There's a nifty little word-play on the 'doom' of publishing that's buzzing around the internet. Watch it the whole way through - it's not very long.

Watch the clip before reading on. Go on, I'll wait.

It's certainly technically impressive, but is it saying all that much? Is it really contributing to the debate, or just summing up the surface arguments? I think the latter. Don't get me wrong, I love word-play, and I think this is a brilliant production, and it's an effective way of putting the argument out to people who haven't heard it yet (if any such people who actually buy books still exist.)

The problem is that while it's clever, it's not really putting much of that argument forth. Well, it's not even an argument, technically, it's a series of compeltely unsupported statements, rather like advertising. But the fact that it's so clever makes us forget that it's not actually saying anything.

Spectacle vs substance is a common problem - can you be brilliant at the same time as saying something useful? Think about how much work would have gone into that little viral ad above, and then consider how much more difficult it would have been had they been making in-depth arguments for their point. They would have had to do so in a way that made sense in both directions. I'm not sure the result is possible, but I'm certain it wouldn't have been as effective.

It's not a matter of technique, or lack of skill - the impossibility is not in the creation, but in the reception of it. It's that we, as humans, can only focus on one thing at a time. If we're looking at the spectacle (ooh, word play!) we're ignoring the substance. If there's a good depth of substance (hm, great arguments about the publishing debate) we don't really see the spectacle.

Spectacle can take many forms, from something that's just an enjoyable romp (Harry Potter), to a particular aspect of the novel / movie / fingerpainting such as humour (Discworld), worldbuilding (Middle Earth) or eye-candy (Avatar. yes, I know it's not a novel, but it communicates the concept better.) And it's often the more popular of the two, for mass-market, which is why books that deal with deep themes in interesting ways are often classed as literature (and thereby given the seal of doom for their sales).

It's a mistake to think that either is more 'worthy' (much as the literati would have us do.) It takes just as much skill to create great spectacle as it does to create great substance. A spectacle is still an expression of your perception and experiences; still sharing your art and thoughts with another.

So, which would you rather create?