LA Times piece on the trend for online-only publications* to rediscover print-and-paper formats
Alexis C. Madrigal's "2013: the Year 'the Stream' Crested" which among many interesting points, makes use of Robin Sloan's idea of "flow" versus "stock" --
the feed. It’s the posts and the tweets. It’s the stream of daily and
sub-daily updates that remind people that you exist.
the durable stuff. It’s the content you produce that’s as interesting in
two months (or two years) as it is today. It’s what people discover via
search. It’s what spreads slowly but surely, building fans over time."
-- to wonder what happens when the balance between flow and stock gets crazily out of wack, both in the culture and in any given individual's life (as content-producer and as content-consumer)
Reversion to analogue formats (and, it's hoped, their modes of reading, their temporality) is an extreme strategy to reestablish "stock" and with it the idea not just of the long read but of cultural longevity....
* As it happens, in the debut issue of the Pitchfork Review - one of the digital-goes-analogue publications discussed in Matt Pearce's LA Times piece - I have the lead essay "Worth Their Wait": part misty-eyed reminiscence about the UK music weeklies I grew up on, part a sober analysis of the difference between loyally reading a solid-form magazine that came out at regular intervals (i.e. then) and navigating the omnidirectional, "always-on" info-and-opinion bombardment (i.e. now)
However as it's only available in ink-and-paper form, and comes out tomorrow, you'll have to wait if you want to read it. And you'll have to go somewhere, most likely, to get a copy. Like that little feller in the illustration, which (I think) is supposed to be me hastening down to W.H. Smiths on a Wednesday. Sweet, although it looks more like Paris than Berkhamsted High Street.