Should Uncle be in the masterpiece business?
Jonathan Yardley warns against government boondoggles for writers. He is right to worry, given all the risks of state-approved culture. This is one reason why TeleRead for the most part would compensate writers and publishers in the same way they get paid now–by the popularity of individual titles. Private foundations could still subsidize writers, but that would hardly be the main business of the library system itself.
Of course, with social needs in mind rather than those of individual writers, TeleRead in a small way could make grants for projects in the tradition of the old WPA efforts.
More importantly, via the efficiencies of electronic distribution, a fully developed TeleRead would send far more money in the direction of writers and publishers than they are receiving today. Also, TeleRead could help draw more private support for the operation of our library system. Prospective donors would know that a good infrastructure existed to spread the books around. Simply put, TeleRead would offer a good value for their philanthropy.
Today most money for libraries goes not for books and other content but for buildings and salaries. Not that TeleRead would end the need for skilled librarians or neighborhood libraries (in fact, TeleRead would empower good local libraries by increasing the range of content available). But it would reduce the need for palatial libraries and armies of book-stackers. The saved money could be a godsend to writers and publishers. Like tech, book publishing isn’t growing as quickly as in the past. TeleRead would help both.
Followup, July 30: Culture czar James Billington, with his jihad against e-book boosters and the untamed regions of the Internet, is a perfect example of the dangers of a giving the government too much power over literature and other forms of creativity.
Leave a Reply