Just So I Can Say I Was "Here" . . .

Meaning: so I can say that at least I wrote something on the blog today. (*1) (*2)

If you're looking for a great blog that follows the implosion/explosion of 21st century journalism, you could do worse than read the one sponsored by the Nieman Journalism Lab. It's the one blog in which I get truly bogged down every day (blogged down??).

_____________________________

*1: I have an excuse, sort of: I wrote several thousand words of the new book this morning. That's not unusual -- I spend most of my time working on the new book -- but there are some days when, after cranking out new-book-words, my word-well runs dry (to say nothing of my energy).

*2: Man, I HATE the burden of guilt that accompanies the days I don't blog. I gotta get over that. And I bet if I hadn't been raised Catholic, it would be a hell of a lot easier to do so.

Will "Stories" Still Have A Beginning, Middle, and End? UPDATED

David Nygren asks a good question: How will the digital age affect the structure of "story?" Ten, twenty, forty years from now, will readers be content with the ancient conventions of narrative structure, meaning a structure that consists of a beginning, a middle, and an end?

When he first posed this question yesterday (in a tweet....), my instant reaction was yes! Of COURSE readers still want to read stories and stories consist of, well, a beginning, a middle, and an end.

But then I started thinking beyond my knee-jerk reaction. After all, I just finished posting a series here at my blog in which I wondered if we're living in a new age. If so, I wondered, will we dismantle ancient ideas and institutions and replace them with new modes of organization and thinking that we've not yet even imagined?

And if that's the case, why should or would the "story" be immune?

Answer: it may not be!

Added after initial post: If I remember right, back in the early 1990s, there was much talk about this very subject. Writers wondering how the use of "hyperlinks" could, should, or would affect narrative flow, and thus the structure of story. Other writers were toying with placement of words on the page, that kind of thing.

So it's not like no one's thought about this before -- but I suspect what used to be the ramblings of eccentric minds has become the norm.

Indeed, as I write the book I'm working on now, I constantly ask myself: When this book is published, will readers be content with static words on a page?

Eg, when I introduce a historical figure, like Gustavus Swift, should the text include a link to his entry at Wikiepedia? What about sources? Typically, I document the source for every quote I use in the book, and collect all those sources in the "Notes" separate section at the end of the book. Will an e-text have links directly to the source? How about the index? Will a reader be able to go to the index and click on an index entry and go directly to that page?

I don't know. I guess I'll find out in another two or three years . . .

"Read" It Unfolding. Do It Now. It's "Live."

Okay, if I weren't already convinced about Twitter, now I am. The staff at the Rocky Mountain News, a major Denver newspaper, just learned that tomorrow's edition is its last. A staff member in the room began "tweeting" the proceedings. You can read them here. (As always with Twitter, go back to "older" tweets to find the start of the Twitter-thread.) Extraordinary.

More On A Viable E-Book System

David Nygren has another great slate of suggestions/possibilities for the future of the e-book.

This, by the way, and my earlier link to the San Francisco Post Chronicle wiki, are precisely what I mean when I wonder if we're in a "new age": The "book" is something we all take for granted, right? Hasn't changed in form or function for millennia. Books are like air: We just don't notice them or think about it. They're just . . . there.

Until now. Now the idea of "the book" is up for grabs. All of it: form, shape, access to, content. All of it. We, all of us, are stepping back, eyeing the "book" and pondering its future. That's amazing.

That's why I so often blog about what may seem like a trivial matter. It's not. It's profound social and cultural upheaval unfolding before our eyes.

End of Newspapers = End of Democracy?

Hmmm...... Good question, and one that is pondered at length at The New Republic. (It's a long article, so if you're looking for a ninety-second, easy in-out roundup, don't bother.) Also at the site, and in the same vein, an editorial piece on the subject of "media" and an article about the impact of Politico. And sadly, all this writing/thinking is, ya know, free........

Tip o' the mug to Chris Moody of Moody's Pen (and to Stan, who, if I remember correctly, first directed me to Chris's blog.)

More Than You Want to Know About Newspapers

One of the websites that I read regularly is one maintained by the Nieman Journalism Lab. (Hey, I can think of worse ways to waste my time....)

It's always worth visiting, but the past few days the staff has been crunching some newspapers numbers. If you're interested in newspapers, take a look here, here, and here.

Then there's this comment/discussion about the whole pay-for-content-and-the-future-of-newspapers.

But I loved this in-depth look at the new "Article Skimmer" created by the one of the software developers at the New York Times. I tried out the Skimmer, and I've gotta say: I like it. As the audio commentary in the Nieman piece notes, the current NYT online layout tends, inadvertently or otherwise, to favor some pieces and sections over others. I gather that this feature is not fully functional (if only because I can't find a way to link to it other than from the original blog entry, plus not all the paper's sections are included in the Skimmer).