No easy answers in talk on future of the printed word

At the beginning of a panel discussion on the future of the printed word Tuesday night, magazine editor Seabring Davis told the audience, “When you figure out what the current state of publishing is, please let me know.”

An hour and a half later, there was no definitive response to her challenge, nor to the larger question that was the subject of the night.

Quite often throughout the discussion it was hard to tell what question was being addressed. Sometimes it was the fate of words on paper, sometimes the prospect of finding ways to pay people to write. Then again it was whether in the future there would be readers at all, or whether in the future readers would be capable of digesting long, thoughtful pieces of writing.

The difficulty of finding answers was compounded by the fact that the discussion was held in the community room of the Billings Public Library.

People who gather in a library to listen to people speak about writing are probably going to be old-fashioned or, let’s face it, simply old.

Perhaps at some future date there could be a similar discussion with a panel that included at least one person in his or her 20s. Better yet, how interesting would it be to hear from a text-maniac 15-year-old?

As it was, everyone present, including your aging correspondent, seemed to be biased in favor of musty books, the tactile pleasures of a printed work and the pleasures of a Sunday morning newspaper.

Billings novelist Russell Rowland said technological changes sweeping the publishing world are “bringing people into the fold,” creating more writers and perhaps more readers.

Allen Jones, a novelist and founder of the Bangtail Press in Bozeman, spoke similarly of the “democratization of publishing” engendered by ease of putting out an e-book. And Darrell Ehrlick, editor of the Billings Gazette, said his newspaper has “a better audience than we’ve ever had” because of the Web.

Livingston resident Davis, the editor of Big Sky Journal, said the ease of publishing is good for people who want to get their words out to the world, but the task of the reader — trying to determine whose words carry validity — is more difficult.

“That’s the hard part as a reader,” she said. “Who’s on the up-and-up and who’s blowing smoke?”

All panelists agreed that there was some future for words on paper. Allen pointed out that a quarter of all books sold now are e-books. He expected that trend to continue until the market is equally split between e-books and traditional books, saying printed books, as a technology, are hard to improve upon.

Seabring predicted that there will be a renaissance of independent niche magazines, as well as “a cult of print-only readers,” people deliberately rejecting the transitory nature of digital publications.

Ehrlick said that when he wrote a Minnesota book some years ago, he relied heavily on research in old newspaper archives. He wondered about the fate of such history if newspapers go entirely digital.

“I think there is great value in the permanency of print,” he said.

Rowland said no technology could obliterate the need of writers to produce the kinds of books they feel compelled to write. And however wide and fast the stream of information flows, he said, “we’re still going to need time to read slowly and absorb.”

But if your correspondent could interject again — as several members of the audience did, on this visceral subject — what was lacking was the perspective of a person too young to really understand this attachment to paper and ink.

One woman in the audience asked at the end of the evening, referring to a printed book, “What’s the reason for having it, other than the love?”

There was some laughter, but it was a good question. And the answer, like love, is probably beyond the power of words to express.

Comments

comments