Dead Elvis
Last weekend, I went to see Salt, the new action-thriller movie starring Angelina Jolie. No plot spoilers, but I did leave the theater disappointed.
At dinner afterward, we talked about what bothered us about the movie. For me, the plot violated a convention that makes movie-going fun – a certain predictability that allows surprises but still validates the underlying goodness of key characters.
Earlier this week, I posted a somewhat predictable observation about the symbiotic relationship between flawed piracy studies and lazy reporting. Commenting, bowerbird asked in part: “Knowing that, what do you do now?”
As I responded at the time, “That’s the operative question, isn’t it?”
There’s a convention in publishing, somewhat reflected in this blog, that leads us to say “all is well, except for the parts that are not.” Over the last two months, I’ve struggled with the idea that anything, let alone all, is well with publishing.
Today’s publishing landscape increasingly looks like Vulcan shortly after the Romulans injected Red Matter into the planet core. As Vulcan collapses, we publishing types are debating where the mountains used to be.
Before I started writing this blog, I made three semi-public rules of thumb, one of which was and remains: no snark. Positive criticism, yes, but I’d avoid being critical for the sake of a headline, or a punch line.
Unfortunately, the middle ground can also sound muddled.
One of my favorite books, Dead Elvis by Greil Marcus, talks about the transformative role that literary and cultural icons have played in shaping American history and its evolving narrative. In this category, he includes Lincoln, Faulkner, Melville and Elvis Presley, of whose collective works he wrote:
We feel ennobled and a little scared, or very scared, because we are being shown what we could be, because we realize what we are, and what we are not. We pull back.
Since this year’s edition of BookExpo America, I’ve wondered who in publishing speaks for what we could be. It’s not a question of who can predict the future (many people compete for that distinction), but of who can articulate for a broader audience the possibilities for publishing as cultural motherlode.
Some folks put that burden on Richard Nash and Cursor (I know I have). Still, he’s just one guy, and he could use some help.
This is a time of transformation in the creation, management and dissemination of content. Focusing on periodic dust-ups over rights, royalties and terms of engagement largely guarantees that most of us won’t have a seat at the next table to be set.
Naturally, I walk a thin line. I try to help magazine, book and association publishers do things faster, better, cheaper – generally, incrementally better. That’s a good thing.
Still, a clearer voice could help. I should get up.
Brian, a fine question: where is the vision? I think we are in a position today where there are competing visions, each of which sees the other as a threat--the digerati seeing the print folk as a threat to access to content that the new technologies can make fly; and the print folk seeing the digerati as happily laying waste and good riddance to “elitist” and exclusionary institution that built and were built by an evolved practice. Neither side shows much respect for what the other holds dear, whether as an idea of what can be or of what must continue to be.
Ultimately, the consumer will have the last say, I suppose--though letting market forces determine what “it” wants is no guarantee of anything being secure or improved. A mortgage in every pot was once thought to be a good thing.
Who will have the vision to clearly see a sustainable future? Probably someone with a foot in both camps, an investment in both, an understanding of both. You can fill in the name(s).
Posted by on 07/30 at 01:43 PM
I think I am putting myself on the hook to at least try. Not sure if I get us there, but observing alone does not seem to be serving me well.
A post on Twitter by Matthew Diener mentioned people like Liza Daly, Liz Castro, Dominique Raccah and Cory Doctorow as examples to augment or contrast with Richard Nash. I don’t know that they want the nominations, but it’s fair to highlight their work in a thread like this one.
Posted by
Brian O'Leary on 07/30 at 05:52 PM
By “a foot in both camps” i don’t mean content provisioin in different formats, but an investment in both content and delivery and service. B&N;comes to mind--device, bricks & mortar, some content origination via Sterling and expandable. Amazon could step up--buy borders? And who knows what Google is capable of…
Posted by on 08/02 at 08:08 AM
Thanks for the clarification. Happily, I interpreted your original post as you intended. The sobering moment, of course, is seeing the new kind of company who might lead the next generation of publishing.
Posted by
Brian O'Leary on 08/02 at 10:57 AM
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Enjoy this post? Share it with others.