Thought-provoking post in many ways! I enjoy David Brooks but his POV on this topic strikes me as being an entertaining version of that fuddy-duddy complaint about the internet--that it ruins the newer generations' capacity for enjoying truly important content. (Partly because on the 'net the "important" stuff doesn't squeeze out other stuff, and partly because everyone's attention span is supposedly getting shorter, we're reading less, etc.) I rejoice every day that the 'net leaves more gatekeepers behind in the dust! It collapses corrupt hierarchies! It foils vested interests! It unites the previously disenfranchised! I think the 'net is the best thing to happen to creatives and their works. As a creative type, Brooks' comment (in your post) has an odd ring to me. I think he has it backwards in fact! I find that creative work finally has a permanent presence thanks to the 'net, whereas buzz comes and goes. Buzz on the 'net is like a flame and it can flare into a wildfire in a day, or extinguish just as fast. Yes, a blaze of buzz becomes permanently recorded on the 'net, but fresh buzz is what matters because it's always on top.
All Comments
I rejoice every day that the 'net leaves more gatekeepers behind in the dust! It collapses corrupt hierarchies! It foils vested interests! It unites the previously disenfranchised! I think the 'net is the best thing to happen to creatives and their works.
As a creative type, Brooks' comment (in your post) has an odd ring to me. I think he has it backwards in fact! I find that creative work finally has a permanent presence thanks to the 'net, whereas buzz comes and goes. Buzz on the 'net is like a flame and it can flare into a wildfire in a day, or extinguish just as fast. Yes, a blaze of buzz becomes permanently recorded on the 'net, but fresh buzz is what matters because it's always on top.