Is a golden age of reading is gradually, suddenly, almost here?

May 4, 2012

A must-read piece from Cory Doc­torow for those inter­est­ed in the changes in pub­lish­ing, Why the death of DRM would be good news for read­ers, writ­ers and pub­lish­ers.  He’s pre­dict­ing the end of DRM (dig­i­tal rights man­age­ment) and look­ing for­ward to a day when for­mats and read­ers are interchangable:

The cheap-and-cheerful man­u­fac­tur­ers at the low end don’t have a sec­ondary mar­ket they’re try­ing to pro­tect, no app store or cru­cial ven­dor rela­tion­ship with a big dis­trib­u­tor or pub­lish­er. They just want a prod­uct that ticks the box for every pos­si­ble cus­tomer. Since mul­ti­for­mat sup­port is just a mat­ter of get­ting the soft­ware right, what tends to hap­pen is that a stan­dard, com­mod­i­ty firmware emerges for these devices that just works for just about every­thing, and the for­mats van­ish into the background.

Many read­ers and pub­lish­ers have been upset at the recent Depart­ment of Jus­tice accu­sa­tions of price-fixing by major pub­lish­ers. The real bad guy, we’re remind­ed over and over, is Ama­zon. The pub­lish­ers are so scared of Ama­zon that they devel­oped a pric­ing scheme (the “agency mod­el”) that often nets them less mon­ey than they get from Ama­zon. But for all it’s mar­ket share, most of Ama­zon’s advan­tages come from smart sales­man­ship and a big-picture view that helps it devel­op an ecosys­tem that “locks in” cus­tomers (e.g., I use Ama­zon video on demand to watch TV, which means I get free ship­ping when I pur­chase from them, I get to “bor­row” an elec­tron­ic book a month, etc., which means when I want­ed to buy an e‑reader, it was real­ly only a mat­ter of which mod­el of Kin­dle I would choose). As Doc­torow points out, the most ubiqutious e‑reader is the cell­phone and most of us get a new one every two years – Ama­zon’s dom­i­nance could end rel­a­tive­ly quick­ly with the right com­pe­ti­tion. Get­ting rid of DRM con­tent lev­els the play­ing field.

I’m not sure I’m as opti­mistic as Doc­torow that DRM is about to sim­ply dis­ap­pear. But I agree it’s what needs to hap­pen. It would make Ama­zon just anoth­er sell­er. Pub­lish­ers could stop focus­ing on it and start tak­ing tak­ing more respons­bil­i­ty for shap­ing the future of pub­lish­ing. (Where might that be going? Five Rea­sons The Future Will Be Ruled By B.S. is a high­ly enter­tain­ing read and more cor­rect than incor­rect.) But gloom is not the fore­cast. A recent arti­cle in The Atlantic (chart right) per­sua­sive­ly argues that we are in a Gold­en Age of read­er­ship:

Our col­lec­tive mem­o­ry of past is astound­ing­ly inac­cu­rate. Not only has the num­ber of peo­ple read­ing not declined pre­cip­i­tous­ly, it’s actu­al­ly gone up since the per­ceived gold­en age of Amer­i­can let­ters. So, then why is there this wide­spread per­cep­tion that we are a fall­en lit­er­ary peo­ple? I think, as Mar­shall Kirk­patrick says, that social media acts as a kind of truth serum. Before, only the lit­er­ary peo­ple had plat­forms. Now, all the peo­ple have platforms.

The oth­er thread that’s been run­ning through my head these past few weeks is a G+ post from Tim O’Reil­ly that pulls a quote from ter­rif­ic quote from Hem­ing­way (“How did you go bank­rupt?” “Two ways. Grad­u­al­ly, then suddenly.”):

I love lines from lit­er­a­ture that crys­tal­lize a notion, and then become tools in your men­tal tool­box. This is one of those. Keep it handy, because you’re going to see “grad­u­al­ly, then sud­den­ly” process­es hap­pen increas­ing­ly in the next few decades, not just in tech­nol­o­gy and in indus­tries trans­formed by tech­nol­o­gy, but in glob­al issues like cli­mate change, and in politics.

Rare video of the old Amatol/Atlantic City Racetrack outside Hammonton

May 2, 2012

Hard to believe, but a huge race­track of inter­na­tion­al renown once sat on Moss Mill Road just east of Ham­mon­ton, NJ. The site is now indis­tin­guish­able for­rest, with a typ­i­cal Pine Bar­ren sand trail that fol­lows the old oval. I haven’t explored it yet but hope to soon. Just Google for Ama­tol Race­way and you’ll find lots of pic­tures and accounts.

Future of Quaker media at Pendle Hill next month

April 27, 2012

I’m part of a dis­cus­sion at the Pen­dle Hill con­fer­ence cen­ter out­side Philadel­phia next month. Every­one’s invit­ed. It’s a rare chance to real­ly bring a lot of dif­fer­ent read­ers and media pro­duc­ers (offi­cial and DIY) togeth­er into the same room to map out where Quak­er media is head­ed. If you’re a pas­sion­ate read­er or think that Quak­er pub­li­ca­tions are vital to our spir­i­tu­al move­ment, then do try to make it out.

Youtube, Twit­ter, pod­casts, blogs, books. Where’s it all going and who’s doing it? How does it tie back to Quak­erism? What does it mean for Friends and our insti­tu­tions? Join pan­elists Charles Mar­tin, Gabriel Ehri and Mar­tin Kel­ley, along with Quak­er pub­lish­ers and writ­ers from around the world, and read­ers and media enthu­si­asts, for a wide-ranging dis­cus­sion about the future of Quak­er media.

We will begin with some wor­ship at 7.00pm If you’d like a deli­cious Pen­dle Hill din­ner before­hand please reply to the Face­book event wall (see http://​on​.fb​.me/​q​u​a​k​e​r​m​e​dia). Din­ner is at 6.00pm and will cost $12.50

This is part of this year’s Quak­ers Unit­ing in Pub­li­ca­tions con­fer­ence. QUIP has been hav­ing to re-imagine its role over the last ten years as so many of its anchor pub­lish­ers and book­stores have closed. I have a big con­cern that a lot of online Quak­er mate­r­i­al is being pro­duced by non-Quakers and/or in ways that aren’t real­ly root­ed in typ­i­cal Quak­er process­es. Maybe we can talk about that some at Pen­dle Hill.

Missionary zeal vs international fellowship

April 13, 2012

On a late lunch, just fin­ished “Con­flict­ing Views on For­eign Mis­sions: The Mis­sion Board of Philadel­phia Year­ly Meet­ing of Freinds in the 1920s” by Tesuko Toda from the Fall 2011 issue of Quak­er His­to­ry.

Sounds like a page turn­er, right? But it’s inter­est­ing his­to­ry that’s still res­onat­ing. Toda’s piece sheds light on a gen­er­a­tional sea change that hap­pened among the evangelical-leaning sub­set of Philadel­phia Friends (a minor­i­ty of the Ortho­dox year­ly meeting):

When the sto­ry begins, Friends inter­est­ed in mis­sion work have to orga­nize inde­pen­dent of the year­ly meet­ing. Over time they come into the fold but it’s right when younger Friends are giv­ing up the idea of bring­ing Chris­tian­i­ty to the hea­thens for the idea of inter­na­tion­al fel­low­ship (a sim­i­lar atti­tude change was hap­pen­ing through­out Protes­tant denom­i­na­tions).  Toda writes:

Young Philadel­phi­an Friends did sup­port for­eign mis­sions, but did not sup­port con­ven­tion­al ones. Actu­al­ly, none of them approved of for­eign mis­sions aimed at con­ver­sion. Although some point­ed out the advan­tages of Friends mis­sions, no one insist­ed on denom­i­na­tion­al mis­sions. What kind of for­eign mis­sions did young Philadel­phia Friends think was suit­able for the new era (the 1920s), then? The first point to be not­ed is that young Philadel­phia Friends unan­i­mous­ly had a neg­a­tive view of tra­di­tion­al missionaries.

There’s a lot of back-and-forth in the group but it final­ly fun­nelled its ener­gies into the still-new Amer­i­can Friends Ser­vice Com­mit­tee. The AFSC had been set up to sup­port con­sci­en­tious objec­tors in World War I and there was no expec­tion that it might con­tin­ue after the war. That it did was because it bet­ter rep­re­sent­ed the inter­na­tion fel­low­ship model.

I’m not going to write a full review but those of you inter­est­ed in the soci­o­log­i­cal his­to­ry of that kind of bold, “let’s change the world” ener­gy in Friends should look it up, as should those curi­ous about how gen­er­a­tional shifts some­times play out in year­ly meet­ing politics.

Resurrection with the Cross and Rabbi

April 11, 2012

Of course, that is not the part of the sto­ry that moti­vates me. I am not seek­ing to be abused and betrayed, let down by my best friends and hunt­ed by those in pow­er. I may rec­og­nize the neces­si­ty of suf­fer­ing, but by no means do I seek it out. I think most of us grav­i­tate towards the tri­umphant vic­to­ry and joy of Jesus\’ resurrection

    <p><strong>Tags:</strong>

        <a href=\"http://www.diigo.com/user/martinkelley/Quaker\" rel=\"tag\">Quaker</a>

        <a href=\"http://www.diigo.com/user/martinkelley/blog\" rel=\"tag\">blog</a>

Outreach as Retention

April 9, 2012

From Cal­lid Keefe-Perry, a vlog entry on the appar­ent dis­crep­ancy between what Friends think they want to be doing (out­reach) ver­sus what they think makes for a healthy meet­ing (deep wor­ship), as indi­cat­ed by a just-released sur­vey from Friends Gen­er­al Con­fer­ence, the umbrel­la orga­ni­za­tion for many of North Amer­i­ca’s Lib­er­al Friends.


Cal­lid says:

there’s a dis­con­nect between deep wor­ship as a mark of health, and out­reach as the most impor­tant thing to do. We try as peo­ple to make things hap­pen that are beyond our con­trol. If we real­ly attend­ed to deep wor­ship, if we attend­ed to root­ing our com­mu­nies in a sense of dis­ci­ple­ship and dis­ci­pline, then out­reach and care for com­mu­ni­ty, and lead­ing by exam­ple would come from that. Those things are fruits; their root is liv­ing in the pres­ence, liv­ing in gospel order. I’m con­cerned that in the hus­tle and bus­tle of out­reach and mak­ing things work we might miss that still small voice. [Loose tran­script, light­ly edited]

There is much we can do to pro­mote com­mu­ni­ty aware­ness of Friends (aka “out­reach”), but I sus­pect the great­est effect of our efforts is inter­nal – rais­ing our own con­scious­ness about how to be vis­i­ble and wel­com­ing. Friends are always get­ting free pub­lic­i­ty (just this morn­ing I fin­ished Jef­frey Eugenides’s The Mar­riage Plot, whose final pages are prac­ti­cal­ly an ad for our reli­gious soci­ety, and there’s the seeker-producing mill of the Belief-o-Matic Quiz). What if vis­i­bil­i­ty isn’t our biggest prob­lem? Cal­lid’s post reminds me of some­thing that Robin Mohr said when I inter­viewed her “Eight Ques­tions on Con­ver­gent Friends” for Friends Jour­nal:

Though it may be dif­fer­ent in oth­er places, San Fran­cis­co always had peo­ple vis­it­ing; there was no short­age of new vis­i­tors. The key was get­ting them to come back… I don’t think the Con­ver­gent Friends move­ment is nec­es­sar­i­ly going to solve our out­reach issues, but it can absolute­ly change the reten­tion rate.

What if we thought of out­reach as a reten­tion issue? How would it relate to the “deep wor­ship” the survey-takers lift­ed up?

Russian Old Believers in Millville NJ

March 13, 2012

A few weeks ago we were con­tact­ed by some­one from the St Nicholas Cen­ter (http://​www​.stni​cholas​cen​ter​.org) ask­ing if they could use some pho­tos I had tak­en of the church my wife is attend­ing, Mil­lville N.J.‘s St Nicholas Ukrain­ian Catholic. Of course I said yes. But then my cor­re­spon­dent asked if I could take pic­tures of anoth­er church she had heard of: St Nicholas Old Believ­er’s Church. It’s on the oth­er side of Mil­lville from our St Nick­’s, on an ancient road that dead ends in woods. We had to visit.

The Old Believ­ers have a fas­ci­nat­ing his­to­ry. They were Russ­ian Ortho­dox Chris­tians who refused to com­ply with litur­gi­cal changes man­dat­ed by the Patri­arch and Czar in the 1650s. As usu­al, there was a lot of pol­i­tics involved, with the Czar want­i­ng to cozy up with the Greek Ortho­dox to ally Rus­sia against the Mus­lim Ottomans, etc., etc. The the­o­log­i­cal charge was that the Greek tra­di­tions were the stan­dard and Russ­ian dif­fer­ences latter-day inno­va­tions to be stamped out (more mod­ern research has found the Rus­sians actu­al­ly were clos­er to the old­er forms, but no mat­ter: what the Czar and Patri­arch want, the Czar and Patri­arch get). The old prac­tices were banned, begin­ning hun­dreds of years of state-sponsored per­se­cu­tion for the “Old Believ­ers.” The sur­vivors scat­tered to the four cor­ners of the Russ­ian empire and beyond, keep­ing a low pro­file wher­ev­er they went.

The Old Believ­ers have a fas­ci­nat­ing frac­tured his­to­ry. Because their priests were killed off in the sev­en­teenth cen­tu­ry, they lost their claims of apos­tolic suc­ces­sion – the idea that there’s an unbro­ken line of ordi­na­tion from Jesus Christ him­self. Some Old Believ­ers found work-arounds or claimed a few priests were spared but the hard­core among them declared suc­ces­sion over, sig­nal­ing the end times and the fall of the Church. They became priest­less Old Believ­ers – so defen­sive of the old litur­gy that they were will­ing to lose most of the litur­gy. They’ve scat­tered around the world, often wear­ing plain dress and liv­ing in iso­lat­ed communities.

The Old Believ­ers church in Mil­lville has no signs, no web­site, no indi­ca­tion of what it is (a life­long mem­ber of “our” St Nick­’s called it mys­te­ri­ous and said he lit­tle about it of it). From a few inter­net ref­er­ences, they appear to be the priest­less kind of Old Believ­ers. But it has its own dis­tinc­tions: appar­ent­ly one of the great­est icono­g­ra­phers of the twen­ti­eth cen­tu­ry lived and wor­shipped there, and when famed Russ­ian polit­i­cal pris­on­er Alek­san­dr Solzhen­it­syn vis­it­ed the U.S. he made a point of speak­ing at this sign­less church on a dead end road.

Links:
* Wikipedia: http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​O​l​d​_​B​e​l​i​e​v​ers
* Account of US Lithuan­ian Bespopovt­sy com­mu­ni­ties: http://​www​.synax​is​.info/​o​l​d​-​r​i​t​e​/​0​_​o​l​d​b​e​l​i​e​f​/​h​i​s​t​o​r​y​_​e​n​g​/​n​i​c​o​l​l​.​h​tml
* OSU Library on icono­g­ra­ph­er Sofronv (PDF): http://​cmrs​.osu​.edu/​r​c​m​s​s​/​C​M​H​2​1​c​o​l​o​r​.​pdf
* Solzhen­it­syn’s 1976 vis­it: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f‑news/2057793/posts

In album St Nicholas Old Believ­ers, Mil­lville NJ (9 photos)