[stonetools]

the problem with the abundance vs scarcity debate is that it focuses on the wrong kind of abundance. For sure, its easier today to produce and publish content than ever before. Unfortunately, creative TALENT is as scarce as it ever was. Also just as the scarce is EDITING talent, which refines the product of creative talent into good books. What this means is that the amount of quality literature is not really much greater than before. Its more easily available, but the AMOUNT of it is not that much more.

As far as the public is concerned, there is no perceived abundance. The general public doesn't know or care that there is a vast pool of free and near free stuff available on the Internet. What the public wants is the professionally curated and produced stuff, written by writers that they are familiar with through exposure in bookstores , traditional marketing, libraries or recommendations by intimates. The public believes that books produced by such writers are much more likely to deliver quality entertainment than unknown " indie" writers-so much so that the general public is not even aware that we are living in an era of "abundance. "
Of course, the public's perception may change as we move from the present era- which is still 80 per cent print - to a mostly ebook era. Right now I would say that the era of abundance has not dawned for the general public.