Links as the new punctuation mark

Here's an article about hyperlinks as "the new punctuation mark." I'm getting interested in how the web is changing, and has already changed, prose and narrative, and hyperlinking is the most obvious web-based advance, and probably the most important one, as it makes most of the others (video, audio) possible.

I was thinking, btw, of copyright issues. I remember when a friend wanted to use a popular country song as the epigraph of her novel, and she contacted the copyright holder (not the songwriter, actually, but a company-- made me think of how Lennon and McCartney lost control of their own lyrics and music). The company told her she could use the lyrics if she paid $800 and a 1% of the sales of the book. Even if her publisher would have agreed with that last part (it wouldn't-- 1% of the sales price is like 10% of the company's eventual profits from the book), she wasn't about to pay $800 for what would actually be free advertising for the song. So she wrote her own country song, just for the book.

But think about it. Recently I wrote a blog post about synopsis, and how it shouldn't be about the plot but about the whole story. (That's what our March class is about, btw-- described on the right there.) I wanted to make a graphic distinction of the difference between plot and story, and so I linked to a site with the sheet music of Ave Maria (plot) and a Youtube video of Pavarotti singing Ave Maria. So... does a link violate copyright laws? Or is that something Youtube can worry about and I don't have to? (I don't know, but if anyone's going to sue me, I'll take the links down. :)

Our articles and blog posts are frequently posted on other sites (sometimes with, sometimes without our permission), and sometimes there's just a link to our original. Of course, we prefer the latter, as it brings people to our site (not that this means much-- not like we charge or have ads). And it would never occur to me that there was anything wrong with someone putting a link to a post of ours in their own blog or article.

But I bet I would object if someone made a book that was composed primarily of lots of links to our articles and articles written by others-- "The Best Writing Advice Evuh Book!" At least, I'd probably object if the book's compiler made money from it. I don't want someone making money from something we give away for free, after all.

No great wisdom here. But I wonder if we're going to struggle with copyright issues forever now, or if that'll be resolved by people (I hope) smarter than I am.

Future of story

I'm reading a sort of "futurology" book called Flash Foresight, which suggests that we can have foresight of future events and trends if we (among other mental actions) distinguish between "hard trends" and "soft trends."

A hard trend is one that is going to happen, while a soft trend might seem to be inevitable but isn't.

For example, the baby boom generation is going to age. Hard trend.

There will be greater employment soon as baby boomers start to retire. Soft trend. (Boomers could work till they're 80, and might have to.)

So I'm thinking of what the trends are for story. I'm not going to say "novels" or "books" or "publishing," because I don't know that those are really eternal. But I think "story" is eternal-- we've probably always had it, and always will.

What's a hard trend that might affect the future of story? The Flash Foresight author identifies "globalization of literacy," that more and more people will become literate across the globe.

What's a soft trend, something that has been true in the past but might not continue to be? Maybe that NYC will be the center of publishing, or that "books" will continue to be the way story is transmitted. I wouldn't bet a lot on either of those at this point.

So put on your pointy cap and let's speculate about the future. What are other "hard trends" that will affect story? And what can we learn from this that might influence us as writers?

One question I have is whether English will continue to be the dominant language for global communication. Of course, other languages are spoken as first languages in greater quantity (Mandarin), but when it comes to second language, will English continue to dominate? If so, does that give English-writers an advantage?

Does the global communication of the Internet mean greater literacy in English?

Will people from other cultures still want to experience the myths and stories of their culture even as the Internet leads them out of the culture? I ask because I wonder if we writers would benefit from studying the stories of non-Western cultures, expanding our cultural stew.

Should writers go beyond their own borders for publication? With the Internet, of course, there really are no borders. But what if you want a book-book, in print? Should you consider publishers that are in other countries? Is that worth trying?

Have we finally (finally... boy, am I impatient... it hasn't actually been more than a decade!) gotten the "e-reader" app that will open up the new world to us as writers? The instant transmission of books, the lack of shipping requirements, the un-cabling of written story from paper.... Does this open up the market beyond where the post office can cheaply reach?

What about other forms of entertainment? After all, video can be transmitted almost as quickly as prose these days. Should we writers think of ourselves as competing with film and TV, or are those just providing another type of story?

Okay, how about "reality?" You know, that thing that happens outside of story. :) Facebook, Twitter, reality TV, news, those are all in contrast to fiction/story. Can we co-opt that, I mean, can we learn from that? Should we, or is fiction a necessary and eternal alternative to reality?

Just some thoughts as I watch the Big Thaw outside-- the first time I've seen the driveway in 9 weeks! And that reminds me that everything changes. Even the snow and ice, which seemed so permanent, will eventually change. I hope. Tired of winter here!

Alicia