GRAVITY NINE -- Thursday, September 24, 1992

Semantic slants, again. My talk of publishing and the editorial process
has provoked some response...

Francis Harvey writes, "Thank you for sharing your feelings about 'getting published' based on receiving two responses from the 3 million Usernet subscribers. On what basis do you decide that the opinions of two anonymous Usernet readers are more valid than those of editors whose job it is to make such decisions?"

I never said the opinions of editors weren't valid, or useful. My intention was to demonstrate that it is now possible for a writer to reach a large audience directly, without the consent of someone in between. It's no longer necessary to impress the few to reach the many.

As for the opinions of individual readers: they're paramount.

Joe Lucia writes, " 'Publication' is not simply getting a text to a reader.
It's also about legitimation, about selectively responsive communities."

You bet. The community within which a work is read is very pertinent to the process. However, let's not forget that 'to publish' is:

1. to make generally known
2. to place before the public (disseminate)
3. to issue the work of an author

While I agree that TALK.BIZARRE may not constitute a "respectable" readership, my purpose is not to anticipate my audience, but simply to "blast it out." Again, serendipity & coincidence have served more successfully than presumptious expectation might allow. It fits that I choose TALK.BIZARRE, and it fits that I choose that piece of writing for the purpose.

But to move on...

The electronic medium has got a lot of growing up to do before it becomes a suitable vehicle for worthwhile writing. Joe writes, "As the electronic publishing community enlarges and institutionalizes itself it will evolve mechanisms of legitimation analogous to those at work in contemporary print-based literary magazines."

Right now things are pretty dead in this area. It's a free-for-all. There are some forums (aka: newsgroups, topics, conferences, SIGs, areas, boards) devoted to poetry, prose, and criticism, but these are mostly recreation. They're nothing to brag about.

One possible reason why creative works aren't yet catching on in the
electronic world is that most people tapping into these resources are doing so for technical reasons. They're technical people.

Another reason is that an electronic work doesn't have the appeal that a well-bound book does. You can't curl up by the fire with a terminal.

The biggest reason, I think, is that the medium hasn't been properly
commercialized yet. Usenet is completely free (to those in an institution
with enough money to keep connected). CompuServe and the other "information utilities" cost quite a lot, but you pay for the time, not the access. Authors recieve no money for their efforts. This is equally true of the many thousand "bulletin boards" throughout the world.

Now writers could do what many down-on-their-luck software developers are doing and release their writing as "shareware", which essentially means "if you like this, send me money." This approach has worked for plenty of programmers, but I don't think it'll work for writers. It's asking a lot for someone to send me dollar just cause they liked the Kerouac piece. I doubt people would do it, and if they did, I doubt it would amount to much money. I certainly couldn't live on it.

Gravity is a means to solve this dilemma. It's a way to commercialize the new medium without irreparably compromising its free-information ideals.

Tomorrow I'll discuss this, and if there's space, I'll discuss how Gravity
includes sight and sound as well as words. (Bear with me, artists & musicians!)

To: Linda Myers