Scott Rosenberg, co-founder of Salon and the author of Dreaming in Code, has posted at Salon an interview with me about Everything is Miscellaneous.

At his blog, Scott adds some “out-takes” from the interview, and recommends the book. Thanks, Scott. [Tags: salon scott_rosenberg everything_is_miscellaneous folksonomy taxonomy tagging]

Nick Carr writes a long disagreement with the book, based on my statement that the track is the “natural unit” of music. (Nick does not comment on anything beyond that sentence on page 9.)

Nick is correct. Tracks are clearly not “natural.” The book overall is an argument against there being a natural units and a natural organization of them. I meant the “natural” to be lightly ironic in this case. And he is of course also right that there is value in how albums arrange tracks so that the whole is more than the parts. [Added a few hours later:] But, in the third order of order, we can get not only the Beatles’ way of arranging their White Album, we can also get George Martin’s remix, how Ringo wanted it played , the revelatory way some unknown kid in Akron mixes it up with the Beach Boys, and the original order minus that one song we can’t stand (AKA “Revolution #9″). The miscellaneous isn’t about there being no order. It is about the potential for many, many orders.

So, I don’t agree with the characterization of the argument of the book he derives from this one phrase. I’m disappointed that Nick found this sentence to be a “stopper.”

Here it is an iPod compatible download. (Try renaming it to .mp4 if your player thinks it can’t play it.)

At EverythingIsMiscellaneous.com, I've posted about the joy of reading an edition of Hamlet that surfaces hundreds of years of scholarly disputes about the meaning of Shakespeare's words, disputes that often are without resolution. We don't know what the old bird/bard meant, but that's all the more reason to love him! [Tags: shakespeare everything_is_miscellaneous hamlet hermeneutics ]

I’ve been having an unnaturally good time going through the Hamlet Variorum (Horace Howard Furness, ed.), which annotates the play with the commentary and disputes that have gone on for hundreds of years. For reasons I don’t understand, I’m made quite happy by reading that the great scholars have suggested that when the Gentleman in Act IV, Scene 5, line 101 says “The ratifiers and props of every word,” there are reasons to think that Shakespeare might actually have meant the last word to be ward, weal, work, worth or wont. Likewise, I am brought joy by the nearly two pages of fine-print dispute over the line “He smote the sledded Polacks on the ice” (I,i, 63). “Sledded Polacks”? Sliding Polacks? Sleaded battle axe, although we don’t know what “sleaded” meant? A pole-axe lined with lead? And if he meant Poles on sleds, what the hell were they doing on sleds? What with three folios to choose from, and the possibility that errors were introduced in transcription and by compositors, not to mention the lack of spelling standards, there’s no shortage of ways the existing texts could misreflect Shakespeare’s intentions.

I truly don’t understand why I enjoy this so much. It is not a devilish delight in finding that we really don’t understand a prominent member of the canon. I love Hamlet all the more for having its ambiguity exposed. Truly. Obviously, the richness of Shakespeare’s work has always meant there are an indefinite number of ways a performance can make sense of the script. A performance can always surprise you. The fact that Hamlet can either be indecisive or a man of action, crazy or feigning, a person of feeling or reason — and, yes, I have my own preferences — is not a weakness of the play. It means there’s always more to discover. And each successful interpretation thrills us with sense-making as the ultimate creative act. But finding that there are historical ambiguities that are simple matters of fact — Shakespeare meant something by “sledded Polacks” — should diminish our enjoyment of the text, like finding out that Bach spilled coffee on the original score of one of his cantatas so we can’t be sure what some of the notes are.

But it doesn’t feel that way to me. Perhaps it’s because the difficulty of Shakespearean language has always meant that I can’t understand it word by word. The meaning has always had to emerge line by line, scene by scene; the language’s distance requires work on our part to hear it at all. Discovering a set of possible meanings for words adds clarity without determination: Here are five different things Shakespeare might have meant by a phrase I didn’t understand, didn’t pay attention to, or had projected the easiest meaning onto: Poles on sleds.

The Hamlet Variorum comes in two volumes. The first contains the full text of the play, including notes on the differences in the quartos and the critical annotations. The second contains source materials. I only have the first volume. It’s a Dover reprint so it’s even moderately priced at $13. I highly recommend it. [Tags: shakespeare hamlet variorum interpretation hermeneutics everything_is_miscellaneous]

Matthew Pearl, author of The Dante Club, is giving a Berkman talk. Gene Koo (his ex roommate) introduces him as someone doing a form of literary remix. He's teaching a class at Harvard Law called "Literary Visions of Copyright." He's going to talk about the 19th Century copyright battles. [As always, I'm approximating. Matthew speaks eloquently; live blogging generally misses the eloquence.]

The Copyright League consisted mainly of authors who "wanted to rethink and reshape" copyright. James Russell Lowell — poet and president of the League — came up with the motto:

"In vain we call old notions fudge and bend our conscience to our dealing. The Ten Commandments will not budge and stealing will still be stealing." [Approx.]

"This became a mantra for copyright advocates." Note the appeal to a higher authority, Matthew points out.The motto compares commercial dealings to an older and higher regime. Writers at the time — Louisa Alcott, Mark Twain, etc. — petitioned Congress in support of copyright. The US laws were pretty much are they are today, but there was no international protection: British authors couldn't get copyright protection here. This meant US publishers could publish British authors without paying a cent. This also undermined several generations of American authors because a Dickens book only cost $0.25 but a Twain might cost $1.25. (Harper, the publisher, was "the most notorious and proud pirate," says Matthew.)

Kipling wrote a poem about buccaneers that's about book poetry, which someone referred to as "bookaneers." Poe's "Purloined Letter" is about writing stolen but left in public view, another metaphor for book piracy. Dickens, who called himself "the biggest loser" because of his lost royalties, wrote Martin Chuzzlewit about an unstable American system. Harriet Beecher Stowe sued a publisher for publishing a German translation. She lost the case, and was criticized for being against treating people as property but favoring treating books as property. [Wow. These seem to be separable issues!]

There was tentativeness among the authors supporting copyright, says Matthew. They wanted to protect authors but not crush the laborers who manufactured books; if copyright were introduced, they feared book manufacturing would move to other countries. Also, the lack of international copyright enabled cheap editions, supporting a democratic ideal. Mark Twain and Walt Whitman were especially sensitive to these concerns; Whitman's Leaves of Grass positioned him as a friend of labor. Dickens was making tons of money on his speaking tour and was painted as greedy for wanting royalties also. Matthew compares this to current attitudes towards rich rock bands. People also argued that we needed copyright freedom in order to alter British texts for American readers, including taking out some of the lords-and-ladies feel. (A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court is about American hostility to that, Matthew says.)

Matthew says some of the fun of studying this is that the authors are imposing a narrative on the topic. It's a narrative of natural rights and pirates, even though according to the law at the time, the "pirates" were doing nothing wrong. "They became pirates because that's what we put into our rhetoric until we believed it." "All of this gradually wore down the paradigm of a collective ownership of the works."

Matthew says that we should learn at how we're creating our own narrative of piracy. E.g., the FBI warning at the beginning of DVDs even though copying a DVD for your own use is legal. E.g., Disney recently bought the copyright to Oswald the Rabbit (its pre-Mickey character) even though Oswald's first three cartoons are out of copyright and thus Oswald is out of copyright; Disney is shaping the narrative. Google Books is now also trying to shape the narrative.

Q: [me] Were there moral arguments in favor of not having international copyright?
A: The most effective argument was that it would hurt our workers.

Q: What about logical consistency, protecting authors everywhere?
A: There was a different sense of boundaries. We assume a globalized world. But people were not embracing the natural rights argument. Copyright didn't come out of a rights argument originally, in the Constitution. Someone said it was about copy privilege, not copy right.

Q: (ethanz) In other parts of the world, they make an argument that they need pirated texts in order to go to university. The US violated British copyright when it was developing, so it's right for India and China to do so now. How would Twain et al. have replied to this?
A: Fascinating argument. We didn't have a national literature in the 19th C. Moby-Dick was dismissed. All we can do is imitate, it was thought. One argument was that we need easy access to the British texts until we've established our own American literature.

Q: Would people have paid more if there were a different copyright regime?
A: They get into the minutia of it in the Senate arguments. There's no agreement. The introduction of public access libraries in the middle of the century threw the pricing up into the air.

Q: Was there a parallel rhetoric in Europe?
A: There wasn't much market for American books in England (Cooper and Twain were exceptions), so the British were all for copyright. The government got involved.

Q: Dickens and others acknowledged that they got wider distribution because their earlier books were pirated in the US.
A: Same thing with Google Books: You're getting attention for your books, especially for books that are out of print.

Q: Did people argue that writers wouldn't write or wouldn't share it with the public?
A: Yes. You see this in the Senate hearings. Without copyright, you couldn't professionalize writing enough to enable writers to earn a living, it was argued. Twain said that writers should go live in England for a bit before publishing to get British copyright protection; he was out of touch with what writers can do.

Q: Initially, copyright protection went to printers, not authors. How did that transition happen?
A: (Simon) In the Renaissance, patrons gained prestige from the affiliation. In 18th C Ireland, Swift was able to prosper without copyright. It's an interesting to compare cultures that have and do not have copyright protection.

Q: When did we go from writing to being a professional writer?
A: (Simon) It's hard to pinpoint. [He mentioned a 1774 copyright decision that I missed.]

Q: The audience wasn't receptive to the economic argument, because it came from rich authors. How about the reaction to the moral argument?
A: It's hard to say because the public wasn't a part of the conversation. Women weren't even part of it.

Q: (cbracy) What was the relation between the authors and their works?
A: Authors still tend to have control over their books than musicians generally do. If you publish a book, you own the copyright. That's not the case with screenplays: You sell the copyright. But publishers want to reinforce the idea of single authorship; they don't even like long acknowledgements.

Q: [me] The piracy narrative doesn't hold up in even on its own terms now; now we can't even use works we've bought all the ways we want, and "piracy" just doesn't work as a metaphor. Do you see any other narratives around that might work better?
A: The commons? There's so little discussion of public domain in these 19th C discourses. I'd love to read a history of the concept of the commons (which Louis Hyde is doing).

A: (ethanz) There are developments in the UK that might make Beatles albums public domain in 2012, which will recreate the 19th C situtation in which cheap British imports compete against US music. a: "Sharing" is a counter narrative.

Q: (Gene) You have made a career out of both sides of the copyright issue (i.e., copyrighted works about copyright)...
A: I definitely do feel Jekyl and Hyde about copyright. I'd enforce my copyright if it came up, and we complain when the royalty statements from the Chinese publishers are wrong, but all we can is complain. "I even write the copyright notice for my books." The notice originally said that no characters are intended to resemble people living or dead.

Q: (egeorge ) How would you feel if I did fan fiction based on your work?
A: I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about that. They're writing a screenplay of my book, and it's nothing like the book. I'm getting paid to let them alter my text. If I'm not getting paid, I guess I'd feel that so long as it's non-commercial, I'd be fine about it. It gets word out about your book.

Q: The difference in prices between American and British was multiples. Why?
A: You wouldn't have to pay an advance. Competition. And there was variance.

Q: Who's your next book about?
A: It's secret.

[Great talk. And a very likable, modest fella.] [Tags: copyright copyleft matthew_pearl everything_is_miscellaneous]

I did the "wrapup" at BeyondBroadcast, and tried to talk about the thought I keep coming back to but am never able to articulate. At least it was brief - under 10 minutes, I think. Here's the outline of what I said:

1. What's the thread between participatory culture and participatory democracy? Why think one has to do with the other? How can participatory culture be "transformative," as Henry Jenkins suggested in his terrific opening talk. (Digression: The mainstream media are focused on including "user-generated content" on their sites as their response to participatory culture, but that's not transformative.)

2. Well, what is democracy. There are bunches of definitions: Majority vote, society of equals, government that gets its authority from the people. But most important, it's ours. The government isn't theirs, the way it was the king's.

3. So, what does "ours" mean? Again, there are bunches of definitions: What the law gives you control over, on our side, of our nature or essence. But, when it comes to culture, look at the difference between your study of a foreign culture and your participation in yours. Culture is ours because it makes us who we are; we are indistinguishable from it.

4. But, participatory culture is changing the nature and topology of ours. It's ours in a different way. We can create works with strangers, with anonymous crowds, and in all the other ways we're inventing. This is a very different sense of ours. And it's not just that we can build Wikipedia or Flickr streams. We also get to make these works matter to one another: That we can surface and pass around the video or the prose so that it becomes a shared cultural object also changes the nature of the ours. 5. So, how does this new ours affect democracy? (And it's more likely to affect democracy before it affects politics since those folks have a death grip on power.) How does this ours get turned into an us that operates politically? I dunno. I.e., this talks makes no progress on the question it raises :( [Tags: beyondbroadcast07 culture politics democracy media everything_is_miscellaneous ]

Stately, plump Penguin Books is off on an experiment that is likely to fail in delightful, unpredictable ways...for which my hat is off to them. They've started a wiki and given us—any and all of us—six weeks to write a novel. The wiki has a blog (but does the blog have a wiki?), and the Penguin blog talks about the experiment as well. (But does the Penguin wiki blog about the wiki's blog? No? That's so Web 1.27! :) Anyway, a novel seems like an unlikely venture for a wiki. Too many dependencies. Change "Carlo" to "Conchita" in Chapter 1, and who's going to make the updates throughout all the chapters? Add a penguin who invents pockets in Chapter 2 and now Freida in Chapter 9 actually does have a place to put the souvenir shot glass from Las Vegas. Not to mention that Wikipedia has reality to hold a page together (or at least a settled criterion for resolving disputes), while a novel has nothing but the sensibilities of a million penguins at keyboards. (Penguin Books has sicced some MA students on the wiki to seed it. ) So, I'll be surprised (and delighted) if a novel emerges from this. But two caveats: 1. If you'd asked me four years ago if Wikipedia would work, I would have guessed wrong. 2. A novel is not the only worthwhile result that could emerge from this experiment. I'm impressed Penguin Books is doing it. I look forward to seeing if the writing gets better or worse, if the discussion page is more interesting than the novel, what the sexy parts of the crowd are like, if good triumphs or gets into an edit war with irony... [Tags: wiki fiction novels collaborative_writing penguin_books publishing books everything_is_miscellaneous ]

Jessamyn reports on the Jackson County Library Information blog, where you can read about the indefinite closing of all fifteen branches of this Oregon county's library system. The reasons are complex, but it comes down to the need to cut lots of services as the county reduces its budget by $23 milllion. Libraries are apparently a "nice to have," not a "must have," in Jackson County. (It doesn't help that a previous ballot measure removed the special levy for libraries.) [Tags: libraries everything_is_miscellaneous ]

Politicopia, a wiki for Utah citizens, is up. It'll be very interesting to see if Utapians make use of it. (If not, some other site will arise.)

By the way, the Wall Street Journal has an article on the parties' embrace of online activism. It says the Republicans are only a little behind the Democratics in this regard. [Tags: politics utah politicopia democracy everything_is_miscellaneous]