The future of the book, as Bob Stein argued, is in dialogue between the reader and the author. It will no longer be a static work, created by the author for a particular audience. “Old school” authors “engage with the subject matter on behalf of the readers,” whereas “new school” authors will “engage with readers in the context of a subject matter” (Stein, “The Future of the Book: The Evolution of Reading and Writing in the Networked Era”, March 1, 2008). Essentially, the reader interaction that has been occurring in the background of many books (especially recently, with author blogs, etc) will come to the foreground. Stein seems to have no problem with this vision, or any of its implications. He sees it as the logical next step, a new context in which we must re-examine our assumptions, but which comes at very little cost to the concept of literary authorship.

In the examples given by Stein, he focuses on the application of his vision to academic writing, an area where it might very well excel. He makes the point that as the body of knowledge about a particular work of literature or, I think, any subject matter, becomes larger and larger, it cannot be understood by any one individual, and instead must be understood by a network of collaborative individuals. In an academic setting, this would work very well. The discussion of the subject matter is what an academic book is really all about. This discussion could be seen as an extension and democratization of the discussion and review process which already occurs.

In addition to only applying perfectly to academic writing, it seems to me that Stein’s model only applies to certain personality types. There are those, like Siva Vaidhyanathan, a later speaker that day, whose greatest fear is never finishing their work, in some coherent form. This is only one implication that could frighten or discourage future authors. I can’t imagine that every author would be comfortable with exposing their intimate thought processes to the world while writing, for example, an autobiography and deciding whether to include a scene portraying themselves in a bad light. In response to Vaidhyanathan, Stein argued that these inclinations are simply a product of the time and culture in which we live, and that future authors would think nothing of this sort of authorship. Stein may very well be right; I have no way of judging that. But I don’t think that it is necessary to say that the more traditional form of authorship need be supplanted by Stein’s model. Instead, we can see it as just another way in which literature can be produced, another art form to complement those already in existence.

I think the most damning argument against Stein’s model is the fact that it would only really work for certain types of literature. I don’t think a novel with such a definite, extreme vision like Lilith’s Brood could have been written collaboratively. It requires the concerted effort of one inspired mind. This does not mean that the work cannot be reviewed, simply that the majority of the writing and conceptualizing must come from a single source. In addition, I think the type of fiction perpetuated in Lilith’s brood requires a coherent and singular medium in which to exist. I don’t think it could be effectively serialized. In fact, I think the serialization that would be required in Stein’s model cheapens fiction in general, by forcing the author into a certain chapter structure that usually weakens the coherence and structure of the novel as a whole. Every chapter should not end in a cliffhanger that must entice the reader back for more.

I still think there is a place for books written in Stein’s model. I think it would be an excellent template for future academic writing. However, I don’t think that the complete turn from “author engages with subject” to “author engages directly with readers” is either beneficial or truly inevitable. I could easily see someone like Butler engaging with her readers during the process of writing Lilith’s Brood, through a blog or a forum or what have you, but I think the necessary form for her final work needs to be the novel. As argued by Marsha Kinder, during the questions after Mr. Stein’s talk, his model loses the explicit author-defined structure. This structure is necessary, I think, for works of fiction, and as such I don’t believe Stein’s model should be the “future of the book.”