"I would say that if there's one thing that's causing the novels of the world from getting written right now, it's surfing the Internet."

God! That's so true. I'll be deep in the ocean, as it were, then go online for research purposes (and what's available is, without question, truly wonderful) - and then I'll stop by a news blog... and find myself fretting over something Rush Limbaugh said, or wondering who in hell the '8' family is, & why they're inflicted upon us. I have a rule that says I will not be upset by things I can't change, and I'll keep it in perspective. Ha! The whole damned internet is set up to draw us into some conflict or other! Like a soap opera!

And here I am, mid-chapter... here.

I hate myself.

Another question, concerning the culturally stunting predilection of hyper-reflective mass media is this:

Do we consider the internet, as a medium (or do we even consider it as such) to be inherently problematic? I'm referring to Mr. Wasik's assertion that "Culture Makers" are invariably distracted from the very craft that their use of the internet is meant to propagate. For instance, when he says that the primary obstacle facing the writing of new novels is that the potential writers are surfing the internet, isn't the impending irrelevance of the novel as an art-form an even bigger problem? I'm not necessarily saying that it is. Maybe the way many of us process information is outdated; just the arcane mechanisms of romantic puritans. I suppose history has put all of us in a position where we will eventually be forced to decide exactly what it is about ideas that has value. I mean, on the one hand, what should be our society's creative core is pissing away its time looking at porn and facebook (the distinction being negligible) - although that position might be the self-aggrandizing excuse of those who would never really create anything worthwhile anyway. On the other hand, in the past five years we've had to completely re-define our most basic ideas about pop music - and that was a long time coming.

so does this urge to market ourselves make us all pimps? ...or whores?

Well, I get your point and it's well-taken but why be unkind. I never watch that stuff. I only saw it because it was on the news. There is too much of interest in the world and I love books, books, books. But far from seeming like a 'crazy' Susan Boyle seemed exactly like any shy person who lives a quiet unpretentious life and suddenly wins fame and acclaim by being famous for SOMETHING REAL (like talent!) and not like the phony vapid shallow bimbos that are all a facade of flash trash with techno back up to provide nothing with an illusion of substance. True, a 'nanostory' but with something to tell that millions want to hear. Unlike much of the irrelevant slush we are asked to read about it.

Susan Boyle grabs our attention and makes us focus on true raw substance and native talent. Not to mention the courage of the women to so step out of her tiny and safe little corner of the world while most people are happy to hide for a safe place to hide -- like behind a keyboard.

Personally I salute this remarkable woman. If she is crazy it's the really good kind of crazy. The world needs more of her. Frankly when I hear the petty snarks (not you of course) I am taken a bit back: how small and mean-spirited.

"nanostory" OMG! A new trendy in hip buzzword for the chattering classes that's sure to make for a smaller conversation. Aside from that it's a pretty boring interview or 'conversation' that only caught my attention because the author used a hook that was truly interesting only to disparage it for something that's not.

Nanostory? Okay. Whatever. But at least it's a REAL story that has substance which is more than I can say for the brainless chatter about her in print that makes my eyes glaze over before I get half way down the first page wondering what the hell the writer is trying to say(if anything)and why should anyone care. Why does it take so many words to say so little so badly?

Without a doubt!

I dislike the term "nanostory," which describes nothing. The "culture's" attention has always been attracted and diverted by transient items -- the Internet has only brought more of them into our lives. The question is: do all these trivial issues distract us from the larger ones? In my household, I'd say no. On CNN and most other outlets, I'd say yes. In my view these distracting issues are a problem, not something to nuance for one's own success. They make Luddism attractive. Possibly our culture will right itself. Digital watches were once advanced tech, too: sparkly and attractive, the cutting edge; now no one wears them. Such things can go the way of the do-do. I'd like to think substance will win out in the long run.

The internet has made it more possible for everyone to get their alloted 15 minutes in the spotlight, but there are more spotlights and a huge audience shattered by these spotlights into niche markets. One is no longer confined to their own physical community to find their audience, but the larger that audience the shorter the attention span- a flash mob indeed. Occasionally someone breaks out of whatever internet ghetto they exist in to get everyone's attention- but it will for a limited time only. This has always been the case with pop cultural media phenoms. Pop culture is by definition ephemeral- the cultural equivalent of short term memory. The 'net has just made it more so. The machine will find, exploit, and discard future Susan Boyles with even greater efficiency in the future. We may bitch about this out of guilt, but the media is the message and when it gives us immediate feedback it will always tell us exactly what we want to hear at that given moment.