only to see worthy authors suffer and worthy books die. And it is not a dignified death, either.

I’m with Jeff.
If you love books, set them free.

When I wrote my comment on Nick’s post, I had in mind Kelly vs. Updike, not Nick’s broadside at you in the beginning of the post. And if you read what I wrote carefully, I was comparing current 2.0 ideology to communist ideology of the VERY early 20th century — before any real harm had been done, when people genuinely believed in the principles. If this comparison holds, there certainly haven’t been any Stalin 2.0s yet, and hopefully there never will be.

But really the comparison is just superficial — I don’t think there are going to be any totalitarian regimes or mass executions. But I do think there are some fundamental misunderstandings about human nature at work in 2.0 ideology — and it has become an ideology, which is what I find most striking.

In any case, if I wanted to compare you to Stalin — or otherwise offend you intentionally — I can promise I would do so clearly and explicitly. But I take no pleasure in offense, so that likely won’t happen. (Of course, that doesn’t mean I won’t disagree with you.)

Now can’t we just play nice?

Oh, and please don’t refer to me as a “would-be” — I wear my curmudgeon badge proudly.

This behavior, this disdain for the new, is typical of those who need to control. To keep us safe from ourselves. For the Internet provides most anybody who wishes to use it a tool for taking control of their own lives. For control freaks and true believers that cannot be tolerated.

Then you have the tendency of some to see their beliefs and behaviors in others. Projection it’s called, in it poisons relations and discourse.

We’re seeing how change can make otherwise sensible people raving loons, and it’s going to continue doing so for some time to come.

Liquids assume the shape of their container and the internet is one hell of a good container. Books feel unnatural to me now after reading blogs unless I have the references in a pile next to me. Books have to explain things hyperlinked pages needn’t worry about so the author spends a lot of time creating half assed summaries of concepts the reader may not be aware of. Ideas are non-linear, books are linear, hyperlinks and tabbed browsers are non-linear.