More on futurists take on publishing

**S* A* H* <S*@meredith.com>**

Lois  regarding your take on the article in The Futurist:
http://www.wfs.org/May-June%20files/Futwrite1.htm

I first read this in the printed magazine?I don¹t like reading long text on
the screen either, and your browser may have made it a less than pleasant
experience. But even if I had read it online, I still believe I¹d get a
different picture than you did.

Specifically, I don¹t think it was just about the same old proposition that
the Web is the better alternative to ink on paper, or that it¹s an either/or
choice between the two. I also don¹t think this was just about marketing, or
what editors want?it¹s a bigger idea than that. I think it¹s much more about
how content creators (and that¹s what writers are) and publishers can convey
information to people who want them and do so while remaining financially
viable.  

As you say, ³Publishing is big business² but ink-on-paper publishing is most
certainly not as profitable as it used to be, and the hype around Web
publishing (of text, still and moving visuals, and sound), although
attracting a lot of attention, has not made up for those disappearing
revenues. (Some Web applications, such as Google or YouTube, for example,
might make money on the Web, but they are among a few exceptions. In fact, I
think it could be argued that both are the sort of ?curators¹ described in
the article; they make money because people go there to get the
content?directions to other kinds of somewhat deeper content?that they
publish.)  

I agree that Web content is often disappointing. It seems that the quality
of all kinds of Web content varies greatly, but I think that¹s due to the
ease with which creators of all skill levels can enter digital delivery
systems. (I think the same is often true of ink-on-paper as well, because of
easy and inexpensive desk-top publishing tools.) The article points out,
³the crudeness, silliness and uncultured quality of today¹s Web culture is a
symptom of the immaturity of the new medium and the youthfulness of its
users. . . We do not yet know how to make art with it.² I think that digital
media delivery systems shouldn¹t be counted as ³lesser than² just because
the sophisticated and meaningful content that¹s there is buried in massive
levels of Web 2.0 noise; I don¹t eschew radio just because I don¹t care for
most ?talk radio¹ or Top 40 music. However, I think it is important to
consider where this idea leads and what it means for us; although all
written communication may cheapened by mountains of poor quality writing on
the Web?and on our Blackberries?there is still a place for the pursuit and
sharing of good writing. In the end, ³. . . we¹ll be left with our ideas,
however grand or shallow.²

You¹re right  good writing can not be replaced by video clips or drawings.
That point was also made in the article. (Ah, well . . . the movie is never
as good as the novel. But I love books and movies.) As was the point that
content on the Web isn¹t?and can¹t be?exactly the same experience as reading
a well-written ink-on-paper book or magazine. But ink-on-paper content?of
any quality?isn¹t always the best or highest means of conveying information.
Even the best writing can¹t completely replace visual representation or
aural sensation, nor can it replace life experiences. Each of these ways of
expressing information (need a better word) have their most appropriate, and
inherently different, modes of delivery, but taken together, they can all
meet the needs of the author, the buying public and the publisher; they just
meet them differently.

The big point, as I read it, was that content creation and delivery models
(especially profitable models) are changing, and creators and publishers
should be open to new possibilities in order to ?stay in business.¹ Writing
is not going away, but writing is just one way to express information. The
thing is, people can be reached through digital modes (Web, TV, radio,
real-time and recorded sound) and live, hands-on events of any kind in
addition to traditional paper publishing. How to develop a new paradigm for
profitable content creation and delivery?that includes and encourages high
quality writing and publishing?may be the biggest question for us as garden
writers. 

Sorry for the length of my comments, but in my professional experience, this
article presented some really significant questions for writers and
publishers to confront in order to continue to do what we do, reach our
audience, and to be reasonably compensated for it. If you don¹t care whether
or not you are financially compensated for what you create and share with
others, I suggest that you must still care about finding effective ways to
connect with them. And if you create solely for the sake of creation with no
need to share it, I envy you (but I¹m not sure I believe you.)

Susan

_______________________________________________
gardenwriters mailing list
gardenwriters@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/gardenwriters

GWL has searchable archives at:
http://www.hort.net/lists/gardenwriters

Send photos for GWL to gwlphotos@hort.net to be posted
at: http://www.hort.net/lists/gwlphotos

Post gardening questions/threads to
&quot;Gardenwriters on Gardening&quot; &lt;gwl-g@lists.ibiblio.org&gt;

For GWL website and Wiki, go to
http://www.ibiblio.org/gardenwriters