What if the internet died?

[alternicity]

Very hypothetical, I know but..

What if the internet died? Or became unusable?

Would that be good for sf book writers?

cheers

[Overread]

hmm - is the right section for this kind of talk??
probably
anyway things might go something like this:

1) at the fist signs of instability there is the mass chrons address and phone number exchange - no internet means no talking!!

2) mass chutnering party in the sal - for one last try

3) internet dies

4) writers go about thier ways and (probably) write that little bit faster

5) writers send longer - more complete - works to reviewers who they have remained in contact with from the chrons - longer because now it has to be posted back and forth = and that takes time

6) getting info for research now requires access to a library - which will have slowed down in service as it will no longer have access to the national databases - ordering in books becomes more common and authors end up buying more refrence books when they can

7) publishing does not change too much - though correspondence takes longer

8) self advertising is now harder -as is getting basic info to people -- no amazon booklists - no online reviewers

9) the corner bookshop takes hold again - no amazon to compete with

10) things return to a similar state to what they were before the internet existed 0 though with the after effects of people haveing increased contacts from the internet days

[j. d. worthington]

This is going to sound strange coming from someone who is a reforming technophobe, but... no, it wouldn't be better. It would be disastrous. It wouldn't stop them from writing, but a lot of research tools would no longer be available, or would take much, much longer to track down; there wouldn't be the support networking that can keep ideas in ferment (critiques, suggestions for story ideas or ways to take an already developing tale, just good, old-fashioned moral support for those times when energy flags, etc.); and it would take much longer for manuscripts to reach their destination, be proofed, get their corrections made, etc., etc., etc.... all the steps toward going from a first draft to finished product would take much longer and be much more frustrating. (There might be some rise in quality here and there, true. But overall, I'd say that the majority would simply go on writing as they always have, without using that extra time for more thought in their writing.)

And as for sf book writers -- it would be especially detrimental, as keeping up with the latest scientific information is often what inspires or helps direct them in their writing....

[pyan]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

It would be disastrous.

Agreed.
One small example - just how long would it have taken, and how much would it have cost, to duplicate by post just one average thread in this forum?

[Leisha]

Would that be good for sf book writers?

Why specifically sf writers? I think it would be bad for all writers. As said, though, there are obvious benefits (yes, this place stops me writing as much as I used to - but look at all the friends I've made!). Plus, the harder it is to research and write your book, the less competition you will have when trying to get published.

[alternicity]

It would certainly do my head in.

pyan - I couldn't do the math, but I suppose communication would rest on magazines, newsletters, post, and lists. Slow!

I read somewhere, I think the guardian, some writer opining that recession is good for novelists, but I've no way of knowing if they were being serious.

Leisha - and no World of Warcraft, or p2p.

[Culhwch]

When I read the first post, I figured he meant from a story standpoint. As in, would the internet dying be a good jumping off point for an SF story? Though I've been mistaken before...

[alternicity]

Thats just as valid though. I have a section in my WIP where a local network goes down for a while.

[Leisha]

Leisha - and no World of Warcraft, or p2p.

Some would definitely say that's a good thing.


A local network going down wouldn't be as destructive, at least. Networks can be repaired and hubs can be mended.


Good luck with the WIP.

[alternicity]

hubs can be mended.
Leisha

Wish I had the knack of that. (OR Netgear Sx major ass)

Good luck with the WIP.

Thanks

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Culhwch

When I read the first post, I figured he meant from a story standpoint. As in, would the internet dying be a good jumping off point for an SF story? Though I've been mistaken before...

Wasn't sure about this one, so thought I'd reply as in a real-world scenario. Either way, it may lead to some ideas....

[Imitar]

I suppose it would be terrible if the internet died, not just for writers, but for everyone. All the contacts would be lost, we have learned much as people through experiencing what the other side of the world goes through, nowadays, with the simple click of a mouse, one can talk to someone accross the globe, and now with the advent of webcams, we can talk face to face! Alot of writers most definetly get some inspiration from the daily strife of others, and without the net, will have to rely on the tv. In a little way, I can bet some writers would be able to produce more work, but with slower production output, and it would almost certainly hamper sales as some just purchase books online.

[Interference]

But spelling might improve as more people will have to start looking at proper books again.

[The Ace]

Thank you Interference, I'm glad somebody made that point. I'm sick to death of websites where spelling is an optional extra.

Maybe internet access should be limited to those who can pass basic spelling tests.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

There wouldn't be the support networking that can keep ideas in ferment (critiques, suggestions for story ideas or ways to take an already developing tale, just good, old-fashioned moral support for those times when energy flags, etc.)

This is why we joined writers groups, and it worked very well. Better than online critiques by passing strangers, if the group was sufficiently committed and had a good mix of writers at different levels of experience. (Also, you could submit a whole story or a substantial portion of your novel to the group, and a few weeks later get thoughtful and thorough critiques, rather than stringing it out in tiny bits to be judged out of context.)

And it would take much longer for manuscripts to reach their destination, be proofed, get their corrections made, etc., etc., etc.... all the steps toward going from a first draft to finished product would take much longer and be much more frustrating.

Actually, it was only a very few years ago that many large publishers stopped doing it that way. I don't see books being produced that much quicker now -- the biggest delay is how many different hands something has to pass through, and of course some of those different hands are already involved in something else. As for the frustration level, anyone who means to work in publishing had better learn to live with frustration.

I agree that the demise of the internet would be a very bad thing in other ways, but not signficantly so for writers.

(And we might spend more of our time on actually writing instead of these chats at gawd-awful hours of the night and early morning.)