{"id":1392,"date":"2010-02-08T14:29:31","date_gmt":"2010-02-08T14:29:31","guid":{"rendered":"\/ifbookblog\/?p=1392"},"modified":"2010-02-08T14:29:31","modified_gmt":"2010-02-08T14:29:31","slug":"futures_of_the_book","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/futureofthebook.org\/blog\/2010\/02\/08\/futures_of_the_book\/","title":{"rendered":"futures of the book"},"content":{"rendered":"

how we think about the future
\nWayne Bivens-Tatum at Academic Librarian<\/a>:<\/p>\n

The kindest interpretation of statements like “the future is mobile” or “the future of reference is SMS” or “the future is librarians in pods” or whatever is that the librarians are trying to create that future by speaking it. The incantation will somehow make it so. At the very least, perhaps everyone will believe it’s true, even if it’s not. After all, the future never arrives, so it’s not like we can verify it.<\/p>\n

The less kind interpretation is that the authors of such statements are reductionist promoters, reducing a complex field to whatever marginal utility they’re focused on and claiming that this is the future, while simultaneously promoting themselves as seers. They’re hedgehogs with their one big thing, but perhaps aren’t aware it’s their big thing, not the big thing. I suppose it’s all part of “branding” themselves. I should be jealous. I don’t think I have a brand.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n