Keeping Out the Clutter
If I have an arch nemesis, it's the fellow who wrote this book, aptly titled The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet is Killing Our Culture. Yep, you read the title correctly: in the era of the Long Tail, there's a guy who not only believes that there's a few downsides, but that believes that it's alldownsides.
I was drawn to the book because it harbors an opinion that is the polar opposite of my own. I actually read parts of it in the hopes that I would gain some valuable new perspective on things. I didn't. I just learned that the author is quite a bitter person who's annoyed at the way markets are shifting in a world where the Internet exists.
My girlfriend saw the author photo and remarked, "He looks like the villian in something." And in the story of my life, he certainly is.
But he's just some crusty pundit who got a book deal, and I never have to meet him, and I don't have to concern myself with his point of view...right?
As it happens, no. I was having coffee with a friend of mine the other night. In passing, he brought up the subject of digital publishing, and began expressing a lamentation about the rise of blogs and the fall of the traditional publishing house. When I asked him why he felt that way, he said, "At least there were some standards that writing had to meet if you published a book. Now anyone can write anything they please."
Traditional publishers act like filters. They decide what gets printed and distributed, and what doesn't. Because you can only print so many books per year, they'd better be good. Of course, now any writer can self-publish a book, digital or otherwise, and any idiot can start writing a blog. (Hi!)
I believe that there should be standards for writers and the works they produce. But here's where my friend and I differ: I don't think the standards should be left up to the publishers. As businesses, book publishers spent many years growing fat off of the work of writers because they owned the means of distribution. Which was good for them while in lasted. But now, why can't readers decide for themselves what they choose to read and not read? If someone is a terrible writer, and can't form a coherent thought to save their lives, then no one is going to read what they're writing. As readers, we don't need a publisher to screen out the bad stuff.
My friend generally agreed with that point of view, but felt this would result in a state of overwhelm. If everyone can produce books, then how are we, as readers, supposed to find the good ones? Constraints of the traditional publishing world acted as a filter: only "good" books got published, so there was less clutter in the marketplace. But what about a world in which almost every person is writing? How do you decide what to read?
Asking how we can remove the bad clutter from the marketplace is asking the wrong question. It's not possible to restructure the Internet so that only good stuff is available, and trying to do so will only waste valuable energy. You can, however, figure out how to find the good stuff for yourself. Even better, if you figure out how to help other people do that, there might be a really good business model in it.
I was drawn to the book because it harbors an opinion that is the polar opposite of my own. I actually read parts of it in the hopes that I would gain some valuable new perspective on things. I didn't. I just learned that the author is quite a bitter person who's annoyed at the way markets are shifting in a world where the Internet exists.
My girlfriend saw the author photo and remarked, "He looks like the villian in something." And in the story of my life, he certainly is.
But he's just some crusty pundit who got a book deal, and I never have to meet him, and I don't have to concern myself with his point of view...right?
As it happens, no. I was having coffee with a friend of mine the other night. In passing, he brought up the subject of digital publishing, and began expressing a lamentation about the rise of blogs and the fall of the traditional publishing house. When I asked him why he felt that way, he said, "At least there were some standards that writing had to meet if you published a book. Now anyone can write anything they please."
Traditional publishers act like filters. They decide what gets printed and distributed, and what doesn't. Because you can only print so many books per year, they'd better be good. Of course, now any writer can self-publish a book, digital or otherwise, and any idiot can start writing a blog. (Hi!)
I believe that there should be standards for writers and the works they produce. But here's where my friend and I differ: I don't think the standards should be left up to the publishers. As businesses, book publishers spent many years growing fat off of the work of writers because they owned the means of distribution. Which was good for them while in lasted. But now, why can't readers decide for themselves what they choose to read and not read? If someone is a terrible writer, and can't form a coherent thought to save their lives, then no one is going to read what they're writing. As readers, we don't need a publisher to screen out the bad stuff.
My friend generally agreed with that point of view, but felt this would result in a state of overwhelm. If everyone can produce books, then how are we, as readers, supposed to find the good ones? Constraints of the traditional publishing world acted as a filter: only "good" books got published, so there was less clutter in the marketplace. But what about a world in which almost every person is writing? How do you decide what to read?
Asking how we can remove the bad clutter from the marketplace is asking the wrong question. It's not possible to restructure the Internet so that only good stuff is available, and trying to do so will only waste valuable energy. You can, however, figure out how to find the good stuff for yourself. Even better, if you figure out how to help other people do that, there might be a really good business model in it.