Sadly, I had my most page views today after writing a post about a guy engaging in simulated sex acts while literally in the act of pitching a tent. Crude, ironic, scarring, take your pick because to me, I am a bit non-plussed.
I'm a serious dude. Really.
Actually, what I wanted to write about was not a rehash of the days blog traffic (which, to be honest, still kind of blows), but rather the notion of choice.
No pulpit and no anger. I want to write and I think others want to do the same, but increasingly I find myself popping in and out of blogs that are either pro-tech or anti-tech. Some writers want to do away with print books and not look back and they want to do it yesterday because tomorrow just ain't soon enough. Then there are those who resist (actively or in a state of oblivion) any change.
Sure, there are those who ride around in the middle, but the forums where such discussions are held are decidedly one sided places.
I've been thinking about all this and at first annoyance was my primary feeling. It just seems stupid, another reason for people to fight about what amounts to a trivial matter that will be solved with time, no matter what anyone says or does. Progress wins out and old tech is consumed by new.
But right or wrong? I guess that's the heart of my rambling. Assigning blame, picking a side and then deriding the intentions and intelligence of the opposition is where the crux of my problem lies.
Unrestrained change is bad. There needs to be opposition. I've been thinking of it this way:
We adopt e-books instantly with no opposition, no push back. Everyone says hey, change is good, we need to adopt the new tech because that's where the industry is logically headed. So no more print and everyone is buying Kindles, Nooks, Ipads and the like. Sounds great. No needless debate and hey, eventually electronic formats will win out anyway, so why delay? You stick in the mud, old-tech lovers, you need to recognize and embrace the future. Stop being an anchor.
Ok. My thought is this. Isn't better to have this transition, this slow adoption and the opposition? Indie writers are finding power in the transition with better percentages than ever before and writers are able to shape and direct the market, at least more so than ever in history. There are opportunities.
Now, with quick and unopposed adoption, wouldn't that mean the traditional publishers retaining control. They wouldn't be holding onto the past. They would be just like everyone else and they would just transition with everyone else to e-books. That would give them the power, or allow them to retain the power they have currently. We need this slow transition in my opinion in order to have actual change that is meaningful.
Am I off base? Or do I got something?