But in this particular instance, government is looking for input on how to allocate existing funds: what I suggest (self servingly) is that more go directly to writers, as opposed to printers, transporters and post offices…also, that if websites are able to attract large audiences, in many cases larger than printed publications, consideration should, if money is going out to support a ‘literary’ culture anyway, be given – it isn’t currently – to on as well as offline entities.

Anyone intelligent enough to write a good sentence can figure out a way to support the Art with a standard, unglamorous day job. Cut out the TV and the unnecessary expenses and you can do it. Commitments to Great Things are never a convenience. Convenience-Vanity-Credulity are the modern Holy Trinity that need killing off.

The difference between Art and Entertainment: Entertainment is the friend who always tells you what you want to hear and Art is the friend who doesn’t. Cultivate more relationships of the latter kind if you want a deeper life. The cultivation does not involve money.

Cut out the Television and some of the hypnosis will wear off and you may actually find yourself wanting money less (if not wanting less money).

The Canadian government is, as you are doubtless aware, currently reviewing its Literary/Arts magazine funding programs. I made a submission to the committee involved with this review last year. Here are a few points made in it (find the whole enchilada here: http://nigelbeale.com/2008/04/the-case-for-public-funding-of-literary-blogs-and-book-reviewers/ )

6. Should the proposed program be expanded to support Web-only publications? Or should we continue with the current practice in the CMF of supporting digital ventures only for print-based publishers?

Very much the former. Although print publications are highly desirable, and support should be maintained to ensure that they continue to exist, excellent commentary and literary criticism is available in the literary blogosphere. Funding for legitimate literary bloggers should be made available.

This money again, as with print publications, should be earmarked for the production of written reviews and literary criticism, and where warranted, the production of serious (not promotional puffery) audio and video programming.

7. Should the proposed program put a greater emphasis on appropriate compensation for writers and other creators? If yes, how could this be done?

I have already indicated that this should very much be the case. High quality content is essential if the government, assuming this is a priority, wishes to succeed in promoting a healthy culture of literary reading. The easiest way to do this is for the government to provide funding for the production of book reviews and literary criticism. For example, writers/literary critics would first have to meet certain requirements to ensure seriousness of intent. Once qualified, they would be retained to produce criticism which, at minimum, would have to be posting on their own websites, at maximum with high traffic print/broadcast outlets and/or online mediums. Payment would be contingent upon meeting these objectives.

Admittedly this, in a way, constitutes government getting into the business, and as such may not fit with the philosophy of the current ruling party. But, given the importance of healthy community and democracy to Canada, and the threat that declining levels of literary reading pose to this valued way of life, I cannot think of a more important, nor indeed a more effective place in which to spend public money, than in the funding of literary journals/websites and the writing of literary criticism.

Most the busboys in my neighborhood are Mexican immigrants from rural villages, so I’m guessing that they’re not reading the NBCC blog and finding it unsatisfactory, no.

Gee, I thought that you HATED mass market paperbacks. You had that long, hilarious comment in the CHEAP discussion in which you personified the dignified, hand-crafted bookshelves you had owned, sturdy and august, worthy of Vollmann, comparing them to the lightweight cheapness of Ikea shelves, good only for slim mass-market paperbacks.

And it still doesn’t follow. Are you saying that job-seekers will find, say, you to be relevant to the difficulties in their lives (or relevant despite the difficulties in their lives), but the NBCC to be irrelevant? Modest.

Andy: Obviously, you aren’t aware of this wonderful human quality called optimism. Or do you really believe that people aren’t reading when they’re not looking for work? If you can’t afford the $27 hardcover, you can go into a used bookstore and buy a $1 used mass-market paperback. That was, oddly enough, how I discovered the postmodernists as a young man with no money. If people can’t buy the books now, then they can always buy them later when times are flush. Remember that blogs are as much about the backlist as they are contemporary books. So about a year from now, someone reading the CHEAP paperback can come back to this site and follow the 20K words of fiery but civil discussion.