Text is not Dead

The notion of self publishing is something very interesting to me because it’s wonderful and controversial at the same time. It’s a revolution of communication and a devolution of the ivory tower industry of publishing which used to be the authority on what was worthy to be published. I’ve always been a firm believer that the canon of mass-published texts is far from representative of the best work writers have produced and submitted. The canon is what the powers that be have decided would sell.

However, now that some barriers have crumbled, anyone’s work can be self-published. So, a writer has the choice to either submit to the publishing companies, which may never deem the work valuable enough- or worse, publish it with the caveat that the company puts its own interpretation to it. Or, a writer can enter the arena of total equality among artists, no barriers, and no strict standards. The appeal of the latter is obvious; however, if I had the choice to have my work published by Random House or iUniverse, I would not dwell too long over my decision.

In Chapter 3 of Here Comes Everybody. Clay Shirky says the following:

As they surveyed the growing amount of self-published content on the internet, many media companies correctly understood that the trustworthiness of each outlet was lower than that of the established outlets like The New York Times.

However, he contrasts that point with another comment:

… the effortlessness of publishing means that there are many more outlets. The same idea, published in dozens or hundreds of places, can have an amplifying effect that outweighs the verdict from the smaller number of professional outlets.

He was speaking more specifically to the idea of journalism. However, I feel the same could be true of pieces of larger texts writers are aiming to self-publish. A writer can cultivate an audience online and tease them with excerpts on Facebook, Twitter, his or her own blog, and other platforms. This thought brings me back to the conversation we had in class about the power of a few passionate followers vs. a multitude of apathetic ones. The internet is a source of power for a person to market his or herself.

The question remains if the power is available to all, does that dilute its meaning and effect. What makes a self-published work special if anyone can do it? Again, I’ll point to Shirky’s comments:

In a world where publishing is effortless, the decision to publish something isn’t terribly momentous… For a generation that is growing up without the scarcity that made publishing such a serious-minded pursuit, the written word has no special value in an of itself.

I have come to no clear conclusion- only more questions. I love the direction technology has taken society in terms of communication, speed, efficiency, abundance of information and knowledge, and versatility. However, a part of me grows slowly sad over the idea that someday, books, real books with ink, and pages, and cover art, may be a thing of the past. Is there a way to be a part of the revolution without losing touch with certain elements of the past?