The Printed Word
August 24, 2000
7:47 a.m.
Will the Internet kill the printed word? Well? Will it? Personally, I think not. Yes, in a few years, maybe the Internet with advanced technology on readers will drive everything online, but I wouldn't bet on it. I'm a totally wired person (in my mind at least), and you should see my desk. Side-to-side paper. The only thing that will kill the printed word (and for this, I mean fiction and stories and all the things that makes us humans rather than coupons and flyers and other stuff that gets distributed for basic life functions) is people themselves. Yes, I realize the above paragraph shifts the emphasis of "printed"--live with it. [but I mean that in the nicest way possible] But I saw something this morning that made me sit up and wonder. It's this. Yes, I'm sorry to spring another "oh my God, the kids of today are morons and weren't we so much better" piece on you. But this is an important subject for us as writers, and for us as readers and lovers of this art (or craft, if you so desire). Look at those numbers: 40% of these kids cannot create clear, understandable sentences that they can string into a paragraph that makes sense. They didn't just fail, mind you--they got a zero. Wow. Look at the first response of those folks in charge: They immediately look to find fault with the scoring methodology. I'm not going to go into a huge rant here. I think most people who read this page would feel pretty strongly about this in similar directions as I do. I'll not preach to the choir. But seriously, folks. How many ways can you grade a zero? The point I wanted to make is that while the Internet may fundamentally change the way a writer does her business, and may go so far as to dive the profession into a true hobby (if a few Chicken Little doomsayers are right), I believe this article is the real danger out there for us. In its reality lies the monster that can truly kill the "printed" word. The story. Now, I'm with you if you want to look at what the root cause of the problem is. And if you find that the problem is associated with television or using the Net as a social outlet/game source, I'll give you that. Note, this means I'll expect someone to do the work to get the data--but if the data shows it, I'll go there. I was recently reading another Ellison book, wherein his introduction was a rant against television, and wherein he makes a powerful case against what reality is and isn't in relation to TV and the viewer--how TV totally changes the dynamic of storytelling and (for the lack of a better term) story receiving. He talks about the active part of reading and the passive mindset of watching. He says that people figured that if they saw it on TV, it must be true. "Wag the Dog," of course was focused on this point exactly. The Net has only been with us in its recent, public form for six or eight years, and only been truly exploited in the past two or three. Already I've heard--and I'm sure you have, too--that "It must be true, I saw it on the Internet." It's only going to get worse, of course. But the problem here is not the Net itself. The problem is people. Which leads us, of course, to Napster. Now, Napster is a really interesting situation all around. I've had friends talk about how great it is. And it is great. It's a file sharing wonder. Information is power, and I think the ability to share "truth" on an individual basis is a capability that changes societies in important ways. There is a reason why the first thing a coup attempt does is shut down the telephones, radio stations, and printing presses. Governments cannot get by with blatant, overt aggression without being seen anymore--not that they won't still do stupid things, but I think the Internet, and its information sharing any time anywhere, reduces our probability of true global conflict. Not bad for a protocol, a silicon chip, and a little telephone wire. But I've also had friends that support Napster from other perspectives that I found fanciful. Freedom: people, they say, should be free to trade files. And files are just 1s and 0s on a chip. These can't belong to anyone. So people should be free to share them without mean old governments getting in the way. This seems to ignore the basic concept of copyright law. Distributing copyrighted material without approval of the owner is a legal offense--and worse, it's a personal offense where we're talking about fiction. I certainly understand the feeling that it's okay to steal from a big, bad company (though in truth there's no difference). But passing a story around that you really like without at least asking permission is like taking a brick from the writer's house and sending it to a friend. "See what a lovely brick this is? Don't you wish you could have a house made of this? A thousand people do this, and suddenly the house is in shambles. Back to Napster, though. A friend of mine defended Napster by saying "But they don't actually trade the files. They're just the network. The people to the trading." And this is probably a pretty good argument. Maybe the law books need to be strengthened--which they will be, of course, whether we need them or not. [grin] Think of it this way, though. Let's say there are a lot of people who deal drugs in my city. I don't think there are, but let's say this is true. I notice these dealers consistently have trouble finding people to buy their drugs, so I offer them a service. They can use my house as a meeting place. This way, all drug dealers of all types can meet all drug users looking for all drugs. Boom. What a great business concept. Should I be upset when the cops come bust down my door and spray the walls with hot lead while they chase crack heads out of my house? Will I argue that I wasn't the one selling the drugs--that I just created the foundation to make it possible? Will a judge buy that? Will I go to jail? Would we applaud the home owner for their moral stance? Okay, some of you might. But I don't think those folks are in a majority, and I figure you get my point. Anyway. How the heck did I get here? The point. Oh, yes. The point. I think we can get spooled up about things that don't really matter. Napster is one. Mechanics of on-line financial flow is another. These things will work themselves out. We'll either be worth money, or we won't. Yes, we should pay attention to and influence, and exploit these to our fullest benefit possible. But I don't think these types of things are true threats to long-term existence of fiction and storytelling in any real way. The real demon to our existence lies in the scores discussed in that article, and in the responses we take as a society.   Have a great day.  Lighten up, man... Daily Persistence is © Ron Collins |
|
Sorry to miss yesterday...working, you know? |
BACK TO 
|