Life In the Digital World? Not So Fabulous.

So I'm fiddling around with Chrome, trying to figure out if it's a worthy alternative to Firefox, which, after four years, seems to have succumbed to the Microsoft Disease (you know: keep adding features and loading it up and rendering the damn program unusuable).

I suddenly realize what's missing: Chrome's address bar does not include the rss feed icon. I hunt through Chrome's tools and options. Come up empty-handed. So I google to find out if I'm just too stupid to figure out how to add that icon to the address bar.

And discover that, indeed, nope, Chrome does not offer easy rss feeding. And while I'm looking around, I find this comment at a "support" forum from someone who wondered the same thing:

I don't get it.  IE is a disaster.  I could do my taxes in the time it takes Firefox 3 to load.  And Chrome lacks basic features such as RSS feed.  Can't ANYONE, 30 years after the introduction of PCs, write a competent, functional browser?

That, folks, is the issue in a nutshell. Or, in plain English: What the FUCK? A week or so ago, I started writing a long blog rant about software designers, the "new era," etc. I set it aside as, well, kinda dumb.

But --- by god, it's time to go back to it and post that rant in full. Which I shall do soon.

Meantime, the "support" we need for the increasingly problematic online experience is --- stiff drinks all around. I'd like Campari and soda, please, tall glass, a bit of ice. No lemon or lime.

Oh, the Power of Twitter; Or, How to Tweet Your Way to the Bestseller List

Forget the e-book, e-readers, the dying word, and all that crap. Here's where the action is: Use Twitter to bash a critic, and bingo! Tons o' free publicity. That, my friends, is the brave new world of publishing. H

ere's the backstory (it's short and sweet): Novelist Alice Hoffman recently published a new novel. A couple of days ago, a reviewer for the Boston Globe panned the book.

(Or so Hoffman believes. Frankly, the review isn't that bad, and at least it's a review, for god's sake. Do you know how hard it is to get a book reviewed? Take my word for it: it's hard. HARD.)

Upon reading the review, Hoffman logged onto her Twitter account and, in a serious of increasingly snarky 140-character messages, proceeded to trash the reviewer (a "moron," according to Hoffman), the Globe, and anything in her line of site. (She also tweeted the reviewer's phone number, a move that was tacky beyond words.)

Unfortunately, you can't read all of the tweets because about 30 hours later, she shut down that Tweet account and  issued a formal apology. (You can read some of them here.)

But  --- and this is the punch line --- the controversy landed her, more or less instantly, in the "Media Decoder" column of the New York Times, whose website's readers number in the millions. All in the space of a few hours.

Sweet! Truly, truly, sweet. I've published three books, and I'm here to tell you that you can't pay for that kind of publicity.

So, okay, maybe I exaggerate a bit. Maybe she won't end up on the bestseller list, but Hoffman is certain to sell a hell of a lot more books than she would have otherwise. (It's worth noting that, as of this writing, 3:31 pm Central Time, her book is ranked 489 at Amazon.)

(Not, mind you, that Amazon numbers are a pure indicator of sales, but a number that low means the book is definitely moving.)

Friends, I have seen the future of publishing and it tweets, man, it tweets. I'm already composing my 140-character snark attack. I'll launch it when my next book comes out.

Completely Random Friday Roundup: Comstock, Dexter, Emerson, Connelly, Etc.

Okay --- it's Friday. I'm missing my own damn blog, which is being neglected in favor of my other passion.

But in the spirit of throwing some love its way, a completely random Friday roundup of a miscellaneous this-and-that: Patrick Emerson of the Oregon Economic blog pondered the economics of buying a "green" car (in this case a Prius) with, as usual, some surprising conclusions. (Because that's what I love about thinking and thoughtful people: sit around and actually, ya know, ponder issues, and the results may not fit conventional wisdom). His first post is here; his second is here.

One of my favorite online people is Tony Comstock. He wrote this post recently and I realized that several days later, I'm still thinking about it. (I spent a lot of time in New York City in the 1970s, and can relate to his take on it.) So go read it. (And for those of you about to freak out, as I've said here before, I read widely and diversely. Doing so contributes to A Life Worth Living.) (And in Tony's case, I admire his intellectual and creative courage.)

On a different subject altogether (don't say I didn't warn you. There's a reason I titled this a "random roundup), Astute Reader Dexter sent me a link to this fascinating comment about e-books. Be sure to read the comments on the comments. Great survey/cross-section of people's reactions to the future of print. (For more on that from this quarter, check the categories on the left side of your screen.)

As a companion piece, read this terrific cover story from the current issue of Fast Company, written by Adam Penenberg (if you use Twitter, he's @penenberg; if you don't, his forthcoming book is VIRAL LOOP).

Finally (but certainly  not last-but-not-least), Shawn Connelly, who blogs as the Beer Philosopher and founded The Aleuminati (and who bears a thoroughly enjoyable resemblance to Cary Grant and James Bond [no matter who plays the role]), announced today that he's now writing for a new site, thebeerconneisseur.com. (But that damn Aleuminati site still has the dreaded black background.)

So --- is this enough to keep you going for awhile? No, not YOU, silly! I'm talking to my other enamorat0(a), my blog. (Hmm.... Is this blog male? Or female?? Hmmm. Must go ponder.)

On "Writerly Absorption"

John Scalzi says it better than I did earlier.

Audience Participation Time: What Does the Word "Meat" Mean to You?

Anyone up for a little audience participation here? (And yes, I’m prepared to be completely mortified if no one responds.) I

just realized that the working title of my new book may not make any sense. The working title  is Carnivore Nation: Meat and the Making of Modern America. (We hot-shit writers refer to the titles of works-in-progress as “working” titles.) (What? You didn’t know I was a hot-shit writer? What’s the matter with you?) (I’m kidding.)

It’s not perfect (the word “nation” as part of a book title is on the verge of becoming a limp cliche), but it’s not bad.

In fact, given the book’s theme and content, it’s a good description: I’m using the production, processing, and consumption of “meat” to examine the fundamental conflicts that Americans experienced as they shifted from an agrarian to an industrial economy, and from a rural nation to an urban one. It will cover the period from 1870 to the present, and will look at beef, pork, and poultry.

But today, it occurred to me that “meat” may not be the most appropriate word choice. So after my long-winded introduction (and if you’re a regular, you know I’m prone to windy), here’s my question:

What does the word “meat” mean to you? If you saw that title, would you assume the book was about beef? And only beef? Or would you assume or expect that the word “meat” includes the three major flesh categories: beef, pork, and poultry?

Any and all comments are welcome and appreciated. (As they always are!) And if you’ve got ideas for a new title, let’s hear ‘em.

You Didn't Think He'd "Lose" the Election, Did You?

No one seriously thought Ahmadinejad would allow Moussavi to "win," right? I mean --- Moussavi was never going to be allowed to win. Never.

This is one of the moments when imagination fails. "Imagination" as in: It's impossible for me to imagine the misery of living in a repressive society, one where I would have no rights, at least not as we Americans know them, and could only express opposition at the risk of death.

So --- am spending this particular Sunday feeling particularly grateful that I am who I am, living where I do, and praying, in my atheistic way, for the millions of human beings who may never know the extraordinary pleasure of personal and intellectual freedom.