Digital Age Publishing

We are living in a time where anyone with even the most rudimentary technological know-how can add their voice to the ether. No longer gated by channels of critical approval, nearly anyone can now make a film, record an album, or write and publish a book. Traditionally, to get one’s work into the public arena it was required to go through professional “gatekeepers”—a handful of film studios green-lit and financed approved films, record companies signed artists and put out their albums, and teams of agents, editors, and publishers produced written works that measured up to a predetermined (but realistically undefinable) caliber of quality. No longer. Now everyone has a voice.

Superficially, this sounds great. The creative hierarchy has been democratized, and now the measure of a piece of art’s worth comes from the public’s perception and approval of it, as well as the critics’s. The problem is, with so many more avenues to get your “thing” out there and accessible, inevitably there are that many more voices to compete with, or at least that many more to try and stand uniquely against. Where once there were curated signals, now there’s often an ocean of noise. A perfunctory perusal of YouTube will quickly illustrate this point, where carefully crafted and critically meaningful content (which, is still nonetheless often created by independent “amateurs”) sits right alongside video content that can only be called trash, and which adds little to nothing to cultural enrichment. But this is the trade-off for access: the independently produced “good” necessarily opens the way for an even greater influx of “bad”.

And there’s not necessarily anything wrong with that, assuming the public is able to discern the good from the bad, which these days is often measured in “shares” and “likes” rather than sales and publicity. That seems fair, on the surface, since theoretically content that is higher in quality (whatever metric that quality might be measured against) will be more readily consumed and elevated above the “noise”. But it also means that, even if content is qualitatively superior, if an audience doesn’t find it among the sea of consumable choices, it still fails.

As individuals have become more creatively empowered, however, traditional avenues of production and distribution have had to change in tandem, often to the detriment of the work they aim to curate. For instance, recording artists traditionally were signed to a record label based on their abilities after being scouted by an A&R (artist & repertoire) agent, given a contract and advance to record an album, and then promotion paired with touring would create a dual revenue stream (labels would usually recoup their advance/recording expenses from album sales, after which artists would begin to see royalties, and artists would retain most of the money from touring profits and merchandising sales). But in the wake of digital publication, where anyone can record and post their music online, coupled with falling traditional music sales in the face of streaming and file sharing, labels now demand a greater percentage of all an artists’s revenue—known as a “360 deal”. In effect, going the traditional route becomes harder when the gatekeepers are less willing to take risks in the face of lower financial reward, and thus control more of possible revenue streams until a deal is weighed well enough in their favor.

So while nowadays a creator might have multiple avenues at their disposal in getting content out to the public, they also have to contend with a higher volume of content-noise to compete against (much of it minimally curated and amateurishly produced, putting further pressure on creators to become more refined at polishing and presenting their work to stand out), and a higher degree of scrutiny from more traditional gate-keeper channels. Is this bad? Maybe. Sometimes.

One problem lies in this new-found absence—or at least, diminished influence—of gatekeepers. On the one hand, not having to pass content through a particularly biased channel, based on the tastes and trends set by those gatekeepers, can allow for richer and more varied content to flourish. In literary terms, more experimental writing and work that might not easily fit into marketable genres can still live in a publicly accessible way. At the same time, however, those gatekeepers can also play a good role in separating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, in their professional capacity. But with instant digital publishing available to anyone willing to use it, any kind of content can now pervade the public space. And while there may indeed be a greater influx of “chaff”, there have nonetheless been numerous success stories of creators publishing their works themselves first only to be picked up professionally later on. This brings up the interesting position such a setup puts fledgling creators in, where instead of auditioning, submitting a sample, etc., they are forced to curate and market their work themselves, which simultaneously puts more power and more strain upon creators to be successful (at least in some measurable degree) in their own right first, before attracting the attentions of more professional groups or agencies.

I don’t have an answer either way here, definitively. There are pros and cons to the way publishing, in any medium, has changed in the digital age. I certainly don’t think that the traditionally funneling “gatekeeper” method worked flawlessly, and indeed there had always been some percentage of curated, professionally represented work published that misses the mark, sometimes by a wide margin, critically and/or commercially. But I’m also not completely satisfied with the “everybody flood the system” approach that seems to do just that, often bogging down an original or meaningful voice with a louder, flashier one that has more views and shares. It will be an interesting development to watch over the coming decade or two in how these forces might pull further apart or condense.

June 4, 2016

Print Is Dead, Long Live Print: Old Media vs. New Media in Birkets and Murray

As computers and interactive systems continue to evolve and ever dominate our daily lives, the question on most of my peer group’s mind—that is, English majors, writers, and other such dusty-tome lovers—is whether or not all this VR might be VD for the beloved textual mediums we’re all so found of. Will the blog kill the book? Will tweets trump text? Well, probably not. Maybe. Sometimes. Kind of?

Read more…

May 28, 2016


Hypertext is something that, over the course of studying digital media and becoming more acclimated with net-centric modes of thought and writing, I feel conflicted about. On the one hand, I find the limitless potential for connecting information through hyperlinks awe inspiring, and more times than I can count I’ve found myself falling down a “link hole” when researching information (Wikipedia, while not always reliable in its scholarship, nonetheless affords an infinite sea of connecting topics to descend into, akin to how internal stream of consciousness thinking can take you from the thought of a potato to the Russian revolution). When it comes to applying this technique to artistry, however, in my experience the results can be a mixed bag.

Read more…

April 25, 2016


My experience with “flarf” this week was an interesting one. On the one hand, this kind of networked creative writing seems to embody the ethos of new media—relying on the work/data of others for source material that can be manipulated into new works. And in many ways, the act of taking seemingly nonsensical and even totally unrelated strings of sentences, combining them into something more “coherent”, and then letting the meaning-making happen on the reader’s end, was a rewarding experience.
Read more…

April 16, 2016

Textuality and Text Manipulation

I’ve always been fascinated with words. Whether it’s the general look, feel, and sound of a word, or its visual presentation through font and color and size, these supposedly “inert” symbols we’ve used for millennia to convey meaning are charged with power. Connotation is especially interesting to me, how a single word might mean ten different things to ten different people, and how social and cultural changes over the ages might shift and evolve a certain word’s meaning. Regardless of the underlying meanings of words, though, their visual element is perhaps most immediate these days, with the heavy reliance on the way words are portrayed in the Information Age. A typeface can drastically change the way a word is received by a reader, and a word like “institution” can feel almost regal in an all caps Roman font, drawing allusions to great civilizations or systems of government, or it can instantly become playful and almost banal if rendered in a flowery decorative script. The way we present words matters.

Read more…

April 8, 2016

What is Electronic Literature?

My soon-to-be completed undergraduate degree is in English Literature & New Media, and as such my studies have dealt with electronic literature in one way or another over the past few years. The hardest part about studying “eLit” has been, well, defining just what the hell it is. And that’s alright.
Read more…

April 1, 2016