I’ve been thinking, thanks to Noah (see his 1 january entry, and also today’s), about subscription-based Web content. He writespeaks out against it because, among other things,
if the network becomes largely subscription based (or micropayment based) then we’ll be restricting writing and reading to those who can pay - giving up on the dream I grew up on in public schools and libraries (of people being able to read and write at all income levels, or even as children with no money to spend).
He also talks about this in terms of linking – following Ted Nelson, he envisions the Web as a docuverse, in which we continually link the writing we add outselves to other writings already up there. If a link leads to a subscription-based service, and the reader is not subscribed to it, the reading experience is frustrating. (Consider: Even if the reader is subscribed to NYTimes, which does not require payment for subscription, the reading process is often annoyingly interrupted by a sign-in request.)
I can’t say I disagree with Noah’s lack of desire to publish writing that is not freely available. However, on a larger scale, it seems futile to me to attempt complete eradication of money-based Web publishing paradigms. One may choose to not participate in them, but they will remain, and will continue to offer content for which someone will be willing to pay. I think it would be better use of energy to (in addition to not writing for subscription-based publications) concentrate on getting, say, public libraries and schools subscriptions to this content and thus making it, like paper-bound books, available to the public at large at least through those venues.
The reason I’m so interested in this topic is that the Web, essentially, multiplies to some grand power the speed of cultural transmission – which is one of the things I am observing while studying Roland’s progress through the Western space and time. The reasons for cultural borrowing, the volunteering of information (literary and performative included) that may then be borrowed, the impetus to make use of one foreign story more than others… humans are fascinating.
On a slightly different note, this discussion is food for thought with regard to scholarly publication. There is a plethora of free Web-based publication space. So why publish in, say, Literary and Linguistic Computing, or in Computers and the Humanities? The first one is put out by ALLC and is available only with a membership in it. The second is published by ACH and, while available for subscription separately from a membership, is significantly discounted for members of the organization. Both publications are available in print and electronic forms.
The answer for me – and this is applicable in my mind only to scholarly publication in this still very small, heavily dependent on peer review, field – is that the two are not mutually exclusive, and not mutually harmful. I choose to pay for membership in both organizations because they provide me with tangible benefits aside from these publications, and because the work they do cannot happen without members’ financial support. This means that some of my writing (and I do not intend to place undue value on it, here) will not be available without someone’s – say, a university library’s – payment of a subscription fee. I am not really sure what the benefit for me is; except perhaps that as of this moment, publication that is only electronic is considered somehow less academically credible. This perception is slowly changing, but it will be some time; and it will also take more electronic publication venues that are rigorously peer-reviewed than we now have.
This last paragraph above isn’t really applicable to electronic literature and other artistic pursuits. But then, the linked/linking docuverse doesn’t consist solely of art.
