OK, Mission Control ...

David Sirota does a very nice job summarizing what launching a book feels like (via Matt Yglesias).

I received a copy of my new book ...in the mail today from my publisher ... Opening the package was half anti-climactic, and half frightening ... in three weeks, it is going to be out there for the world to read. That's a little scary, because to date, almost nobody has read it, so I really have no idea what to expect as a reaction ... And this says nothing of the fear of how the book will perform. That is the great unknown that haunts every writer who wants to continue to try to eke out a living as a writer - every project is based on your last performance. How well your current work does in the marketplace often dictates whether you will be given another opportunity to write in the future (this is why it is so important to buy books from writers you like, and buy magazines that you support - your purchase is a way to make sure that those writers and publications continue to produce in the future).

From my first book ... I've learned to get used to some of these feelings - but I'm told by more seasoned writers that you never really get used to it...ever. Writing - and media in general (especially progressive media) - is a very tough business. It requires regular 16 hour days to scratch and claw into the debate. This book represents 2 years of those 16 hour days - so I guess it's natural to feel a little nervous ...

Personally, I find the instantaneous, uber-connected Internet world compounds this massively; plus the fact that growing numbers of us are simultaneously launching books and doing media and touring in multiple markets worldwide. I figure since writing is takes so much time and effort, it makes a great deal of sense to go out there and promote books. I actually find it somewhat enjoyable and relatively easy to talk to the media about my ideas - compared to writing, and aside from Colbert , that is. The two biggest issues I grapple with are:  when and how to respond to critics (do I respond to all of them, some of them, sequentially, as a group?) and how best to use this blog to promote conversation around my books without seeming - well -self-absorbed and heavy-handed.

Your thoughts?

Comments

[Whitney Gunderson]

It is better to be perceived as self-absorbed and heavy-handed. That way, people spend time talking about that instead of finding pesky problems.

I am not a critic, but I have a question. The Place and Happiness Survey found that aesthetics was the number one thing that people look for in a place. Openness and tolerance ranked number three.

I have a hunch that you have also spent time grappling with this. How do you reconcile the fact that openness ranked third on the Place and Happiness Survey with the 3T concept which says that technology, talent and tolerance are all equal?

[Matt]

I was wondering where all the links to the media around Who's Your City had gone.

I don't find individual reviews very useful, and replies to them are often too specific to be worthwhile. But replies to substantial issues raised by many critics are more interesting, because I might have doubts about the same thing.

Maybe there's too much for you to choose from, but interviews and articles that drill down into a specific area are probably the most valuable. For example, your interview on TVO's The Agenda is probably of interest to people in and around Toronto:
http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=7&bpn=779184&ts=2008-04-25%2020:00:45.0

[Robert]

"How well your current work does in the marketplace often dictates whether you will be given another opportunity to write in the future.."

Well apparently Dr. Florida is trying to appeal to the marketplace with his books. However, by doing so he is compromising the accuracy of his books. The one thing that struck me is his promotion of tolerance of homosexuals as somehow an important part of developing a modern technologically advanced "creative" economy. This is the politically correct way of thinking and it certainly has helped to sell his books but it is completely inaccurate. All you have to do is take a look at Japan, China, Korea, and India to realize that tolerance toward homosexuals, legal gay marriage, etc. are not needed to build a prosperous high tech creative society. Culture plays the much bigger key role in building a high tech society. For example, Berkley the top university in California is nearly 40% asian with most speaking English as a second, third or fourth language and the culture is Chinese culture not American culture. Chinese culture values math, science, engineering and education. American culture does not.

This brings me to these protests against the Chinese government because of the Tibetan riots. The bottom line here is that Western governments including the United States have a poorer record with tolerance toward racial minorities than the Chinese government. All you have to do is look at the race riots in France, Australia , and the comments by Barack Obama's pastor , reverend Wright about the government developing aids to kill black people and his calls for God to "Damn" America to realize America and the West have worse racial problems then China. The only reason that Western governments condemned China over the Tibet riots is to disrupt the Olympics that will be held in China this summer and to show disrepect for China and its people.

[RF]

WG - Thank you for your very close reading of my work. The short answer is that they are 2 different things. The 3T model is focussed on economic outcomes. Of course in our consulting work, we added a "4th T" quality of place. The Place and Happiness Survey had a different objective from the get-go, although to some degree it is trying to get at the factors that, when combined, add up to quality of place. The core objective of the place and happiness survey was to get beyond economistic ways of viewing cities and regions - to get at the the personal, individual level factors that shape happiness or subjective well-being. The survey was designed not to see how well cities or regions perform economically, but see how they - and in particular which of their dimensions - shape personal happiness and well-being. I believe this is really important because too much of the dialog over cities and regions is based on economic outcomes. Those are important for sure, but how places shape happiness and well-being is at least as important, if not more so. I hope this helps. RF

[Whitney Gunderson]

Thanks RF. Your explaination is exactly why I have no interest in associating with people like Robert.

Hey Robert! - You are wrong, and research proves so! - Tolerance of all people is a very important. - I have heard these types of comments before, and usually they come from people who are either very gay or very biased, but are very afriad to admit it. - To say that the U.S. should look to China as a way to develop its economy is crazy talk. - Robert, are you gay?

RF, Robert's comments are the type that you should not respond to. Your work has provided a great reason for other people to respond to these types of comments and attacks for you. I think many people, other than me, are willing to do so. Keep your hands clean, and pick the fight that's based on ideas and evidence.

[Robert]

To: Whitney Gunderson and Richard Florida

No, I am not gay. Richard Florida's work is based on America not places like Asia. It is ridiculous and overreaching to take some positive results on tolerance toward gays in America and high tech development and say this is true all over the rest of the world. I have read there are some positive correlations between which league of sports teams wins the superbowl and economic growth. I have read surveys that have said shorter skirts on women are good indicators of economic times as well as other studies showing weird connections between things that dont make sense. Using Astrology to predict the stock market is another one. I don't believe Dr. Florida has make the case of a gay-high tech connection beyond a reasonable doubt across the entire world beyond America.

As for China, my point was that culture plays a key role in economic development that people overlook. Furthermore, I am disturbed about Dr. Florida's attitude toward racial discrimination against Asian people such as his graduate students he mentions in his first book "Rise" and discrimination against gays. In "Rise" his attitude toward discrimination against Asians is like "well when are you people going home?" , or "I guess you people are going home now?". Contrast this with his attitude toward discrimination against gays which is something like "this is outrageous and not acceptable!!!". Well I guess it stuck out for me because I am an Asian American so perhaps I am "BIASED" in this regard.

Actually, I did buy both of Floridas books Rise and Flight. I skipped the latest one because it deals with American cities which doesn't help me because I don't see my future in America. America is a bankrupt, corrupt country that may go the way of the former Soviet Union very soon. America lacks cohesiveness, lacks the correct cultural values of education and honest work, and is actually intolerant of key groups such as Asian engineers that have left America and have taken huge chunks of American high tech industry with them helping to destroy America's tax base.

[Robert]

Also, I don't believe I have unfairly attacked Dr. Florida in my previous posts. It was he himself that wrote:

"David Sirota does a very nice job summarizing what launching a book feels like (via Matt Yglesias)."

and then quoted this person that went on to state how important it was to sell as many books as possible to be able to continue writing.

Dr. Florida was the one that implied a major concern was book sales not me. Many other researchers publish in academic journals that hardly anyone reads and no income is generated for these authors.

I generally agree with his theories that there is a "Creative Class" and this class is a key engine of economic growth especially in the modern era and that there is a "Creative Economy" that is very important to a country's development. I wouldn't be a regular reader of this website if I didn't believe in Florida's general thesis.

However, I don't agree with everything that Dr. Florida says. I can think and analyze things for myself. When a scientific researcher openly says how selling as many books as possible is a major goal then he opens himself up to criticism as to weather or not some elements of his books were designed to specifically boost sales rather than objective science.

I would like to hear other people's opinion on this because I don't think that I am alone.

[Robert]

"To say that the U.S. should look to China as a way to develop its economy is crazy talk."

China and America are completely different countries. However, I believe some methods of China's development could be beneficial to America. The Chinese government has an economic development plan of special economic zones, subsidies to key industries, as well as leadership from the top that emphasizes production and job creation especially for export. In America, as Paul Volker a former head of the Federal Reserve has stated there is "too much consumption and not enough production" in the American economy. In America there is no plan or leadership to build the American economy. All there is is a blind faith in world trade with as few barrriers as possible.

China is the country with a huge budge surplus and nearly 2 trillion dollars in foreign exchange reserves. America is the country with huge deficits, a declining dollar that is in the process of collapse, and a people who are starting to pawn their family heirlooms and other valuables for money for gas and food. The American economy grew only about .6 percent last quarter and other estimates have it in negative territory if the true rate of inflation is used. Based on the facts, America looking toward China for tips as to how to save its economy is NOT "crazy talk"!!!

[Scott]

I am Australian. If I can add another view to this debate, it is that I think both Robert and Whitney have valid points.

I say this based upon my living in Japan for close to 2 years. When I first arrived, the culture shock was overwhelming, but after a few months there, I was interested to find that my views on both Japan and Australia were changing.

Japanese people generally seemed much better at working in teams - it took time to gain consensus, but once achieved, the whole team could move rapidly: and it was usually according to a plan. The other thing which struck me is that much of the focus both culturally in in the education system there was upon not leaving anyone behind. If one child was weak at something, other kids were encouraged to help their team-mate for the good of the team. And I believe Robert is correct when he states that education is valued more highly in Asian countries.

To my great surprise, the other thing I learnt in Japan was respect for the USA. I looked long and hard to find Australian companies and products but found very few. However, American goods, services, and people were well represented, and the overwhelming "soft power" of American culture was obvious.

This clashed markedly with the attitudes held by my family whilst growing up. As a farmer, my Dad used to say about US agricultural trade policy "with "friends" like the Yanks, who needs enemies?" I also met Americans who varied in their attitudes and behaviour like people from any other country. The ex-Marines were not much better than animals, but some other Americans have become close friends, and talking to them was a revelation about just how diverse the USA is.

By the time I came home, I realised that enlightened leadership by the USA had done something incredible. While certainly not perfect by any means, US economic policy since WW2 has allowed billions of people to escape poverty - their mantra of open markets in both directions has allowed much of Asia (starting with Japan) to become economic powers in their own right. If the USA had not given Japan and Europe aid, what would the world look like now?

The catch is that, as Robert says, the USA has ceded leadership upon many fields to countries who view trade as war and act in a mercantilist manner. Japan is an instructive example in this - until 1990, it was the economic "pin-up" girl, often based upon shadowing American breakthroughs and then taking the market.

The incredibly instructive difference, however, is what has happened since. Japan has a stutterung economy based upon the Industrial era, and I would suggest the ONLY Japanese cities with any sort of creative edge are Tokyo,Kyoto and Nagoya. In contrast, there are posts here showing that some US Creative Cities are holding up well despite the credit crunch. And why does it so often seem to be the USA that new things come from?

The answer has to lie in America's diversity, whether it is based upon gender,race, or whatever. This, and its flexible economy, allows the USA to very quickly move onto the "next big thing". As a result, the large Information Era firms are based in the USA - not Japan. South Korea has great movies and music, and lightning-fast Internet and mobile-phone networks - but large numbers people are not choosing to move there to live as they do to both the USA and Australia.

And this is where tolerance comes in - I think RF is right when he talks about gay people, my view is that they are like the canaries in the coal mine. When they are happy, they and the citizens around them "sing", and the cultural output is obvious. When the canary is silent, or worse, has flown the coop, the opposite occurs.

If China is really smart, it can do both - it is also a very diverse country, with perhaps a good record of those minorities within its borders (I would dispute if the Tibetans, Uighurs, and Taiwanese see themselves as within those borders, however, and therein lies the rub). China has size, economic strength and culture (I agree it makes a difference, Robert) in its favour. But is this enough to become truly creative, rather than just a big factory workshop for the world?

Having said that, I am also concerned about the USA. I haven't been there, and so I have to rely upon my friends there, and the media, to make a judgement. Australia is similar to the USA in that we do not value engineers, teachers, and other Creatives in the way we value sports stars,for example. And while our new government down here is waking up (about time), I wonder about America's future based upon its horrendously lopsided society and dismal educational outcomes.

Essentially, the currently US Presidential race is showing us the future in all countries. Large swathes of the USA want to cling to the past, and politicians are torn between trying to protect people, or building ladders to allow them to function better in our globalising world. Other people are happy to roll with the changes, and they are often able to benefit because they are looking to the future,rather than the past.

The task for all countries is to make the jump - to help ALL citizens to thrive, not just those lucky enough to live in creative regions. This means, as Robert points out, that plans need to be made to help weaker regions to develop skills and industries - not to be left solely to the mercy of the market. When the world changes on such a large scale, the market is simply going to follow the changes.

When the Industrial Revolution happened, the Mediterranean and Arabic countries lost out badly. Their societies lost markets and skills because their products and services were no longer important. At the time, it was difficult to see what was going to happen. Now we all have the tools to do better - and we must.

[Whitney Gunderson]

Robert - The United States is a free country, which means many things. It means that the United States provides you with the means to express your opinion. It means that the people who consider your opinion are supposed to consider it and tolerate it, because on the whole, the U.S. is a tolerant country. And it means that you are free to leave this country if you so desire. I have read your posts and do not agree with you. Richard Florida is a successful person, don't attempt to trash his success because you aren't as successful. If you think China is so great, you should try to move to China and express your opinion there. Good luck.

[Robert]

To: Whitney Gunderson

First of all you seem to measure tolerance in terms of people being able to speak their opinions, my measure of tolerance is in terms of racial harmony and levels of racial problems and discrimination. By this measure America does not seem very tolerant to me. Just read through Florida's first book on his experiences in Pittsburgh.

Secondly, I am not disagreeing with some of Florida's ideas because I am jealous of his success but because I don't believe he has proven certain assertions in his books. I also think a people's culture is important in economic development and I don't think Florida has mentioned this in his books. Ironically, I think that Dr. Florida should be thanking me for giving him more ideas from which to build his "creative class" theories. In fact I remember posting how natural resources are also important in building a city and a few weeks later I noticed that the creative class group had added a new term which was "Territorial Assets" or something like that to their list of important terms. Was that a coincidence? Did my post which pointed this out help the creative class group? Dr. Florida is going to have to address criticisms like mine when he goes out there in the real world to promote his books so I am actually doing him A BIG FAVOR in pointing out some weak points in his ideas. In fact, I am open to joining the creative class group as a quality assurance person who looks for potential problems in Florida's theories. :) How about it Dr. Florida??

Furthermore, I may have to go to China to get a decent job especially an engineering job or research job.

In a current BusinessWeek article entitled "Is U.S. Innovation Headed Offshore?"

http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/may2008/id2008057_518979.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_news+%2B+analysis

cites a study that tries to put the incorrect spin that "Innovation" is staying in America but research and development and the actual engineering is being offshored and America is benefiting. Well research and development and the actual engineering of a product IS most of the INNOVATION so basically most of the innovation IS being offshored to countries like China and India. The people benefiting right now are the American companies not the American people. However, once the American dollar collapses then the American companies will not benefit either if their wealth is held in American dollars.