That's kind of funny you should say that. A book I'm currently reading advocates that our best writers of today's day and age won't be those on the internet that share their work easily but instead hidden away, released to small groups of audiences. One such forum referenced was TOR and Darknet.

That sounds interesting. How does the book argue that quality of work correlates with availability and audience size? What book is it?

Part of the argument is that we draw conclusions and interpret a book based on our own experience in the current time - not the time at which the book is written. Meaning changes with time, he gives an example of Moby Dick. It meant something totally different to someone back when it was written and was not popular. It was not until later did the book become popular because it was interpreted for the various meanings people think it's about. Secondly, the book is written for that specific audience - not the entire internet and/or world. The author remains in total control. He then mentions Kafka as an example because he as so controlling of his writings.

It's a small book for a select audience :)

I think hes talking about "But What If We're Wrong?" by Chuck Klosterman. Sorry to spoil the secret!

edit: Its highly recommended. Also, its not an argument about quality. The author speculates about what kind of art produced in the present day that people in the future will value.

Yep, that's the book! Good find.

I originally replied to a child of this post, but if you are interested in the book, I think its "But What If We're Wrong" by Chuck Klosterman.

Makes sense. If we view the internet as somewhat tribal, small communities have a better chance to evolve a unique style.

Makes sense, people on the internet are largely over critical.

Klosterman?

Yep