"Of course, it could be that “funded” is not synonymous with “published” in the title...” -- this is what I was thinking (hoping?). Although that does seem a little coy. Also, you mentioned that someone said readers/book lovers would pay for the literature of the future. I don't think most of them will be publishing the books they buy, but in order for the lit of the future (LOTF?) to exist, people have to be buying those books? But, no, they aren't funding them and won't be. The whole question has a sort of semi-apocalyptic aura to it. Ha, but I think that's just me.
An alternative to the current model would be to employ AI to create a meaningful, non-profit, search for literature and fiction that could match readers to works at a much lower cost than methods currently used by publishing. While AI ought not (in my opinion) be used for writing, it could be used to analyze text, ferreting out the emotional journey, narrative structure, theme, number of characters, reading level, and other characteristics that determine a reader’s preference. Publishers would not compete on marketing, but on price and content, and there would be no mechanism for one or more to rule the AI. As people drop newspaper subscriptions, a new source for book reviews is needed. In addition, though we can’t calculate the benefit of reviews left on Amazon, that benefit would be better assigned to a non-profit matching AI.
This is a cool idea! Reminds me a bit of Kevin Kelly's famous "1,000 True Fans" thesis (https://kk.org/thetechnium/1000-true-fans/; TLDR The internet lets people reach a much more targeted community of readers/subscribers than the old mass marketing model.) Interesting to imagine that AI could help broker even more targeted relationships between creators and consumers of art than the internet did before it.
One thing I worry about in this world is the AI equivalent of SEO. If AI becomes readers' main discovery mechanism for new books, there's a risk of writers creating work the *AI* will deem recommendation-worthy—which might be different from what readers actually want (or the books they didn't even know they needed!).
Thanks Anne. Publishers have to sell books, and "literary" sells, just not very well. Occasionally, however, a book becomes a classic. Then it sells year in and year out, to university bookstores, libraries whose copies wear out, and each new crop of lit readers. This is a guaranteed stream of income in an industry where here today, gone tomorrow is the rule.
"Of course, it could be that “funded” is not synonymous with “published” in the title...” -- this is what I was thinking (hoping?). Although that does seem a little coy. Also, you mentioned that someone said readers/book lovers would pay for the literature of the future. I don't think most of them will be publishing the books they buy, but in order for the lit of the future (LOTF?) to exist, people have to be buying those books? But, no, they aren't funding them and won't be. The whole question has a sort of semi-apocalyptic aura to it. Ha, but I think that's just me.
Just my two cents about the U Chicago Press list at the end: I've been reading the Milton Mayer book the last few months and it's incredible.
An alternative to the current model would be to employ AI to create a meaningful, non-profit, search for literature and fiction that could match readers to works at a much lower cost than methods currently used by publishing. While AI ought not (in my opinion) be used for writing, it could be used to analyze text, ferreting out the emotional journey, narrative structure, theme, number of characters, reading level, and other characteristics that determine a reader’s preference. Publishers would not compete on marketing, but on price and content, and there would be no mechanism for one or more to rule the AI. As people drop newspaper subscriptions, a new source for book reviews is needed. In addition, though we can’t calculate the benefit of reviews left on Amazon, that benefit would be better assigned to a non-profit matching AI.
This is a cool idea! Reminds me a bit of Kevin Kelly's famous "1,000 True Fans" thesis (https://kk.org/thetechnium/1000-true-fans/; TLDR The internet lets people reach a much more targeted community of readers/subscribers than the old mass marketing model.) Interesting to imagine that AI could help broker even more targeted relationships between creators and consumers of art than the internet did before it.
One thing I worry about in this world is the AI equivalent of SEO. If AI becomes readers' main discovery mechanism for new books, there's a risk of writers creating work the *AI* will deem recommendation-worthy—which might be different from what readers actually want (or the books they didn't even know they needed!).
Good (frightening) point!
Thanks Anne. Publishers have to sell books, and "literary" sells, just not very well. Occasionally, however, a book becomes a classic. Then it sells year in and year out, to university bookstores, libraries whose copies wear out, and each new crop of lit readers. This is a guaranteed stream of income in an industry where here today, gone tomorrow is the rule.