The internet shall set you free
I'm taking the morning off. I have to go to work this afternoon and I absolutely must do some writing over the weekend so I thought I'd relax today. Listen to how guilty I feel.
I don't know anything much about manuscript circulation in 17th-century England. I know there was a lot of it going on and that in our printed age we tend to underestimate it. The 17th century saw a huge increase in the amount of printed news. Alongside all the pamphlets, broadsheets and newspapers news was also transmitted in manuscript form. London journalists ran manuscript newsletter services. I'm a bit hazy on the details but I think they were sent around the country via the developing postal system. They were sometimes sent out with printed newspapers like The London Gazette. When we think of Restoration England we sometimes remember the really dirty poems that got passed around the Royal court. A large proportion of these were also passed around in manuscript form. I remember attending a talk given by an academic researching Catholic poetry. She told us how these poems were not intended for printed publication but were copied out and passed from reader to reader.
What I mean by all these examples is that back then news and other literature could circulate on a very individual level. It wasn't reliant on the say so of a big publishing house or a panel of editors. If it pleased the reader it was copied out and passed along. The internet has given us a similar environment. We are now free to express ourselves in any way we please. Just look at the recent explosion of blogs. If we want to publish poems or stories or historical research we no longer have to get past the judgement of others. We can put it straight online. If it's any good it will get linked and passed around.
I know the publishing houses and review boards serve a very useful purpose. They maintain a certain level of quality. When an article is published in a respected journal you know you can trust it because it's been peer reviewed. People can publish all sorts of dross online. I don't think the quality problem is one that should deter us. As more people use the internet for this kind of thing mechanisms will evolve to filter out the crap. Even now you can see bloggers peer reviewing each other. Peer review is less necessary for creative writing than it is for academic work. If the reader likes a poem then that's enough. You don't need a Harvard professor to tell you it's good. If you really take your academic or creative work seriously then you should take some responsibility for your own quality levels or ask someone to check it for you.
You might say that my enthusiasm for self-publication means that I know I'm too mediocre to get past a publishing house. Perhaps that is part of it I admit. But when only something like 0.6% of submitted manuscripts ever get published you've got to start asking questions. Obviously a large number of failed manuscripts are absolute rubbish but how many good ones just aren't getting through because they're a bit unusual or not likely to make money?
Maybe one day we'll have fewer books published each year because only the ones that are popular online will make it onto paper. That will be better for the environment at least. The freedom of the internet will change things and it will unleash a lot of rubbish, but if it means that every man and woman can publish their historical research and express themselves then it's worth it. I keep hearing the joke 'Everyone has got a novel in them and that's where they should keep it.' Sure, fine, yes I can see the point. But won't it be better when we can see everyone's novel and decide for ourselves what's worth it?
I'm meandering and rambling now so I'll log off.
I don't know anything much about manuscript circulation in 17th-century England. I know there was a lot of it going on and that in our printed age we tend to underestimate it. The 17th century saw a huge increase in the amount of printed news. Alongside all the pamphlets, broadsheets and newspapers news was also transmitted in manuscript form. London journalists ran manuscript newsletter services. I'm a bit hazy on the details but I think they were sent around the country via the developing postal system. They were sometimes sent out with printed newspapers like The London Gazette. When we think of Restoration England we sometimes remember the really dirty poems that got passed around the Royal court. A large proportion of these were also passed around in manuscript form. I remember attending a talk given by an academic researching Catholic poetry. She told us how these poems were not intended for printed publication but were copied out and passed from reader to reader.
What I mean by all these examples is that back then news and other literature could circulate on a very individual level. It wasn't reliant on the say so of a big publishing house or a panel of editors. If it pleased the reader it was copied out and passed along. The internet has given us a similar environment. We are now free to express ourselves in any way we please. Just look at the recent explosion of blogs. If we want to publish poems or stories or historical research we no longer have to get past the judgement of others. We can put it straight online. If it's any good it will get linked and passed around.
I know the publishing houses and review boards serve a very useful purpose. They maintain a certain level of quality. When an article is published in a respected journal you know you can trust it because it's been peer reviewed. People can publish all sorts of dross online. I don't think the quality problem is one that should deter us. As more people use the internet for this kind of thing mechanisms will evolve to filter out the crap. Even now you can see bloggers peer reviewing each other. Peer review is less necessary for creative writing than it is for academic work. If the reader likes a poem then that's enough. You don't need a Harvard professor to tell you it's good. If you really take your academic or creative work seriously then you should take some responsibility for your own quality levels or ask someone to check it for you.
You might say that my enthusiasm for self-publication means that I know I'm too mediocre to get past a publishing house. Perhaps that is part of it I admit. But when only something like 0.6% of submitted manuscripts ever get published you've got to start asking questions. Obviously a large number of failed manuscripts are absolute rubbish but how many good ones just aren't getting through because they're a bit unusual or not likely to make money?
Maybe one day we'll have fewer books published each year because only the ones that are popular online will make it onto paper. That will be better for the environment at least. The freedom of the internet will change things and it will unleash a lot of rubbish, but if it means that every man and woman can publish their historical research and express themselves then it's worth it. I keep hearing the joke 'Everyone has got a novel in them and that's where they should keep it.' Sure, fine, yes I can see the point. But won't it be better when we can see everyone's novel and decide for ourselves what's worth it?
I'm meandering and rambling now so I'll log off.
posted by Beatrice Perale at 1:26 PM
6 Comments:
TS Eliot did the same with his manuscript collection of risque poetry. I thought it was an urban myth, until they actually popped up.
I think your comparison with the internet is very apt, although the internet creates and extraordinary community of readers and writers linked by comments. I presume print found the same function in coffee shops and various kinds of associations and study groups.
I notice, in talking to other bloggers, that there is a kind of consensus in a blogging community about who is good. The judgement is not necessarily reflected in figures or apparent public approval. That is created by the manufacture of groups who crave the approval of the blogger and fellow commenters - which the good ones are not interested in.
In areas like history - particularly like history actually - there is a bunch of blogs that are very easy to read for recreation, like yours. But the historians could go one step further; someone could start to set the agenda in a more powerful way by doing the heavy lifting of announcing stuff in a systematic way, and analysising the currents and places of discussion.
That is a brave jump because it involves making judgements about your peers. Hooee.
- barista
I think if someone's going to do something like that they need to blog about their research very seriously for a while. Then when they are trusted they can start introducing judgements.
It's a brave historian who blogs about research. Everyone's so programmed to think in terms of official publication.
Want more clicks to your Adsense Ads on your Blog?
Then you have to check out my blog. I have found a FREE and Legitimate way that will increase your earnings.
Come Check us out. How to Boost Your AdSense Revenue
Well done!
[url=http://wdjdkzur.com/mnmg/iato.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://ekmofwdc.com/isxz/rmjg.html]Cool site[/url]
Great work!
My homepage | Please visit
Great work!
http://wdjdkzur.com/mnmg/iato.html | http://zpkronvd.com/ivjr/qrmf.html
Post a Comment
<< Home