Stephen L. Carter – Where’s the Bailout for the Publishing Industry?
Stephen L. Carter, a law professor who writes about democracy, has an article in The Daily Beast entitled, “Where’s the Bailout for the Publishing Industry?”
It begins:
Like a lot of writers, I am wondering when Congress and the administration will propose a bailout for the publishing industry. Carnage is everywhere. Advances slashed, editors fired, publicity at subsistence levels, entire imprints vanished into thin air. Moreover, unlike some of the industries that the government, in its wisdom, has decided to subsidize, the publishing of books is crucial to the American way of life.
Seriously.
Books are essential to democracy. Not literacy, although literacy is important. Not reading, although reading is wonderful. But books themselves, the actual physical volumes on the shelves of libraries and stores and homes, send a message through their very existence. In a world in which most things seem ephemeral, books imply permanence: that there exist ideas and thoughts of sufficient weight that they are worth preserving in a physical form that is expensive to produce and takes up space. And a book, once out there, cannot be recalled. The author who changes his mind cannot just take down the page.
3 comments on “Stephen L. Carter – Where’s the Bailout for the Publishing Industry?”
Erm, there is some good argumentation in this commentary and there is some specious argumentation in this commentary.
But this?: “Books are essential to democracy. Not literacy, although literacy is important. Not reading, although reading is wonderful.”
That is simply asinine & fetishizes books beyond the pale! I love books–physical books–but if we are not literate & we do not read then all the fetishizing and preservation of (physical) books will not in any way preserve democracy.
His “argument” can not even possibly get started.
Having read this article, I find myself seriously wondering why you linked to it, Rory (with no commentary anyway). Clearly, there are parts I think you would endorse, but there are also parts I would think that you would take issue with; e.g., that ridiculous opening “argument.” I’d be extremely interested in hearing any commentary you might feel up to adding on it.
Thanks.
Hi, Mark
Well, to start with, I linked to it as an item on topics that interest me. I don’t think linking to something implies 100% endorsement. As a column in a newspaper type venue I think it’s to be expected that the arguments it makes will be overstated, oversimplified and not fleshed out. So I wouldn’t consider it significant on the level of an article in an academic journal on the same subject, for example. But, I don’t see this as a reason not to link to it on the basis of its subject matter and a sense of general sympathy toward where the author is coming from.
In fact, stronger arguments for the importance of books (not necessarily paper books, though these still seem to be the preferred format for books) have been made. I tend to agree with those who believe that books are important, because of the kind of thinking that reading books, as opposed to short snippets of content, encourages and builds in a person. I think there is a case to be made that democracy as we know it depends on the citizenry have certain intellectual capacities that involve the ability to reflect and follow a line of thought that extends beyond the few moments it takes to make a point or think of a retort. Sustained thinking, sustained attention, and sustained reading of linear texts are things that democracy needs. I don’t really think that democracy, as anything worth having anyway, can exist in a sound-byte culture. It has to be a part of a culture that values rationality. I think a culture that values rationality needs books, at least in some form. Carter’s focus on paper books seems nostalgic, but I think it merely reflects the reality that few people read actual books in electronic form, and electronic reading is almost entirely of brief bits of content. That is something that will likely change, but until it does I think an argument for the importance of books is in practical terms an argument in favor of these things that are made of printed paper.
Thanks, Rory, for your comments. I apologize if I made you feel defensive. I certainly did not mean to, nor do I think you have to support something 100% to link to it. You just gave so little info as to why you did and it got me wondering. Perhaps you are just busy like everyone else.
“Sustained thinking, sustained attention, and sustained reading of linear texts are things that democracy needs.” That I fully agree with. In fact, I would have written it more strongly; i.e., they are necessary–although not sufficient–for democracy.
I second everything you wrote above, in fact.
Again, thanks ever so much.
Comments are closed.