Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Brave Old World: A Book and a Business Proposal
Update: When I told the Yeti that I’d posted this but hadn’t set up a GoFundMe page, he basically said I was an idiot.
“But I haven’t worked out every detail of how this will work yet,” I said.
“Just ask for the money,” he said.
Fair enough. I’ve now set up a GoFundMe page. Please contribute here, at Brave Old World. I don’t know how every detail of this will work, but your support is definitely going to get you some good, old-fashioned journalism.
***
Ladies and Gentlemen of Ricochet, I have a business proposal for you. I’m about to ask you for money, so be prepared. But I think — maybe — this idea could work, and if it does, you’d get a good return on it. So grab yourself a cup of coffee, put on your capitalist-caps, and let me explain.
Ten years ago, I wrote Menace in Europe: Why the Continent’s Crisis is America’s, Too. I’d been living for a while in Europe, and found many Americans’ fantasies about European life delusional. Those who were sure the Continent was on a glide path to peaceful, prosperous, and permanent integration seemed to me suffused with dangerously excessive optimism.
I argued that Europe was haunted by ghosts from the past while confronting entirely new problems it was ill-prepared to face. Americans, I suggested, would be well-advised to pay attention to what was really happening.
When I wrote that book, my views were unusual and considered extreme. Now, obviously, they’re not.
It received excellent reviews in some quarters:
“Serious, well researched—and riveting. More than a piercing alarm over Muslim radicalism in Europe, this thoughtful book takes us on a tour of the continent’s spiritual crisis. Berlinski weaves sociological insight and helpful historical analysis into accounts of everything from the sexual underside of immigration to the dynamics of assassination to Europe’s cities without children to its self-extinguishing tolerance.” —Stanley Kurtz, contributing editor at National Review Online
And of course, it was panned by those who thought me a Cassandra and a hysteric. Still, some of the critics who thought I was seeing ghosts now admit that maybe I had a point. For example, Philip Jenkins, a professor of history and religious studies at Penn State, described me in 2007 as the “author of a highly controversial book on the subject of religion in Europe.” As you can see in this piece, The Age of Permanent Jihad, he’s now more pessimistic than I was a decade ago.
But surprisingly, I’m less sure of my pessimism than I once was.
What changed? I changed, for one. Living for nearly a decade in Turkey changed my perspective on many things. So, perhaps, did growing older. But most importantly, I came back to a continent that had changed, sometimes in ways I didn’t predict. So some of my predictions about Europe’s future proved correct. But others were wrong. Why?
I hated the title Menace in Europe, by the way. I wanted to call it Blackmailed by History. But the sales force thought books with the word “history” in the title didn’t sell. They wanted a title with a terrifying word, one that said to readers, explicitly, why this book mattered to them. I thought it was perfectly obvious that what happens in Europe affects the United States — two World Wars seemed like sufficient evidence of that — but my editor thought that if the sales force hated the title, they wouldn’t try to sell it. So I caved.
I wish I’d stood my ground, because many readers understood my book to be chiefly about Europe’s difficulty integrating its Muslim immigrants. That was an issue that concerned me, but it was only part of a larger story. My other concerns — the rebirth in black-market form of European nationalism, the excessively idealistic foundation upon which the European integration project was built, Russian revanchism — were just as important, and these problems are still overlooked.
There were many things I failed to anticipate. The main thing I didn’t see coming was the crisis of confidence that was soon to befall the United States, one every bit as severe as Europe’s, and more consequential in its implications. Nor did I anticipate the convulsions that were about to take place in the Middle East. But I certainly did see some things coming. I concluded the book this way:
I do not prophesy the imminent demise of European democratic institutions, nor do I predict imminent catastrophe on European soil. But I don’t rule out these possibilities either. Europe’s entitlement economy will collapse. Its demography will change. The European Union may unravel. We have no idea what these events would herald, but it is possible and reasonable to imagine a very ugly outcome. The only people to whom this will come as a surprise are those who have not been paying attention.
Indulge me in a brief moment of personal frustration. Last week I was asked by The New York Times to write an essay about the attack in Brussels and the mood in Europe. I sent what I thought was a serious, grown-up response, but they didn’t run it. Instead, they ran one that began this way:
When I moved to Europe 12 years ago, my biggest concern was whether I’d ever speak decent French. Practically every American I knew came to visit, many saying they dreamed of living here, too. I didn’t worry much about far-right political parties, or the European Union. I certainly didn’t fret about terrorism. …
You can imagine how I felt when I read that. Our newspaper of record, folks.
But on the good-news front, I recently learned that my book has nearly sold out the advance I received for writing it, meaning that from now on, I’ll receive royalty payments. (I’m not expecting to retire on them, alas. But perhaps these checks will one day be sufficient to buy a nice meal every now and again.) It took ten years, but the book is finally making a profit.
Some of you have asked when I’ll be writing a sequel. I agree it’s time to do that, especially in light of the economic and refugee crises and the invasion of Ukraine. I’d like to return to some of the places I wrote about ten years ago to see what I got wrong, what I got right, and why. I’ve watched the changes of the past decade up close, in Turkey and France. I’d like now to report from other places: The Balkan route of the migrant trail, Greece, Germany, Belgium, Britain as it debates its future in Europe, Eastern Europe as it decides whether liberal democracy is truly an idea for which it has much use.
But since I wrote that book, another thing happened that I didn’t expect: The traditional models for book publishing and journalism collapsed. As I’ve noted many times here, the old model for selling journalism, particularly journalism from abroad, is kaput. I’ve written a lot about the consequences of this, particularly here. I wrote a longer piece about the phenomenon here:
… at least eighteen American newspapers and two chains have closed every last one of their overseas bureaus since 1998. Other papers and chains have dramatically reduced their overseas presence. Television networks, meanwhile, have slashed the time they devote to foreign news. They concentrate almost exclusively on war coverage—and then, only on wars where US troops are fighting. That leaves the big four national newspapers—the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times—with independent foreign news coverage. But they too have closed foreign bureaus in recent years. In 2003, the Los Angeles Times shut down 43 percent of its foreign bureaus. …
Lately, my feeling that I wish I could go back to doing that kind of reporting, and my belief that it’s important to do that kind of reporting, have grown. At the same time, my enthusiasm for following the day-to-day minutiae of the American presidential campaign has dwindled. Like many of you, I’ve been so dismayed by the Trump campaign and by what it’s revealed about the real state of the conservative movement that frankly, I’m happier not hearing about it. I’m not enjoying being in the fray of our debates about Trump. I have a terrible feeling about where this campaign is going. I’m not sure I want to invest more emotional and intellectual capital in trying to figure it out. I’m not sure I could, even if I wanted to.
So I’ve been wishing I could go back to old-fashioned journalism — by which I mean, looking at things, asking questions, listening to the answers, reporting what I hear and see. I want to write essays and books again.
But how, in this new publishing world?
The other day, seeing the success of Ricochet’s good-natured campaign to bring Titus Techera to America, I had an idea. It’s not to ask Ricochet to donate money to a book-writing and journalism project. It’s to ask whether members of Ricochet would invest in such a project, in the realistic hope of a return on the investment — although I don’t know what the return would be.
Before I explain the details of this, though, let me ask: Would you be interested in reading, listening, and watching reporting about the transformations in Europe? My idea is to spend, perhaps, a year doing this kind of reporting, with the ultimate goal of writing a book for a larger audience. In the interim, I’d report what I’m doing and learning both on Ricochet and a dedicated site, in a multimedia format: articles, video, audio, podcasts. I’d ask Ricochet members to shape the journalism: to suggest what I should investigate, where I should go, and why; to submit questions for the people I interview, perhaps even to speak to them yourselves on Skype; to guide the project as I go along by helping me better to understand what my audience wants to know. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone try to do journalism this way. It could be an interesting and maybe a useful new approach: interactive, investigative journalism for a specific audience of reader-investors who can help me connect their questions and curiosity better to the stories I discover.
The end product would be a number of things. It would be a multimedia website in which I document the project, post articles, photographs, and video interviews — a bit like the way as I did when I explored the Mavi Marmara fiasco in Turkey. (Here’s a sample of one of my interviews.) It would also be a book, which I’d self-publish through Amazon (as I did my interviews with Margaret Thatcher’s intimates).
What would your role in this be? Well, you’d pay for it. You’d replace Random House or Crown Forum or another conventional publisher as the source of the advance on the book. And then, if I make this into a commercial success — I don’t know yet if I can, but I’d sure try — you’d receive a return on your investment proportional to what you invested. Any earnings beyond my advance and a percentage of the royalties would be returned to you, the investors. And you’d replace The New York Times as the news gatekeeper: Your judgment about what’s important and interesting would guide my reporting agenda. (Bonus: for those of you tired of hearing my views about Trump, this is a guaranteed way to distract me from him.)
Ricochet’s Powers that Be loved this idea. They encouraged me to ask you. And — excitingly — we already have one member-investor who’s willing to get the ball rolling by putting up the first 25 percent of the funds, provided I can raise the other 75 percent from you.
I haven’t yet worked out the budget: I wanted to get your reaction, first. But I suspect the project, including travel expenses, technical expenses (for example, hosting the website, editing the material) and covering my living costs would probably be — rough guess — about $60,000. If you like the idea and think I should pursue it, I’ll work out the details.
What do you think? Would it work? Would you be willing to invest? Do you have any thoughts about how to make an idea like this work?
Help me think this through. I know there’s a story to tell here. It’s obviously important to Americans. It’s a complicated story, and I don’t know, in advance, what I’ll discover. But new media technology shouldn’t be contracting our horizons — it should be making it possible to approach journalism is ways it’s never been approached before. It should be broadening the ways Americans can learn about the world, not shrinking it.
Could it work?
Published in General
I would like that, too, but I think he has his hands full reporting on America.
Contract journalism. I like it. First hit is on the NY Times for being such putzes.
We’d buy a monthly subscription. Decent reporting is the only ROI we need.
I’ve been saying that. That’s something I definitely got wrong ten years ago. Where are you now? The French birthrate is definitely robust. At first I wondered if it was just me — have I suddenly started noticing the babies who’ve always been everywhere? — but no, you’re right. There’s been a French baby boom. Something I’d really like to write more about, in fact.
When I self-published through Xlibris, I set the price I wanted back, everyone in the distribution chain (including Xlibris) got their taste, and the total of all that was the price the reader paid to buy the thing.
When I moved to self-publishing through Smashwords (eBook only), the distribution chain got a lot shorter, and I was able to set the final price and my cut. Self-publishing solely through amazon.com works pretty much the same as that, but the distribution chain is even shorter.
The upshot of all that is that my cut was all royalty–splitting the royalty then becomes first grade arithmetic.
That’s for monomedia, though; I have no idea how to price–or split the price–for the rest of the multi….
Eric Hines
Okay this might be indelicate, and I know France has a strict ban on identifying based on religion etc, but are the kids likely to be named Jean and Margarite, or Muhammed and Fatima? Is the Gaulic birth rate greater then replacement? Is the Muslim birthrate in the same range or significantly higher?
I was thinking about this very question. I don’t do “securities law” but I do know that it would be very easy to structure this in a way that it would constitute a “sale of an investment security” and therefore be subject to the federal securities laws and (possibly) state securities laws. When a “deal” is limited to “accredited investors” (as I understand it) it is still within the securities laws but is (probably) exempt from some of the most onerous requirements like a formal registration being filed with the SEC.
There may be other exemptions besides that for accredited investors and so you should get some guidance from someone who practices in that area of the law and is willing to show you the easiest way to do this as an exempt transaction.
GoFundMe and its competitors managed to avoid this legal morass because people are not buying a share of the profits. They are either making “charitable” (albeit not deductible) contributions or they are buying “stuff” like a product that will be produced if the funding goes through and the project goes into the production phase.
Interestingly, noting both your slight increase of optimism about Europe and the Donald Trump phenomenon (and the preceding Obama phenomenon), maybe to some extent, the lesson is that Europe and America are a little more like each other than we wanted to admit.
That Europe still has some resilience in it that we failed to credit. And that the American Right is more hospitable to a less-conservative European-style nationalism, and the American Left to something not so far from European socialism, than we thought ten years ago.
I don’t have any insights on the logistics. But I like the idea.
See my comment about the newly amended securities law. http://ricochet.com/brave-old-world-book-business-proposal/comment-page-3/#comment-3258969
I’ve been wondering about that too. I had images of Claire toting the kitties with her. :) ;)
Well,
You can have both. :)
The Christian Science Monitor was known in the news world years ago for having the most objective international reporting on the planet. If readers are looking for an alternative to the WSJ or the NYT, this is a good one. The CSM is not religious, despite its title.
The birth of this newspaper is a great story in itself. This is the Wikipedia condensed version:
Eddy was famous in 1908 Boston for luring one of the managing editors for the Boston Globe away to her new venture. :)
Those are staggering numbers.
I noticed a big change in the NYT in the 1990s, and it wasn’t good. What got frustrating was the PC slant on everything. There was no escaping it, and therefore there was no objectivity.
The only reason I read the paper was for the foreign news coverage. In the late nineties I switched entirely to the WSJ.
I used to listen to their program on shortwave radio. It was very good, far surpassing anything on NPR or even CBC. (There used to be some bright spots on CBC.) It was maybe not your best source of information for medical news. No worse than using the NYT for anything involving gender issues, though.
I am worth a few pence. When you have the thing set up, let us know.
Do not give up on the US. The Trump phenomenon will quickly pass — as quickly as Ross Perot and more quickly than George Wallace. There are a host of people out there whom the two parties have ignored, and the Republicans have been particularly good at promising and not delivering. The consequence of Trump’s intervention will be to force one of the two parties to attend to their concerns. In the meantime, however, it will not be pretty.
I don’t mind being a bit indelicate. I was talking about noticing white, middle-class (presumably), francophone children. It stood out especially when I was in Paris (I’m now in Lyon, and heading to Marseille and Toulouse next week) because I was staying near Canal St. Martin, which is a chic neighbourhood with little design boutiques along the streets–the sort of place where you’d expect childless young adults to be living if it was in Seattle or Toronto, for example.
I’m not sure about the investment proposal for me, but a subscription would work. Perhaps there could be two tracks—one for people who are due a return on investment and another for simple subscriptions? I can understand wanting to begin with a substantial sum, but that might be a way to get off the ground, doing more expensive reporting as time goes on.
I love the idea.
One suggestion: instead of (or in addition to) a written blog, perhaps an intermittent podcast instead? My visual bandwidth is much more restricted than my auditory bandwidth.
I listen to podcasts all day while I work, but I can’t read much more than what I already do at Ricochet.
It’s not indelicate. It’s the most important question you could ask. Claire, I think you should circumvent the French government ban and actually go to a natal ward and do a head count. And ask the parents what they think.
One trend that has become very apparent in Australian cities in the last five years is the surge in Western-European Millennials (many French) coming here, initially on work holiday visas but with a view to try and stay permanently. It’s the kind of migrant invasion I welcome.
I bring that up to wonder, if they are born there, does that mean they are going to stay there?
I did what I could today, will gladly do more in the future and consider it money well spent.
I have every confidence you will produce some fascinating reading!
I’m in
I don’t have any useful insights here, but I think this is a good idea.
Rendition!
The problem is that those French who arrive in Australia, unwilling to defend France (like those Syrians who arrive in France, unwilling to defend Syria) will also be unwilling to defend Australia when the time comes. And after France falls, Australia’s time will come.
Count me in. Loved Meanace in Europe which was amusing and prescient. I spend a lot of time in France and it grabbed me. Also liked your Gulen/Turkey reporting. I believe you are uniquely qualified to do this task and inquiring minds need to hear a different voice from a American who is a critical but historically/culturally informed observer of contemporary Euroland. I know your views re the role Europe plays in US foreign policy conflict with many R subscribers. All I ask is do not let that shade your work. Check in in the mail or the net.
I’m all too aware of that. And I’ve considered moving to New Zealand, and then on to Easter Island. And then there is nowhere else.
On the other hand, the son of a Cuban escapee is now the best prospect for US President. And going back to ww2 as an example: Jewish scientists kickstarted and worked on the Manhatten Project. De Gaulle could only lead a resistance from outside of France. The Polish 303 Fighter Squadron destroyed the most aircraft in the Battle of Britain. So tactical retreat is sometimes intelligent and effective. But I take your point.
I’m old enough to remember the days (say the late 50s, early 60s) when conservative right-wingers said that if it got any worse they were going to move to Australia where there was no welfare state and people were still free. (I don’t remember if that was exactly the way they said it, though.)
People were still saying it five years ago! The Australian welfare/taxpayer-funded media state largely originates from the seventies but it’s really gone off the deep end since Howard left office.
It started getting really bad when I heard academics start saying the phrase “In Sweden..” a lot more. Sound like any candidates you know?
First off — in case anyone didn’t see my post this morning — thank you. Thank you all, for the suggestions, for the money, for everything. I think this idea is going to work, and I couldn’t be more excited and couldn’t be more sincerely grateful that you’re behind me.
Second, in case you didn’t see it, I also asked two practical questions on the Member Feed. Looks like I’m going to need a cat sitter. And that’s a very special and important job, so please give it some thought.
Thank you, Ricochet. You’re unbelievably great.
Now I’ll individually answer some of your comments, which were hugely helpful. Thank you all, for all of them.
I’m thinking exactly along those lines. Launching the material here and using Ricochet as the main place for discussing it with readers. The site would have the more polished written material (refined by hearing what you thought of it), as well as the other media and merchandise. (I’m not sure what merchandise beyond the book would really have value to people — I have to think about whether I want to work with a photographer, and if so, whether that would make the production costs of the book skyrocket, how it would translate into e-books, etc.)
The site would be the vehicle for promoting the sale of the book. Perhaps I could occasionally publish letters from readers on it, but I’m thinking we’ve got a great thing going here with our conversation and the Code of Conduct — why reinvent the wheel? And yes, if anything I see or write isn’t family-friendly, I can put it on the site.