Robert McCrum makes the case that times are looking good for writers:

But how dire, really, is the situation? You could say that the garret has been replaced by Starbucks, and how bad is that? Writers of all types and conditions are now part of a global community, and can become engaged in a worldwide conversation. Unlike the bad old days, we all – whoever we happen to be – can now enjoy some kind of audience, for better or worse. I believe that writers want two things: love and money. Or, to put it another way, readers and remuneration. With the trusty laptop, at least half that equation is satisfied.

I suppose that’s true, although it’s a little passe to say it at this point, and it doesn’t change the fact that most writers will only be able to gain a small audience through their laptops, unless they manage to place a piece with a large online venture . . . which is all to say: seems a lot like the old days, but with blogs.

I’m also very doubtful as to all this:

There’s a case for saying that just as the status and position of the writer has changed irrevocably with the world wide web, so equally, the status of the publisher has been transformed by Amazon and Google, both of which are poised to play a much bigger role in the international world of books than hitherto. Disintermediation – not my favourite word – is likely to mean the reconfiguration of the publishing hierarchy, from top to bottom, bringing writer and reader much close together.

In a certain sense, yes, writers can go directly to readers if they want (and I’ll leave it to you to decide if that’s good or bad). But I’m not sure the model is changing that radically. Publishers still publish, just now they have about 5 different formats to sell to readers in and about 10 different ways to reach them.