Thinking About Writing and Reading

As I've noted here before, I'm working on a new book, a history of meat in modern America (meaning roughly 1870 to the present). (*1) That project takes up most of my time -- the research, the writing, the banging my head on my desk, etc.

But this particular project is also weighted with more uncertainty than usual because it's clear that the nature of "reading" and "writing" and even the meaning of the word "book" are changing at an extraordinary rate. So part of my brain is plagued -- and distracted -- by questions I didn't ask or think about when I wrote my first three books: What will a "book" look like in, say, 2011, which is when I expect this new one of mine to land in bookstores. Will there still be "bookstores" in 2011? Will the book have a cover and pages? Or will it be "published" only in digital form? And who will publish it?

Nearly every publishing house in the U.S. is in a financial swamp, including the one that holds the contract to publish my next book (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt).

So although the book has been sold to a publisher, I have no idea which publishing houses will still be standing in two years. Or which one will own my contract. Or, well, anything. And even if the book is published, it's unclear to me what that will mean.

In any case, these questions are not new to me -- they've been at the front of my mind for months. I'd been planning to blog more about the new book and will start doing so over the next few days.

Meantime, for more all on this, check out David Nygren's thoughts at his blog, The Urban Elitist.

______________________

*1: Although I plan to start blogging more about my work-in-progress, at the moment, there's not much here. Weirdly enough, my most coherent public statement about that project is a blog entry I wrote for Powells.com back in 2006.

Clay Shirky on the Future of Publishing

Jacob Grier commented on my previous post, and mentioned Clay Shirky -- of whom, I have to say, I'd never heard. (But I don't get out much...) Anyway, I strolled around the web until I found what Jacob was referring to, and it's worth reading. And I agree with Shirky's comment about the future of publishing:

I think the big revolution is going to be print on demand. Imagine only having one browsing copy of every book in a bookstore. You could say "Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers looks good", and out pops a brand new copy. Why does a bookstore or a publisher have to be in the shipping and warehousing business?

As both a reader and a writer, I've thought about this a lot, particularly in terms of e-books (which I favor): I like to browse among the bookshelves, but if there's no physical object anymore, how do we "browse" as we do now in bookstores and libraries?

Not saying it can't be done; I'm just not sure HOW it will be done. And I'm not sure we can expect the publishers to provide that one copy, unless and until the publishers re-think the idea of a "book." One of a publisher's biggest costs is the initial print run; the cost of printing goes down the more copies the publisher prints. So if there's a switch to e-books, or mainly e-books, how will, say, Barnes & Noble provide "samples" of available books?

More to the point, would B&N even survive? (My bet: probably not.)

n any case, although I love the idea of e-books, it's clear that we're a long way off from figuring out the logistics of such a system. (Well, no surprise there! No one's yet come up with a truly viable e-reader. The Kindle comes close, but I still think Steve Jobs will come up with something better.) All part of the great web of uncertainty that is 21st century life.

"Generativity," the Future, and the Internet

Absolutely worth reading. Start with this essay by Alan Jacobs at Text Patterns (part of Culture 11), and then, as he suggests, read the Tim Wu's New Republic review of Zittrain's book. Fascinating stuff, but I'm especially grateful that Wu is thinking about Zittrain's book in a historical context.

Historical Tidbits: Beer and Cancer, 1979

"Beer-drinking Americans are being exposed to significant amounts of [nitrosamines,] a cancer-causing agent, and the Government should order brewers to clean up their products, a public interest group said today."

The Center for Science in the Public Interest insisted that Americans were consuming "20 times" more nitrosamines, from "drinking beer than from eating bacon." According to CSPI's Michael Jacobson, "'Americans are clearly consuming a significant amount of nitrosamines in their beer,'" thanks to the "direct fire technique" used to manufacture the malt used in beer. (*1)

Not quite, said the Food and Drug Administration. An FDA study had found "microscopic traces" of the contaminant in a handful of beers, an agency spokesperson told reporters, but "we don't think there is any reason for people to change their beer-consuming habits, or switch to other beers." (*2)

Nitrosamines can be dangerous, the agency explained, but those found in beer "are not added, but occur naturally." More to the point, there was "no" credible data that demonstrated that the amount found in beer was harmful. (*3)

Still, the CSPI's dodgy press release got more attention than the more substantive information reported by the FDA, a fact that was not lost on the nation's beermakers. The CSPI's "attack on brewers' credibility," observed the editor of Modern Brewery Age, a brewing trade journal, had been "fueled" by the dissemination of "partial, misleading information."Moreover, the brewing industry had been aware of the problem, such as it was, for more than a year. (*4)

But serious researchers also knew that tests of nitrosamines content were "so new and so delicate" that any results were hard to replicate. "There is no sense in publicizing data which is likely to be invalidated by subsequent tests." Worse yet, he noted, impartial and substantive information "doesn't get you the kind of media event that you can get from attacks on 'big bad brewers . . . ."

Translation: The CSPI ought to shut its mouth until and unless it had facts to report.

_______________

Sources:

*1: "Group Seeks to Rid Beers of Cancer-Causing Agent," New York Times, September 20, 1979, p. 16.

*2: "Nitrosamines Detected in 28 Beers," New York Times, September 23, 1979, p. 37. [See below for the beers.]

*3: "Bad News Beers," New West 4 (December 3, 1979): SC-40

*4: This and remaining quotes are from "Cancer, Credibility, and Beer," Modern Brewery Age 30 (October 1, 1979), p. 2. In a list that reads like a Memorial to Fallen Warriors, the FDA found traces of nitrosamines in: Domestic beers: Schaefer, Budweiser, Miller, Colt 45, Schlitz, Lowenbrau (Miller Brewing's brand), Colt-45 Silver, Blitz-Weinhard, Carling Black Label, National Bohemian, Old Milwaukee, Pabst, Tuborg, and Ballantine. Imports: Kaiser Export, Paulander Munchen, Stauder Spezial, Diekirch, Dortmunder Union Special, Theakston Old Peculiar, Gosser Golden Rock, Heineken, San Miguel, Molson beer, and Molson Ale.

Oh, Please.

This "research" from the World Cancer Research Fund (a British group) (and via the weekly newsletter [subscription only] edited by Pete Reid of Modern Brewery Age).

To which I say: Oh, for fuck's sake. Give it up. How much anyone wanna bet that the World Cancer Research Fund is interested in cancer research in the same way that the Center for Science in the Public Interest is interested in science? (As far as CSPI is concerned, the only "real" science is the stuff that supports its nearly fascist, nanny-state agenda....)

Besides which, this drinking-and-cancer thing has been around for decades and warnings show up, clockwork-like, every decade or so. To say nothing of that fact that humans drink less alcohol now than they have in millennia past, and if cancer were really so lethal and risky, well, the human race would have died out, ya know, millennia ago.

It's a prohibitionist plot, is what it is.....

(Kidding.) (Sort of.)

Kudos to Shawn Connelly and The Aleuminati

Speaking of comments functions malfunctioning, the other day I tried to post a comment at Shawn Connelly's blog, Beer Philosopher, and his comments function was also haywire. (What's up with this anyway? That meteor shower is over with, and there's no full moon, so what gives?)

Anyway, I wanted to comment on his post summarizing and surveying the 2008 traffic at his blog and his site, Aleuminati. The stats are impressive. They're even more impressive when you know that Shawn has a fulltime "real" job, and running his blog and Aleuminati are sidelines. Labors of love, you might say.

But as I've noted before, the beer world is full of people like Shawn: decent, generous people who are passionate about beer, and want to share that passion with others. (And yes, the Aleuminati site breaks my rule of NO BLACK BACKGROUND, but I gather that Shawn is in the process of giving the site a facelift, with the intent of shifting to a easier-on-the-eyes appearance.)

So three cheers for Shawn, and for Alan (see this post), and all the other folks out there who work to make the enjoyment of beer a communal venture.

As always, one way to find many of those other beer-lovers and their sites is through Jonathan's really simple BEER syndication.