I'm really curious about all of these questions and possibilities. I'm a bit of a purist and part of me doesn't want to see the traditional book die, but perhaps that's because I'm concerned that the new technology won't give writers the same thing. That is to be read widely and to possibly be paid for it.

Yes - my concern about the lecture was not so much the future of the book, which sounded fascinating, but the future of the writer. As a writer myself I am not sure how these more collaborative and public forms would allow me to develop a work. Perhaps people will adjust, but it's very daunting.

Sophie and Jessica, I did not get the sense that Stein was ready to call any multimedia at all a 'book' at this point, rather than that he was keen to demonstrate how traditional books will increasingly include conversation as part of the publication. I think that's a different thing from calling his understanding of books metaphorical. I heard him describe a process at its beginnings, rather than issue definitions for the future.

Just my two cents, anyhow. Keen to see those articles next year, that will be beaut.

Genevieve - I certainly agree he talked about beginnings rather than the future. But I did think his definition of 'book' was abstract to the point of being metaphorical. I don't think that's a bad thing. I found it quite visionary.

perhaps that should be :

The Future Of 'The Book'.

If you're reading and viewing a novel online, is this then 'veading'?

It's impossible to believe that a cheap portable warm and cosy paperback is going to be superseded by anything, anytime soon, including e-readers.

This was an interesting session and I was pleased to see a little of Sophie (the app not the editor) as I've heard people talking it up. I don't think it was this session, but Stein had a good point about how cloud computing will impact what/how we read as we begin to read online almost everywhere. He talked about the examples on his iPhone in the supermarket line or the subway. We all do this now (usually flipping through Mx or whatever is at the checkout), but in the future we'll be reading whatever we want not just whatever is there. The other interesting idea is that publishers won't be gatekeepers anymore. They'll broker relationships between readers and writers in ways that they never thought possible in the past. Very interested in your future of reading project - where do I sign up?

The following quote was offered by Brad Frederiksen in a post titled 'The Massive Minority'.

"Those who can freely access open source creative works are not limited merely by the restrictive laws of nations and states, or by the demands of publishing companies and authors that seek to maintain an income. Many are restricted by the simple circumstance of having little or no access to, or interest in, technology. Open source, in its current form, is limited to the service of a community; a particular kind of community."

The ideas presented in that post are entirely relevant here. Those who carry a real concern that the 'book' will become reduntant have failed to recognise that our little community and the petty fears inherent within it are irrelevant in the real world.

The 'book of the future' is the book of an exclusionary and blinkered 'technology nation'.

"an open source software for writing that allows authors and readers to combine text with images, video and sound." Ever heard of Wordpress, blogger or any number of other freely available technologies?

Hi again Sophie, You asked in your post "Will new authors upload their chapters online and self-edit according to comments from strangers and friends? Where then will publishers and editors stand in the midst of all this?"

Since there is no denying that new authors 'do' upload their work online, your questions seem to be asking "how will traditional editors and publishers adapt while authors increasingly self-edit or self-publish? I know that aspect of the debate doesn't really fit into the overall context of your post, but I think it is worth flagging.

It looks like the Meanjin/Overland project has two main objectives. 1. To discuss the ways in which online technologies can enable relationships between an author and the audience. 2. To describe the implications of these relationships.

Judging from one of your earlier comments, you are particularly interested in "how these more collaborative and public forms would allow me to develop a work."

As Paul rightly pointed out, those collaborative and public forms are right there in front of us, and this blog is one of them. So the answer to your question will really depend on how much value you would place on the input received from friends and strangers.

The comments from Genevieve, Benjamin, Darryl and hackpacker all highlight the fact that the Meanjin/Overland project will need to make some clear distinctions between the creative process, its enablement, and the marketing of the end product.

Thanks for the opportunity to say my piece, Sophie. I would love to have the opportunity to contribute further to the project. Cheers.

If you did upload your novel to the internet for readers to edit you'd probably get bombarded with hundreds of opinions from people that know nothing about writing. Through this filtering of opinions and tailoring your book to the market, the creative process will be lost. Every novel has a story beating at the heart of it and only the writer can bring that story to life. Sure you can get opinions, but too much input just ruins the entire process. It is the job of the editor to work with the writer to bring a book to life and make it the best it can be while understanding the author's intentions. A stranger on the internet does not know the author's intentions. If a writer wants opinions they should just workshop with other writers. I hope Stein is wrong and novel writing never comes to this.

Brad - We're still fine tuning the project (who to commission, panelists at the Centre for Books & Ideas etc). I found your comments very useful. Thanks. We'll announce the details of the project more formally when it's confirmed we have funding to go ahead with it - but I feel confident.

More from Bob Stein here at if:book, just the other day. He seems to have taken some of the sting out of his brave new world with very few books in it here. http://www.futureofthebook.org/blog/archives/2009/09/a_clean_well-lighted_place_for.html

Brad, I do not think my comment offers anything explicit at all about the marketing requirements of the project you mention - perhaps you have reached that conclusion yourself.

Thanks Genevieve. I don't believe I credited you with making explicit remarks with regard to any marketing requirements. What I have pointed to is that the variety of responses received in this post make it clear that the project "will need to make some clear distinctions between the creative process, its enablement, and the marketing of the end product". You may attach yourself to any one of those three categories, and my respect for your voice will remain firm. One thing is certain; I did not attach you to a position, nor did I draw any conclusions about you.

Well, that's not how it reads up there, Brad: 'The comments from Genevieve, Benjamin, Darryl and hackpacker all highlight the fact that...&c.'

Mine has absolutely nothing to do with your conclusions - it highlights nothing at all other than that Stein is interested in books as conversations - and I say absolutely zip about the Meanjin project.

But good luck anyhow with who you attach to what in the future.

...apart from saying I am interested in seeing the articles next year, that is.

Ok. I understand that communication of ideas is a tricky business given our various perspectives. If I said that Steins interest in books as conversations falls roughly into the category of 'enablement', does it not follow that the statement of mine that you have referenced gives due respect to your comment, as I believe I have given respect to the other contributors by taking the time to consider their comments and place them within a context? I have not drawn a conclusion! I have merely offered a set of considered criteria for continuing the debate, and I have flagged my interest in continuing the discussion with people like yourself, who have a valuable contribution to make. This discussion has no single perspective from which it can be approached, as is made clear by the comments from ... I am genuienly interested in continuing the discussion on that basis.

That's a more careful adjustment and I appreciate you taking the time and effort to do that, Brad. And perhaps I'm being a bit bloody cranky, actually. However, just let me offer a small suggestion for the future - if in any shadow of doubt whatsoever, consider remarking that 'comments on this thread, etc.' instead of putting names in. Then you're pretty much home free. But nice talking to you, Brad, and I'm sure we'll talk about this again sometime.