That’s the point… the fun in this is being on the crest of the wave of something really cool and maybe something that might lead to a paradigm shift in the way that history is delivered. I’ve done the books and articles thing, though not at what might be defined as the “academic level.” It’s ok, but after learning what I have about the Web, I just see a lot more potential in this environment, and perhaps a way to create things that tap into a larger audience (including the people who think that history is just remembering dates and names).

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that bloggers “change” anything. In fact, if anything I am arguing the opposite. Blogs should be what their owners want them to be. But it’s also valuable to discuss options, and for the “infomation compilation” bloggers out there, we can start with navigation and user friendliness – indexing, “paging” (nice word, hunh) and the like.

I fall into the “give it away for free” camp, I think. Not because I don’t have a lot of time and money invested (I do), and not because I can afford it (I can’t), but because I really enjoy sharing what I’m learning, and because I’m excited about presenting things in a new way. And, I can’t figure any way to participate in and experiment with these new delivery systems AND make money at it. I have to admit I enjoy the few paying gigs I get from the hobby and wish I had more. I don’t, but I’m not gonna let that stop me. And I accept the fact that I’m gonna be ripped off – in fact, I already have been.

I also recognize that the few money-making opportunities in ACW writing and speaking that have come my way are the result of this site, so maybe it can work out to be a win/win. I can dream, can’t I?

I think too what we do here can impact the traditional history delivery systems, that is, books. There’s no reason non-fiction writing has to suck, though many Civil War authors seem to labor under this assumption. Why can I fly through Cormac McArthy and James Elroy, or non-fiction works like Young Men and Fire or Devil in the White City, but I approach 75% of the CW books I read with dread, and am happy when I can get through more than 50 pages in a day? The very best writer in the ACW field today also happens to be one of the worst when it comes to “history”. Does it have to be that way? Can’t we get both good history AND good, compelling writing?

As I mentioned in response to Eric’s comments on my blog, I think that Eric’s concerns are probably more universally felt among historians. In the end, we love what we do, but in doing what we love, we invest a lot of time and money. Therefore, we hope that we, at least, break even by producing a work that generates revenue for our pockets (a return for our time and monetary investments).

Historical practice on the Web can be conducted in a number of ways. I think that there is something great to come from dynamic digital history, but it takes investment with little to no gain before we can hope for great gain. That said, it might not even be that some who invest so much want some great financial gain, but rather, want to be a part of some incredible shift in the way history is delivered to students or the general public. This is certainly a topic that merits lengthy discussion. – Robert

I think that what you guys are trying to do is is both worthwhile and admirable.

In my case, I like my blog the way it is and am not inclined the change it in any substantive fashion. At the risk of sounding mercenary about this, I have a ton of money invested in nearly twenty years of research, and I am not inclined to just give it away.

If that means that I run counter to the trend, I can live with that.

Eric

See my comment to your post in the above pingback.

I’m glad you left a note…I was beginning to think of this post as a lead balloon.

In the end (and please pardon me if I’m repeating myself), I think in terms of the Web more from the perspective of a hypertext theorist than I do as an historian. I mean, I can’t supress the historian within, but I approach the Web as an historian who is very conscious of the fact that the environment of the Web is more dynamic than the traditional mediums. I think historians have been, and in many cases continue to be, trained to present for the traditional mediums (books and articles… ink on paper). It’s sort of like that Cadillac commercial, but… “when you turn history on, does it turn you on?” Because we are becoming creatures of technology, maybe there needs to be an across the board shift in the way we deliver history (focusing more on user needs and expectations).