The End of Telecommuting II
With rural real estate markets so booming, how can I be proposing a coming re-de-population? Well, one answer is that these real estate markets are not booming with new migrants. They're booming with second-home owners. And if/when the bubble bursts, those folks are going to sell.
Now, I could be wrong. I wish I knew how to measure this statistically. But I'm intrigued by the fact that my favorite technologist, Steven Johnson, is thinking along similar lines in this Discover Magazine article. The Internet, he says, first benefited rural areas, because it provided items and services previously available only in cities. But that pendulum is swinging: the real benefit of cities is the concentration of interesting people, and the Internet is starting to enhance that as well.
It makes a lot of sense to me, because it parallels a previous pendulum swing. When the Internet was first invented, it benefited non-corporate types. Remember how it was going to change the world because everyone had access to information, everything was free, there was no way a big corporation would benefit? Well, eventually big corporations found ways to benefit, and the pendulum swung back.
For hundreds of years most (granted: not all, but most) people have preferred organizing themselves into large cities and corporations. I suspect that despite occasional blips in the other direction, that big picture is unlikely to change. Though there will continue to be some people who make their living in urban areas but live in rural areas, in coming years their numbers will dwindle.
Join the discussion at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johnclaytonoutreach/, or let me know your thoughts via info at johnclaytonbooks (and you can fill in the rest).
Now, I could be wrong. I wish I knew how to measure this statistically. But I'm intrigued by the fact that my favorite technologist, Steven Johnson, is thinking along similar lines in this Discover Magazine article. The Internet, he says, first benefited rural areas, because it provided items and services previously available only in cities. But that pendulum is swinging: the real benefit of cities is the concentration of interesting people, and the Internet is starting to enhance that as well.
It makes a lot of sense to me, because it parallels a previous pendulum swing. When the Internet was first invented, it benefited non-corporate types. Remember how it was going to change the world because everyone had access to information, everything was free, there was no way a big corporation would benefit? Well, eventually big corporations found ways to benefit, and the pendulum swung back.
For hundreds of years most (granted: not all, but most) people have preferred organizing themselves into large cities and corporations. I suspect that despite occasional blips in the other direction, that big picture is unlikely to change. Though there will continue to be some people who make their living in urban areas but live in rural areas, in coming years their numbers will dwindle.
Join the discussion at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johnclaytonoutreach/, or let me know your thoughts via info at johnclaytonbooks (and you can fill in the rest).
The End of Telecommuting?
Mention telecommuting, "lone eagles," "modem cowboys" or however you want to define the 1990s trend of not showing up at a central office every day, and the first example of the breed is writers. There may be others (software developers, investment advisors), but writing is presumably something you can do from anywhere.
So why is David Bradley moving the entire Atlantic magazine to Washington, DC?
Hmmm. We could hope Bradley is lying, that this is a cover for his plan to turn a great American magazine into another dull DC journal. Or we could hope he's mistaken, that he doesn’t grasp this concept that's so ingrained in our culture it made the cover of Time Magazine ten years ago. Or we could wonder if the freelancer model is not all it's cracked up to be.
How many of those "investment advisors" were just day traders, broken by the dot-com crash? How many of those software developers have since seen their jobs migrate even farther from the home office, to India? How many of those writers could have written "better" if surrounded not by scenery but other writers? (And I'm not sure what I mean by "better": More lucratively? In a more idea-saturated way? Trendier? One thing I don't mean is: in a more personally fulfilling way.)
Or is this just a pendulum that swings back and forth, with Bradley's move signifying a coming rural re-de-population?
Freelance professionals, I'd love to hear what you think. Join the discussion at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johnclaytonoutreach/, or let me know your thoughts via info at johnclaytonbooks followed by dot-com.
So why is David Bradley moving the entire Atlantic magazine to Washington, DC?
The real purpose, Mr. Bradley said, is to create a "talent destination" -— a critical mass of editors and writers in one place, to help draw others. He aspires, he explained, to create an atmosphere in which ideas and staff can flow between The Atlantic and his other publications.
Hmmm. We could hope Bradley is lying, that this is a cover for his plan to turn a great American magazine into another dull DC journal. Or we could hope he's mistaken, that he doesn’t grasp this concept that's so ingrained in our culture it made the cover of Time Magazine ten years ago. Or we could wonder if the freelancer model is not all it's cracked up to be.
How many of those "investment advisors" were just day traders, broken by the dot-com crash? How many of those software developers have since seen their jobs migrate even farther from the home office, to India? How many of those writers could have written "better" if surrounded not by scenery but other writers? (And I'm not sure what I mean by "better": More lucratively? In a more idea-saturated way? Trendier? One thing I don't mean is: in a more personally fulfilling way.)
Or is this just a pendulum that swings back and forth, with Bradley's move signifying a coming rural re-de-population?
Freelance professionals, I'd love to hear what you think. Join the discussion at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johnclaytonoutreach/, or let me know your thoughts via info at johnclaytonbooks followed by dot-com.
An honor
Here's one of the best lines I've seen in an obituary in quite some time:
Join the discussion at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johnclaytonoutreach/, or let me know your thoughts via info at johnclaytonbooks (and you can fill in the rest).
In recent years, Don often had the distinction of being the lead vehicle in a long, slow-moving line of cars.
Join the discussion at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johnclaytonoutreach/, or let me know your thoughts via info at johnclaytonbooks (and you can fill in the rest).
Empty endorsements
It's book-review week over at the Billings Outpost, which means it's time to give a big pat on the back to this alternative weekly for providing coverage of the Montana literary scene. In the NewWest discussion referenced below, some folks have complained that there are no decent reviews. But at the Outpost David Crisp just goes out and tries to create some.
On the other hand, I must admit the lead review did make me cringe. Roger Clawson reviews the blurbs before reviewing the book, and in so doing announces that most endorsers -- himself included -- haven't actually read the book in question. Is that the best way for a blurbophobe to combat such an empty practice? I'm sure the always-controversial Clawson would say so, though I'd rather he simply vowed to stop providing empty endorsements himself.
Second question: is a book review the best place to raise such issues? Or as this site points out (thanks to Terry Teachout for the link), should a book review simply identify books that people should or should not read?
Join the discussion at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johnclaytonoutreach/, or let me know your thoughts via info at johnclaytonbooks (and you can fill in the rest).
On the other hand, I must admit the lead review did make me cringe. Roger Clawson reviews the blurbs before reviewing the book, and in so doing announces that most endorsers -- himself included -- haven't actually read the book in question. Is that the best way for a blurbophobe to combat such an empty practice? I'm sure the always-controversial Clawson would say so, though I'd rather he simply vowed to stop providing empty endorsements himself.
Second question: is a book review the best place to raise such issues? Or as this site points out (thanks to Terry Teachout for the link), should a book review simply identify books that people should or should not read?
Join the discussion at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johnclaytonoutreach/, or let me know your thoughts via info at johnclaytonbooks (and you can fill in the rest).
NY "vs." the West
Over at New West they're debating the poor-stepchild condition of western writing as seen from New York. I contributed to the conversation (it's best read in context) but now I'm having second thoughts.
First of all, this is a very old debate, and I have to believe that every region of this country other than Manhattan island feels underappreciated by the New York literary giants. And these days, with technology lowering barriers to producing powerful new giants, isn't it better to stop complaining and just go do it?
But most importantly, although New York probably abets some lame mythologizing about the West, there are an awful lot of Western writers who've done quite well by it. Writers like to live in the West, they like to write about the West, and luckily for them, lots of people apparently like to read about the West as well. Even if the hand's not feeding you 100 percent steaks, it still might not be a good idea to bare your teeth.
(I was halfway through that paragraph when I realized that maybe instead of using "they" to describe Western writers I could use "we." Why didn't I? Inferiority complex, disingenuousness, justly-deserved humility...? Come to think of it, I'm not even comfortable answering that question!)
Join the discussion at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johnclaytonoutreach/, or let me know your thoughts via info at johnclaytonbooks (and you can fill in the rest).
First of all, this is a very old debate, and I have to believe that every region of this country other than Manhattan island feels underappreciated by the New York literary giants. And these days, with technology lowering barriers to producing powerful new giants, isn't it better to stop complaining and just go do it?
But most importantly, although New York probably abets some lame mythologizing about the West, there are an awful lot of Western writers who've done quite well by it. Writers like to live in the West, they like to write about the West, and luckily for them, lots of people apparently like to read about the West as well. Even if the hand's not feeding you 100 percent steaks, it still might not be a good idea to bare your teeth.
(I was halfway through that paragraph when I realized that maybe instead of using "they" to describe Western writers I could use "we." Why didn't I? Inferiority complex, disingenuousness, justly-deserved humility...? Come to think of it, I'm not even comfortable answering that question!)
Join the discussion at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johnclaytonoutreach/, or let me know your thoughts via info at johnclaytonbooks (and you can fill in the rest).
