Showing posts with label Publishing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Publishing. Show all posts

13 April 2009

A Glimpse Inside the Mind of Andrew Sullivan

ANDREW SULLIVAN: THINKING. OUT. LOUD. | More Intelligent Life

A great introduction/interview with influential and controversial blogger Andrew Sullivan. Two passages that particularly jumped out at me:

It was at this time that Sullivan discovered the philosopher who was to provide the timber of his conservatism—and the road map to many of his apparent contradictions. Michael Oakeshott was then a relatively obscure English philosopher in his 80s. Sullivan characterises his thought as “an anti-ideology, a nonprogramme, a way of looking at the world whose most perfect expression might be called inactivism”.

At the core of Oakeshott’s thought is the belief that human beings are extremely limited in what we can know. As Sullivan puts it: “While not denying that the truth exists, the [Oakeshottian] conservative is content to say merely that his grasp on it is always provisional. He begins with the assumption that the human mind is fallible, that it can delude itself, make mistakes, or see only so far ahead.” In light of this extreme fallibility, human beings should err on the side of inaction. Claims to certainty—in religion, or political ideology—are invariably hubristic. We have to build our politics on “the radical acceptance of what we cannot know for sure”.


"He believes his greatest future conflicts will centre on religion—the topic of his next book. He learned his Catholicism as an altar boy in East Grinstead. For him it is a sacramental religion, all about smell and sight and touch. Ritual is at its core, because “ritual has no point beyond itself. Only ritual can approximate the ineffability of the divine, enact its truth while not purporting to explain or capture it.”

Sullivan feels that this model of religion—filled with a sense of the mysterious, and the unknowability of God—has been replaced in both America and the Vatican by outright fundamentalism... “I remember feeling that without the structure of my faith, without my knowledge of its infallible truth, I might have been completely overwhelmed,” he says. Fundamentalism “was a way of sealing myself off from the world”. He sees American Christians turning to fundamentalism as a panicked response to change and doubt too. They have ended up pining for a theocracy that is contrary to his beloved US constitution and basic liberties for gay people.

He says his next battle is to “turn Christianity against the fundamentalists”. For him, “their certainty is the real blasphemy; their desire to control the lives of others the real heresy; their simple depiction of the Godhead proof positive they do not really understand him.” In the Gospels, the men who set themselves up as arbiters of moral correctness are often the furthest from God, he says, while Jesus urges people to see beyond fetishising rules and commandments to their own conscience. This is the flag Sullivan will carry into battle as a paladin against the Palins.

06 November 2008

Books Online

Google's book deal | A new chapter | The Economist

An interesting new development in online information availability...with some significant repercussions for key players in this segment.

24 April 2008

Crazy Fat Cats

Oddly Enough | Reuters.com: "'It's not pleasant to boast about your wealth when you have inherited it but when you have made it yourself, well it is still not very nice, but it is justified,' Shmarov said."

What an amazing idea for a periodical....

01 February 2007

Rebuilding the Library of Alexandria

The New Yorker: Google's Moon Shot

I know Google Book Search and all its associated controversy is nothing new, but
1) I'm an idiot and did not realize The New Yorker was largely available for free online
-and-
2) This is the best write up on the subject I've read--they even quote Lawrence Lessig!

The search works marvelously--a query for an 1860s book of Bolivian travel photography I found by accident in the uni's library once upon a time turned up some very relevant results--for free download in compact pdf form! Since these books were long out of copyright, this was of no legal concern. Similarly, currently in print books offered links to points-of-purchase like Amazon.com.

Now, according to the magazine, "Approximately twenty per cent of all books are in the public domain; these include books that were never copyrighted, like government publications, and works whose copyrights have expired, like “Moby-Dick.” Google has simply copied such books and made them available on the Web. Roughly ten per cent of books are copyrighted and in print—that is, actively being sold by publishers. Many of these books are covered by Google’s arrangement with its publisher partners, which allows the company to scan and display parts of the works." That leaves 70% of books in a hazy realm of legality--not in print, but still within copyright (and on top of this, what about books once out of copyright now back in after legal extensions?). Wherein lies the legal solution to this dilemma? And is the legal solution the just one for all parties involved? What constitutes fair use? Personally, I feel that the dilemma should be resolved with a compromise that generally concedes to Google's arguments. While pdfs are compact, they will not disrupt the book industry in the same fashion as the internet has disrupted the music and movie industries. They simply are not as readable for large quantities of information such as is present in books. Google's service offers a powerful tool for both consumers and publishers. But there is always the fear of the new.

Additionally, the book search introduces new complexities to Google's core competencies in the search arena. The network of authorship influence and relationship cannot be as easily mapped as the mesh of hyperlinks that ties together the world wide web. Google's engineers must solve complex problems around the best methods to develop the most effective search model. And again, as the magazine points out, Google has disappointed before with other search models--Froogle and the original Google Video most notable among them.

These two issues converge as legal barriers to entry indicate the Google may remain the only player in the field, creating steep financial barriers to entry for any competitors in the market that might introduce a more innovative and compelling model. The New Yorker generally states all of this in a more compelling fashion than this rush post, and I highly suggest reviewing the article.