I do agree that the bigger picture of learning non-fiction is richer. We now have other ways to learn non-fiction: Wikipedia, Veritasium, Gemini, etc.
But only books can provide you something we may call a "coherent worldview". They are the ones that stitch together different pictures into a coherent whole.
I can think of a lot of books that gave me that: E.Gombrich's "Story of Art", Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death", ... honestly, even Julia Childs' "Mastering the Art of French Cooking" or Yuval Harari's "Sapiens" (his other books are crap, b.t.w.).
True, we still have universities' textbooks. But they're very narrow in scope.
The thing about non-fiction books is that nothing else can provide the same combination of depth and scope.
> Nonfiction books are a crucial bulwark against the surging public culture of “alternative facts,” outright lies, and the brazen embrace of ignorance.
Do they believe someone cannot lie because it’s written down in a paperback? Authors lie in books and books do nothing to help someone who “embraces” ignorance
They can lie, but that lie will remain in the books that have gone into circulation. A lie on the internet can be reversed or erased after it has been consumed by millions of human eye balls.
"Important" does not sustain it. Even youtube, something that provide huge entertainment value would not have sustained if not for advertising revenue.
The point is that IA it is an anomaly soon to be dead or worse, taken over.
We generally consider it a good thing that written falsehoods can be amended to instead say the truth. That's what we do with book errata and editions too.
The bigger issue is the attempt to rewrite history as if the falsehood was never there, which is in my opinion a much bigger lie. As I see it, this can be handled by third party archives and by us as a society actually attaching repercussions to such outright lying.
The author clearly means professional publishers, who have editors and fact-checkers. Self-published books already lack trust. The reply also misses several other points the author makes, which I find ironic because it kind of goes into the direction the author bemoans: The author wrote a longer article to lay out his thoughts and it sure took him time to write and any reader time to read and digest and here is a quick oneliner as a rebuttal that took no time and effort and is superficial.
I spent years as a freelance proofreader and copyeditor. One of the reasons I don't so much any more is I was getting too many political books, books where the authors were not so interested in facts or logic--or even internal consistency. Most of these books were 'conservative' but this was not exclusively a right-wing issue. Ideology requires glossing over the complexity of the real world. It's draining to read this stuff, with limited ability to make corrections.
Hell, now I work for a uni press, and I'm seeing this in our own list more and more--writers are giving up on deep analysis.
From what I've heard through self-publishing media, nowadays, traditional publishing isn't even particularly disposed towards pushing back on things like these. They might even be all for publishing works based on outright lies if there's an existing customer base with open wallets.
Supposedly traditional publishing has become more and more conservative (not necessarily politically) with the risks they take on things they publish, so they'd be less likely to push back against widely-held ideas that are outright wrong. They'll really only publish authors with an established following or works that have a large base of interested consumers.
Edit: I just wanted to add that since I've heard these things so much, going to a bookstore like Barnes & Noble feels super weird. The books look nice, but they're all expensive and I have no sense that the selection has been curated for genuine quality or informational content. It's just what happens to being published now.
I greatly prefer the experience of going to thrift stores like Goodwill where the selection is chaotic, there's no real expectation of curation aside from maybe broad categories, and the books are gloriously cheap. You can find great stuff there!
Some of the biggest lies in history where, indeed, made with books. Examples go from "Malleus Maleficarum" to "Mein Kampf" to even "Chariots of the Gods".
But there is a difference in efficacy. It is harder to lie in books than it is in social media. Books are like trees, they grow slowly, they're a discourse that spans months or years. On this timeframe it is easier to debunk lies. Social media is different. A lie can pop and spread there in one or 2 days. Once someone debunks it there are already 200 more replacing it. They are like bacterial infestations or japanese knotweed, much harder to combat and control.
I find that the kind of people who obsess the conspiracy of "alternative facts" are the same people who uncritically take everything presented by modern science as truth. Except when it comes to economics of course!
the original title is: Nonfiction Publishing, Under Threat, Is More Important Than Ever
which totally fits, did HN's title algorithm cut that off? If so it seems silly. "Than ever" is an important modifier, otherwise someone is apt to think that the subject is more important than some other opposing subject, in this case that Nonfiction publishing is more important than fiction publishing. Anyway I think the "than ever" should be added back in
42 comments
I do agree that the bigger picture of learning non-fiction is richer. We now have other ways to learn non-fiction: Wikipedia, Veritasium, Gemini, etc.
But only books can provide you something we may call a "coherent worldview". They are the ones that stitch together different pictures into a coherent whole.
I can think of a lot of books that gave me that: E.Gombrich's "Story of Art", Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death", ... honestly, even Julia Childs' "Mastering the Art of French Cooking" or Yuval Harari's "Sapiens" (his other books are crap, b.t.w.).
True, we still have universities' textbooks. But they're very narrow in scope.
The thing about non-fiction books is that nothing else can provide the same combination of depth and scope.
> Cuts in publishing and book reviewing imperil the future of narrative nonfiction, and our understanding of the world around us.
https://archive.ph/2026.03.23-164808/https://newrepublic.com...
> Nonfiction books are a crucial bulwark against the surging public culture of “alternative facts,” outright lies, and the brazen embrace of ignorance.
Do they believe someone cannot lie because it’s written down in a paperback? Authors lie in books and books do nothing to help someone who “embraces” ignorance
The point is that IA it is an anomaly soon to be dead or worse, taken over.
The bigger issue is the attempt to rewrite history as if the falsehood was never there, which is in my opinion a much bigger lie. As I see it, this can be handled by third party archives and by us as a society actually attaching repercussions to such outright lying.
Hell, now I work for a uni press, and I'm seeing this in our own list more and more--writers are giving up on deep analysis.
Supposedly traditional publishing has become more and more conservative (not necessarily politically) with the risks they take on things they publish, so they'd be less likely to push back against widely-held ideas that are outright wrong. They'll really only publish authors with an established following or works that have a large base of interested consumers.
Edit: I just wanted to add that since I've heard these things so much, going to a bookstore like Barnes & Noble feels super weird. The books look nice, but they're all expensive and I have no sense that the selection has been curated for genuine quality or informational content. It's just what happens to being published now.
I greatly prefer the experience of going to thrift stores like Goodwill where the selection is chaotic, there's no real expectation of curation aside from maybe broad categories, and the books are gloriously cheap. You can find great stuff there!
But there is a difference in efficacy. It is harder to lie in books than it is in social media. Books are like trees, they grow slowly, they're a discourse that spans months or years. On this timeframe it is easier to debunk lies. Social media is different. A lie can pop and spread there in one or 2 days. Once someone debunks it there are already 200 more replacing it. They are like bacterial infestations or japanese knotweed, much harder to combat and control.
which totally fits, did HN's title algorithm cut that off? If so it seems silly. "Than ever" is an important modifier, otherwise someone is apt to think that the subject is more important than some other opposing subject, in this case that Nonfiction publishing is more important than fiction publishing. Anyway I think the "than ever" should be added back in