Kindling a Revolution

The Future of Reading? - Ezra Klein
The Future of Reading - Ezra Klein @ Columbia Journalism Review

So Klein spends some time with Amazon's Kindle and has already decided that traditional books are not capable of handling the changes in content of the digital age. He does make some strong points: commentary and notations are far easier to engage in through digital books and a web connection. Time sensitive books such as those on political events could use instant update features to correct outdated material. And particularly controversial books would have a direct connection between the reader and the author. This is where the disruptive nature of the Internet injects itself in the real world.
Naturally, as a blogger, Klein is inclined to think of texts as reader-author relationships. Blogs have become some of the most read online texts in existence. And the mix of reader and author allows for debates to bring out new ideas and reworked blog posts. Klein argues that a similar debate can take place over political books such as Andrew Sullivan's The Conservative Soul. It's a strong argument and one I believe will prove true, to a point.
To offer a contrast, Klein takes a similar perspective with Max Boot's World War Z. The purpose behind the comparison is to illustrate where the Kindle fails as it distracts from the simplicity of reading for pleasure.
I do agree that a digital device won't replace those texts meant for pleasure. But I have to strongly disagree with Klein over the matter of non-fiction texts. What may hold true for contemporary political texts on contemporary political topics fails miserably when attempting anything of a lasting work. Example: Wittgenstein (yes, I'm using him again as an example) wrote two works of philosophy in his life time. His first, published in the early 20s was hailed as the founding text for logical positivism. Twenty years later Wittgenstein wrote another work on the philosophy of language completely at odd with his first.
I use Wittgenstein as an extreme example of how one's thinking can change, sometimes radically, over a period of time. A non-fiction work must have an endpoint. For academics, this is known as the point where you simply stop writing. You can use the texts available to you at the time but waiting for some new text to arrive that adds to your work is foolish and damaging to your career. At some point you have to end the research and the book as well. Moreover, the more time you study a subject the more your understanding increases. Some of the best work by philosophers and historians is done in the waning years of their life. A constant blog-like debate over a single text does little to actually improve the thinking of the academic. Nor does an academic have the time a blogger does to engage in such a debate, particularly since they have papers to grade, classes to prepare for and new topics to research.
Another point Klein misses is that research requires the quick movement from text to text as one is writing. A single device that contains all of the texts the academic uses is actually detrimental to the work. You need that ability to lay two or three books together at once to properly write an academic text.
So while Klein does have an argument when it comes to political texts and the potential digital devices have to improve the interaction with digital content, he misses the more important points of pleasure and academic reading. Yes, it requires the maintenance of a library of books but as Klein himself notes, paper texts have existed and adapted to new technologies many times before. The Kindle's potential is powerful, but that power is derived from its ability to deliver digital content or content that is improved by a close relation between the reader and the author. It's power does not, however, extend to novels and academic works for the very same reasons.

New Model Army in Camp

One of the things I love about the developmental direction the Internet has taken is the DIY ethos that drives a lot of the innovation. I've written on this before and how disruptive this DIY ethos is. Take a few ideas, some knowledge of coding and suddenly you have a website drawing tens of thousands of people. Of course, for every success story there are hundreds of failures, whether of deployment, content or simple timing. Along with that is the ever-important "who you know" factor that can make or break a struggling site. A post on a few well chosen blogs will go miles to making your site the new 'it' site. My own blog struggles with such need for attention, but the attention, however minimal, is still there.
What the "who you know" factor also means though is that sometimes you end up with a clique of sites that trade links back and forth but rarely branch out on new sites. It's both the advantage and bane of web hubs. Yet, I don't begrudge the nature of web hubs and superhubs. Outlier sites, if they stick around long enough, always increase their chances of finding a few links to the major hubs. It's an instance where persistance pays off. While I keep this blog to help with my own sanity as an outlet for my nonsense, I still look forward to the day that this blog becomes something more than a vanity project.

Brian Michael Bendis Rewrites Matt Yglesias

Ultimate Blogs - Matt Yglesias

I do so love when comics are injected into the political blogosphere.

Denial is Perfectly Healthy

The First Step is Admitting You Have a Problem - John Scalzi @ Whatever

Hmm...I'm disappointed there's no picture. That would have made a good blog post.

Taking to the Streets, Taking to the Blogs

Why I Love the Horse Race - publius @ Obsidian Wings

Publius has posted an interesting view on the horse race that has been this primary election season. He's gone meta with it and examined the aesthetics of this election year, pondering the Political versus the political as candidates of a very diverse range compete against each other in sometimes hostile territory and in combative ways. For me, while I love talk of the Political, I've found another positive benefit from this primary season--that my parents have started to pay attention to the political blogs. More to the point, they're reading the good blogs too, the ones that shirk from the shrill and focus on the factual and intelligent. Whether that lasts I cannot say, but that they are no longer relying on the tv news pundits for opinions says a lot about how this primary season has inspired them to involved themselves, at least on the informational side, in this race. I don't know how many stories there are similar to mine but I'm sure many of my generation have seen their parents take to the blogs as well. Now that's a sea change my friends.

Worth More than a Hundred Pundits

Politics - xkcd

I think this statement by web comic xkcd pretty much sums up the sentiments of a lot of Americans when it comes to their support of Barak Obama. Beyond the sentiment that voting for Sen. Obama makes one feel 'proud', xkcd offers two points that I either hadn't known or thought of. One is Sen. Obama's support for the Open Source community and the use of open standards to create greater transparency between the government and the people. Sen. Obama's tapping of Lawrence Lessing's experience in understanding how the open source movement could help the federal government shows a lot about Sen. Obama's approach to government computing and software standards, along with records and document transparency.
The other point sounds a bit silly at first, but for a generation of 20-somethings raised on the cynicism of the Simpsons, the Daily Show and South Park, the desire to see Jon Stewart smile again is a strangely compelling reason to vote for Sen. Obama. The comics of xkcd are funny, witty, intelligent and, on occasion, incredibly sweet. So for it's writer to express such a sentiment is keeping within his character. I too want to see Jon Stewart smile again. He was the rallying point for me after 9/11 and I think for my generation, he can be a rallying point for a new politics. I hope you all give xkcd his due time and listen to his words. Whether you vote for Sen. Obama or not is up to you.

On Comments and the Strange World of Message Boards

I've witnessed some of the strangeness of message-board conversations, the trolls, the yes-men, the intelligent commentators, and the fierceness web debates can take on. The Newsarama message-boards are usually a lively affair, but then again, comic book fan boys are serious about just about everything. Those debates can take on surreal proportions as fan boys slug it out over the merits of an artist, the decisions of a company, the direction of a storyline or the characterization of their favorite characters by a new writer. The key thing commentators have to remember is to remain civil and the ones who garner the greatest respect are the ones who consistently make insightful or intriguing comments. Generally when those commentators weigh in on a subject the rest are ready to accept their wisdom and nibble at the boarders of the argument, seeking perfection.
Yes, message-boards are strange sometimes, but a new level of strangeness seems to have infected the comments section of several left-leaning blogs I read. To wit, I have watched as Clinton supporter after Clinton supporter waylay posts in support of Sen. Obama and those who offer their agreement with the remarks of the blogger. It's not quite troll-like behavior but does verge on it. What I find so strange though is the nature of the attacks on those who, at the very least, voice their agreement with a blogger who writes a post suggesting support for Sen. Obama. Now I don't necessarily know whether these attackers are Clinton supporters but they to display certain traits that mark them as such: a fierceness in their criticism of Sen. Obama, a push to ignore or spin questionable actions on the part of Sen. Clinton, and a tendency to accuse the media or those in the comment section of sheepishly following the Obamania.
Another strange element is the accusation that commentators who agree with pro-Obama sentiments are damaging the Democratic party or otherwise hampering the efforts of the Democratic party from attaining the Presidency. Now as an Obama support myself, I can't say I'm pleased with such sentiments but this has been an interesting primary season and I do think the attacks Sen. Obama has struggled against work to make him a better candidate for the general election. But there's an objective part of me that cringes whenever I see a post accusing Obama supporters of blind faith or levying attacks that rely on anecdotal evidence, the kind that are hard to substantiate with real evidence. It's...troubling to say the least. I believe that Clinton supporters do her a service by defending her in comment sections but I also believe they do her a disservice when they use such tactics to try and win a message-board argument. For one, it's a message-board argument. Only those who generally have a good grasp on the key elements of the issues and candidates post comments so attempting to persuade supporters of one candidate to switch their support is a bit of a lark. In addition, using such tactics as a means of winning these arguments only deepens the opposing supporters' beliefs. So I have a hard time seeing why Sen. Clinton's supporters would go so far out of their way over message-board comments. They display a rabidness that does not engender themselves to supporters of Sen. Obama or those sitting on the fence. I can't quite understand why Sen. Clinton's supporters believe they are doing anything good. The strangeness of message-boards doesn't quite encapsulate how strange these debates have become. It's a new arena I suppose, and a new tone for how message-boards will operate. I just don't get it yet.

CB Handles

What's In A Name? - Steven Heller

Heller makes a compelling argument for the use of real names in blogging and blog-commenting. It's often the case that one who uses a pseudonym feels more free to make comments they would otherwise temper if their identity were known. The blogosphere has allowed the masses to express their opinions and interests in rather highly public forms and the comment sections of blog post allow the same freedom for a blog's readers. Yet, as Heller point out, how trustworthy is a blogger or commentator when they hide behind a handle versus their own name. For whistleblowers or those who might otherwise put them and their families at risk by exposing their name, a pseudonym is understandable. But the vast majority of bloggers and blog-readers do not run such a risk. The only risk they run is having less than politel comments associated with their names and reputations.
This issue of pseudonym versus real name has gone beyond the message boards where flame wars, trolls and other kinds of rabblerousing exists. Many bloggers desire the same reputability as other journalists and thus want to make their blogs as accurate and open to criticism as possible. Even so, criticism that comes without attribution is less valuable than criticism that someone is willing to put their name behind. For a lot of critics, particularly of the troll variety, the pseudonym is a way of saying things without consideration or thought, without care for the veracity of their comments and without concern for lively and productive debate. They often do not play the role of devil's advocate or add anything of real value to the conversation. And when called upon it, many bloggers and commentors launch the accusation of 'fascist' to those who dare question their versimilitude. The existence of "Godwin's Law" since the mid-1990s is proof of the continuing existence of trolls and other commentors who would rather derail a conversation and focus on themselves than engage in a real debate.
The idea of requiring commentors and bloggers to use their real names is not meant to stifle conversation but to keep it civil. Let the pundits on tv embarass themselves with stupid and inane commentary. We the masses deserve better and one way to receive better is to call for an end of pseudonym usage in the blogosphere.