the original title is: Nonfiction Publishing, Under Threat, Is More Important Than Ever
which totally fits, did HN's title algorithm cut that off? If so it seems silly. "Than ever" is an important modifier, otherwise someone is apt to think that the subject is more important than some other opposing subject, in this case that Nonfiction publishing is more important than fiction publishing. Anyway I think the "than ever" should be added back in
There isn't a technical reason why titles have to be that short, memory isn't in that short supply despite the RAM shortages. A function, therefore an algorithm, is deciding to truncate the title for some reason.
This is the first I've heard that Tattered Cover was purchased by Barnes and Noble. I am disgusted. B&N has demonstrated again and again that they do not know how to build or run a bookstore.
Going back to the late 90s I've been able to consistently buy books I want from my local B&N. I got most of the programming books I used to build my skills that led to my career there. My young adult kids buy books there now. They keep great hours and it's a pleasant experience. I recently went on a whim, at 8pm on a weekday, and found the best novel I've read in years. What am I missing?
> Nonfiction books are a crucial bulwark against the surging public culture of “alternative facts,” outright lies, and the brazen embrace of ignorance.
Do they believe someone cannot lie because it’s written down in a paperback? Authors lie in books and books do nothing to help someone who “embraces” ignorance
They can lie, but that lie will remain in the books that have gone into circulation. A lie on the internet can be reversed or erased after it has been consumed by millions of human eye balls.
We generally consider it a good thing that written falsehoods can be amended to instead say the truth. That's what we do with book errata and editions too.
The bigger issue is the attempt to rewrite history as if the falsehood was never there, which is in my opinion a much bigger lie. As I see it, this can be handled by third party archives and by us as a society actually attaching repercussions to such outright lying.
From what I've heard through self-publishing media, nowadays, traditional publishing isn't even particularly disposed towards pushing back on things like these. They might even be all for publishing works based on outright lies if there's an existing customer base with open wallets.
Supposedly traditional publishing has become more and more conservative (not necessarily politically) with the risks they take on things they publish, so they'd be less likely to push back against widely-held ideas that are outright wrong. They'll really only publish authors with an established following or works that have a large base of interested consumers.
Edit: I just wanted to add that since I've heard these things so much, going to a bookstore like Barnes & Noble feels super weird. The books look nice, but they're all expensive and I have no sense that the selection has been curated for genuine quality or informational content. It's just what happens to being published now.
I greatly prefer the experience of going to thrift stores like Goodwill where the selection is chaotic, there's no real expectation of curation aside from maybe broad categories, and the books are gloriously cheap. You can find great stuff there!
I spent years as a freelance proofreader and copyeditor. One of the reasons I don't so much any more is I was getting too many political books, books where the authors were not so interested in facts or logic--or even internal consistency. Most of these books were 'conservative' but this was not exclusively a right-wing issue. Ideology requires glossing over the complexity of the real world. It's draining to read this stuff, with limited ability to make corrections.
Hell, now I work for a uni press, and I'm seeing this in our own list more and more--writers are giving up on deep analysis.
the original title is: Nonfiction Publishing, Under Threat, Is More Important Than Ever
which totally fits, did HN's title algorithm cut that off? If so it seems silly. "Than ever" is an important modifier, otherwise someone is apt to think that the subject is more important than some other opposing subject, in this case that Nonfiction publishing is more important than fiction publishing. Anyway I think the "than ever" should be added back in
It's not a title algorithm, it's a character limit.
Full title, "...than ever": 64 characters
Another title currently on the front page has 74 characters: "The Many Roots of Our Suffering: Reflections on Robert Trivers (1943–2026)"
There isn't a technical reason why titles have to be that short, memory isn't in that short supply despite the RAM shortages. A function, therefore an algorithm, is deciding to truncate the title for some reason.
no, as I indicated the full title is within the character limit, to test it I opened up a submit form and it did not say the title was too long.
> Cuts in publishing and book reviewing imperil the future of narrative nonfiction, and our understanding of the world around us.
https://archive.ph/2026.03.23-164808/https://newrepublic.com...
This is the first I've heard that Tattered Cover was purchased by Barnes and Noble. I am disgusted. B&N has demonstrated again and again that they do not know how to build or run a bookstore.
Going back to the late 90s I've been able to consistently buy books I want from my local B&N. I got most of the programming books I used to build my skills that led to my career there. My young adult kids buy books there now. They keep great hours and it's a pleasant experience. I recently went on a whim, at 8pm on a weekday, and found the best novel I've read in years. What am I missing?
What’s the novel :)
> Nonfiction books are a crucial bulwark against the surging public culture of “alternative facts,” outright lies, and the brazen embrace of ignorance.
Do they believe someone cannot lie because it’s written down in a paperback? Authors lie in books and books do nothing to help someone who “embraces” ignorance
They can lie, but that lie will remain in the books that have gone into circulation. A lie on the internet can be reversed or erased after it has been consumed by millions of human eye balls.
We generally consider it a good thing that written falsehoods can be amended to instead say the truth. That's what we do with book errata and editions too.
The bigger issue is the attempt to rewrite history as if the falsehood was never there, which is in my opinion a much bigger lie. As I see it, this can be handled by third party archives and by us as a society actually attaching repercussions to such outright lying.
This was dead, I vouched for it, I think it's a good point. Form does not determine the truthfulness of content.
From what I've heard through self-publishing media, nowadays, traditional publishing isn't even particularly disposed towards pushing back on things like these. They might even be all for publishing works based on outright lies if there's an existing customer base with open wallets.
Supposedly traditional publishing has become more and more conservative (not necessarily politically) with the risks they take on things they publish, so they'd be less likely to push back against widely-held ideas that are outright wrong. They'll really only publish authors with an established following or works that have a large base of interested consumers.
Edit: I just wanted to add that since I've heard these things so much, going to a bookstore like Barnes & Noble feels super weird. The books look nice, but they're all expensive and I have no sense that the selection has been curated for genuine quality or informational content. It's just what happens to being published now.
I greatly prefer the experience of going to thrift stores like Goodwill where the selection is chaotic, there's no real expectation of curation aside from maybe broad categories, and the books are gloriously cheap. You can find great stuff there!
Indeed, I became aware of various conspiracy theories and woo through books and newspapers in the 90s
I spent years as a freelance proofreader and copyeditor. One of the reasons I don't so much any more is I was getting too many political books, books where the authors were not so interested in facts or logic--or even internal consistency. Most of these books were 'conservative' but this was not exclusively a right-wing issue. Ideology requires glossing over the complexity of the real world. It's draining to read this stuff, with limited ability to make corrections.
Hell, now I work for a uni press, and I'm seeing this in our own list more and more--writers are giving up on deep analysis.