ARTS & FARCES internet

One of the few polices ARTS & FARCES has is that all projects must be self-supporting; otherwise they are acts of charity. This website first appeared in February 1993 and has never been a profit center for us. Rather, it’s always been used as a sort of advertisement for ourselves.

For several years, though, there has been a not-so-subtle shift in the way we’ve obtained work. Many companies—large and small—no longer contract directly with businesses providing editorial and consulting services, choosing instead to insulate themselves and their contracting decisions by using an intermediary. We prefer not to work this way for two reasons. First, an intermediary or subcontractor situation clouds the issue of who our customer is, and we find that clouding uncomfortable. Second, the intermediary situation unfairly and artificially inflates (sometimes by a factor of more than 40%) the rate our customers pay for our services.

ARTS & FARCES has always taken pride in meeting deadlines and budgets and staying profitable by reducing overhead whenever possible.

Dan Kohn is a Silicon Valley venture capitalist, but don’t let that stop you from reading his excellent essay, “Content is a pure public good.”

His point is that digitally distributed content is what economists call a nonexcludable (no one can stop its flow), non-rival (we can all use it without anyone else having to give it up) good. Digital content, then, is what economists call a pure public good, like National Public Radio or a lighthouse. As a result, the current economic model used by all content distributors is dying a painful death.

The neatest part of a web piece that gets relatively widespread notice is the reconnecting that results.

I don’t much like the concept of blogrolling or exchanging links. There’ something about it that seems a little cheap, a bit less than honest, and a tad sleazy. I send heads-up emails to other writers when I publish something that I think they’ll find interesting, but I never ask for or offer to exchange links. So this is going to read like blogrolling, but it’s not. I link for two reasons: it either clarifies, illustrates, or develops my topic or it interests me.

Mark Bernstein knows more about hypertext than just about anyone other than Ted Nelson, and his work has always interested me. What’s better is that he’s a programmer and understands what kind of tools writers need to hone their craft. Probably because he’s a pretty dang good writer his own self.

Bernstein’s company, Eastgate Systems, makes the Storyspace hypertext tool for writers and publishes hypertext works—serious hypertext, not the crap we’re doing here. Eastgate’s next effort is code-named Ceres, a hypertext note-taking and weblog environment Bernstein describes as “Agenda meets Storyspace meets Blogger, with a few plot twists along the way.” If you’re serious about non-linear media, check it out.

Louis Rosenfeld is one of the better thinkers currently involved in information architecture. Frustrated with the baby steps—self-definition and self-justification—required to formulate a discipline, Rosenfeld proposes in this article that we lay off the belly-button gazing and start thinking forward. He does a great job of identifying a core of 6 areas of focus that information architects should pursue:

1. Distinguishing users’ information needs
2. Determining content granularity
3. Developing hybrid architectures
4. Presenting search results better
5. Understanding and using metadata
6. Rolling out enterprise-wide architectures

Rosenfeld presents the areas of focus not as a rigid methodology but rather as a starting point for discussion.

The eve of Book Expo America is an appropriate time to survey the state of independent publishing. It sucks. The end. (But consider reading on; it’s getting even worse.)

“Returns” is one of the biggest problems facing independent publishers. It’s a system for generating more waste than value. For the uninitiated, books are traditionally sold on consignment to what’s called the “channel.” The channel is the chain by which publishers sell to distributors who sell to wholesalers who sell to bookstores who sell to you. At every link in the chain except the last, the books are usually fully returnable.

ARTS & FARCES sells its titles to the channel on a non-returnable basis. Books we sell to you are fully returnable, for any reason, for thirty days. We don’t actively court the channel; we’d rather talk to and trade with you directly. I’ve written previously about our alternative publishing model (“Way New Publishing” Part 1 and Part 2).

Returns, we are told, are a cost of doing business and are the sole responsibility of publishers. This is hammered into our pointed heads until they are flattened. Our trade associations tell us this, as do many of our fellow publishers. Books wouldn’t sell, we’re told, if they can’t be returned.