Douglas Rushkoff made me look at the possibilities of the internet in connection to writing. I’ve kind of been a dinosaur- protesting the aspects of publishing the internet is changing- and I hate to admit it but I think it comes from a really ignorant place of not wanting to accept change and also from a stubborn place of not wanting to change my ways.
Why? Because paper and books and ink and the millions of different ways to bind pages are pretty. Sometimes holding a book feels better then holding anything else. Plus computers don’t smell as good as ink.
The way technology is moving is kind of scary. Buying a book online is taking away human interaction- reading a literary journal off a web site and saving it in your favorite’s folder is taking away the kind of nostalgia having that literary journal on your bookshelf gives you.
Maybe Douglas has more faith in society then I do- because deep down I’m scared that the less writing is available in only print- the easier it will be to forget about it.
It’s true there are more outlets for writers that are unknown because of the internet and blogs- but in my opinion it is also harder to find good writing on the internet because it is bogged down in search engines full of crap.
Plus- the blue light that buzzes from my computer makes reading less romantic.
But this essay did make me realize the interaction between readers and writers on the internet- something that print can’t really offer. And it completely changed my approach to the zine I am putting together because now I want to find a way to connect the print version to the internet.
Monday, March 2, 2009
I apologize for being nitpicky and lacking faith in humanity.
I respect Douglas Rushkoff for standing his ground on what is probably the pariah's point of view, but some of his statements bother me, and I don't think I can let them slide so easily.
Rushkoff writes, "Just as hearing a song on the radio might provoke a person to buy a CD, reading text by authors online can motivate people to buy their actual books."
Yeah… this isn't always true. I will state that everybody is or knows someone who always prefers holding a physical copy of media in their hands as they run home to displace that specific piece of shelf; they'll want the CD for the quality of sound, the album art, and the booklet; they'll want the DVD for the special features and commentary; and they'll want the book for the cover art, the design, the smell, etc. But what Rushkoff must not realize is that this is such a small percentage. It's like the percentage of people who actually vote; it's staggering to know the real number. Pirating is pretty much an epidemic, and if people have become adjusted to downloading an entire album in lossless quality or a straight DVD-rip of a movie whenever they want it, in less than two hours, for free, why wouldn't that habit progress to books? I'm not advocating piracy, or saying it's right, because yeah, in a perfect world, if you love the art, you support it, but--and Ruskoff even touches on this slightly--the new generation, growing up on the internet, is lazy. Not to mention, broke as hell.
Which makes a nice segue to my next point. Rushkoff writes: "Online interaction actually makes a person's writing better. I can tell when I've received email from people raised on the internet because their sentences are dense with innuendo... Kids online today write much better than I did at their age. Or at least with greater density of thought."
WOAH.
HOLD UP.
"Dense with innuendo"? "Greater density of thought"? "Makes writing better"?! Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were having a rise in illiteracy because of shorthand; I thought I went through high school proofreading peer's papers that used "U" for "you" and had no consideration of the proper form of "there", "their", or "they're" (mostly that last one). I mean, I'm not completely doubting Mr. Rushkoff's account--he does have a blog, and yeah, he probably communicates with thousands of literate youngsters. But I grew up with the internet--since second grade, thank you very much--as did everyone around me in public school, and half of them fill out their facebook profiles in alternating caps and update their statuses in full shorthand. This is how the majority of my generation has chosen to project itself, and any regard to correct grammar is not something that they feel they should concern themselves with.
What Rushkoff probably should have specified was writers that use the Internet. But he doesn't say that. He implies that everyone can benefit from the internet . And that is wrong. Very, very wrong.
I'll note that Rushkoff was born in 1961. He's less than a year older than both my parents, who both possess superior internet knowledge in comparison with the rest of their age group because it's a central part of their careers. I don't want to say that Rushkoff is out of touch because of his age, but I think his standards for those who "grow up with the internet" are a little different than what they really should be. I guess he doesn't consider that ugly side of internet breeding because nobody with terrible grammar would have any business commenting on his blog. So he just doesn't see it.
But to make this response seem a little more well-rounded, Rushkoff does raise some pretty good points. The paragraph where he talks about experimenting on his own--"canceling a contract for a novel in order to be able to post the entire thing online"--and receiving around eleven hundred responses to help the novel's development shows the best reason the publishing world should have a digital foot in the door: feedback. Instant feedback, at that.
However, Rushkoff saves himself, ultimately by stating that, "Computers don't kill books. People do." But that statement seems to justify my first argument against him. Usually, if people can get it free, they'll do it. They might pay their respects later, but it will be much later, when they just happen to catch themselves near a Borders or a Barnes and Noble and see that movie or CD they downloaded three months ago on sale, or see their new favorite novel in the bargain bin.
Week 5 Readings
These articles are more than just a little depressing. As if we haven't heard enough bad news about the stupid economy lately. I mean, publishing your work is hard enough (I already have a Plan B that involves bringing back apple selling) without small presses collapsing around you left and right. It's particularly stressful for kids in my position, who are just getting ready to leave school and have little to no published material to land them a job or a book deal with Random House or whatever, and who are counting on indie presses like these.
I'd have to agree with Patty (at least, I think it was Patty) in that I definitely noticed how greed seemed to act as a catalyst in both of these collapses. That was the most upsetting part of all, really. I mean, you'd think that once you were out of middle school- high school at the very latest- you'd have reached a point in life where you'd be able to interact with people who have learned how to behave like decent, goodhearted folk. Seriously, how much moral grounding does it really take to realize that it is unethical to falsify information that hundreds of publishers and organizations depend on? Many of those publishers were doing good things with that revenue, too. I mean, lying to nonprofit Buddhists? For chrissakes!
Sad as it is that this is the reality writers and publishers must face when trying to make a name for themselves, I can't actually say that I'm intimidated by these events. Call me a hopeless optimist, but I think it's times and situations like these that force people to rise to the occasion and, in doing so, to become a lot better for it. Trying to publish your work as an emerging writer will always be hard. If you can do it while facing the adversity of economical circumstances such as these, anything that comes afterwards will seem like smooth sailing. I mean, whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger, right? Just look at cockroaches. Those bastards have built up immunities to almost every household poison in existence.
I'd have to agree with Patty (at least, I think it was Patty) in that I definitely noticed how greed seemed to act as a catalyst in both of these collapses. That was the most upsetting part of all, really. I mean, you'd think that once you were out of middle school- high school at the very latest- you'd have reached a point in life where you'd be able to interact with people who have learned how to behave like decent, goodhearted folk. Seriously, how much moral grounding does it really take to realize that it is unethical to falsify information that hundreds of publishers and organizations depend on? Many of those publishers were doing good things with that revenue, too. I mean, lying to nonprofit Buddhists? For chrissakes!
Sad as it is that this is the reality writers and publishers must face when trying to make a name for themselves, I can't actually say that I'm intimidated by these events. Call me a hopeless optimist, but I think it's times and situations like these that force people to rise to the occasion and, in doing so, to become a lot better for it. Trying to publish your work as an emerging writer will always be hard. If you can do it while facing the adversity of economical circumstances such as these, anything that comes afterwards will seem like smooth sailing. I mean, whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger, right? Just look at cockroaches. Those bastards have built up immunities to almost every household poison in existence.
An Opportunity for Change
There’s this looming idea, or fear rather, in the publishing industry and writing community that electronic media will one day eliminate the buying and selling of books in the traditional form. Similar to Douglas Rushkoff in his essay “A Computer Ate my Book,” I just don’t understand what all the panic is about. He writes, “Media don’t actually steal from each other. They feed each other.” And I think he’s right.
There have always been places and mediums where people can go to get books for free, ranging anywhere from the library to the internet. Yet, people still continue to buy books. They cart them around from location to location. They create entire rooms of shelves just to display and house them. There are some people who are even willing to pay thousands and thousands of dollars for a rare first edition. So there must be something about books that causes us not only to want them, but to keep going back to them.
Industries change over time. It’s absolutely essential. So why does this particular industry seem to want to be the exception to the rule? If anything, now more than ever, I think that publishers have a great opportunity to change the way they do business. Rushkoff explains, “Computers have reminded us of the special ability of books to provide a kind of experience you can’t get anywhere else.” This statement really speaks to the importance of creativity to the book making process. Publishers now have the chance to really differentiate the book experience from the internet experience. They just have to seize it.
When I first heard about electronic books (Kindles, Sony Book Reader, etc), I think I was one of the few writers to become excited about the concept. It sounded like a great way to make novels more accessible to a generation that rarely goes anywhere without an i-pod. Let's face it: None of us are in it for the money. It's about connecting with readers, which is what this new world of publishing and the internet allows us to do on a much larger scale. Whether we like it or not, we live in a technology-based society, and I think we need to find ways to both embrace and add to it. The fact that people are reading, whether it’s on a computer screen or in a book, is what should matter the most, because without readers, then we're really lost.
There have always been places and mediums where people can go to get books for free, ranging anywhere from the library to the internet. Yet, people still continue to buy books. They cart them around from location to location. They create entire rooms of shelves just to display and house them. There are some people who are even willing to pay thousands and thousands of dollars for a rare first edition. So there must be something about books that causes us not only to want them, but to keep going back to them.
Industries change over time. It’s absolutely essential. So why does this particular industry seem to want to be the exception to the rule? If anything, now more than ever, I think that publishers have a great opportunity to change the way they do business. Rushkoff explains, “Computers have reminded us of the special ability of books to provide a kind of experience you can’t get anywhere else.” This statement really speaks to the importance of creativity to the book making process. Publishers now have the chance to really differentiate the book experience from the internet experience. They just have to seize it.
When I first heard about electronic books (Kindles, Sony Book Reader, etc), I think I was one of the few writers to become excited about the concept. It sounded like a great way to make novels more accessible to a generation that rarely goes anywhere without an i-pod. Let's face it: None of us are in it for the money. It's about connecting with readers, which is what this new world of publishing and the internet allows us to do on a much larger scale. Whether we like it or not, we live in a technology-based society, and I think we need to find ways to both embrace and add to it. The fact that people are reading, whether it’s on a computer screen or in a book, is what should matter the most, because without readers, then we're really lost.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
A Computer Ate My Book
This essay by Douglas Rushkoff really got me thinking about the difference between physical books and reading books on the internet. Personally, I have never read a book on the internet, and I probably never will. I don't even like reading articles or short stories on the internet. It isn't the same as holding the piece of paper with the text in my hand. More often than not, I always print what I want to read--meaning stories and articles and things like that (unless it's on a blog or just simple information). There is just something about holding a book in my hands that does something for me. Maybe its the way it smells or the physicality of it, I'm not sure. I just can't bring myself to read something on the computer like that. For one, it hurts my eyes, and two, its so much more convenient to hold the book in my hands, to crawl into bed with a book and shut it and put it on the table next to me when I'm done instead of having to get up and plug my lap top in.
The other day on the train, I saw someone with this thing the size of a book, but it was digital (I'd never seen this before) and it got me thinking. If it's the same size as the book, why would you not just carry the book? It really doesn't make any sense for me.
There's something about being able to say that you own the book and get to read it that means something to me. It shows effort and how much the reader cares. They went to the store to purchase it and display it proudly on their bookshelf. You can't do that with the internet.
I completely understand the concept of using the internet to promote your book. For example, like posting chapters and having a website or a blog. This makes sense to me. But for me, it is something completely different than reading the actual book. One of my favorite authors will post a decent chunk of her next novel on her website long before it comes out and I always read it, but for whatever reason, when I finally get the book and reread the same thing, I feels so different. I absorb it more. It means more. Its means the author has made it and you can hold the book in your hand. Anyone can publish anything on the internet and I think it takes away from the excitement of actually being published.
I will step off my soapbox now.
But I really did enjoy this essay and if it's like any of the other essay in the book, then I am glad to own it. (and yes i bought it for a penny on amazon.)
The other day on the train, I saw someone with this thing the size of a book, but it was digital (I'd never seen this before) and it got me thinking. If it's the same size as the book, why would you not just carry the book? It really doesn't make any sense for me.
There's something about being able to say that you own the book and get to read it that means something to me. It shows effort and how much the reader cares. They went to the store to purchase it and display it proudly on their bookshelf. You can't do that with the internet.
I completely understand the concept of using the internet to promote your book. For example, like posting chapters and having a website or a blog. This makes sense to me. But for me, it is something completely different than reading the actual book. One of my favorite authors will post a decent chunk of her next novel on her website long before it comes out and I always read it, but for whatever reason, when I finally get the book and reread the same thing, I feels so different. I absorb it more. It means more. Its means the author has made it and you can hold the book in your hand. Anyone can publish anything on the internet and I think it takes away from the excitement of actually being published.
I will step off my soapbox now.
But I really did enjoy this essay and if it's like any of the other essay in the book, then I am glad to own it. (and yes i bought it for a penny on amazon.)
Week 5 Readings
Just so this is clear (I just figured out how to fix it) the posts made under Art Is Words have been from me.
Now onto the reading.
After reading both articles about the collapse of the independent publishing world , I'm sort of freaked out. It's amazing how easy it is in this industry to lose money. Bankruptcy is a scary thing, and this article just proved how much it can affect things. I mean, all those books and publishers that were affected, that's crazy! Lucky for them they are hopefully going to be bailed out. I wonder what would happen if they weren't. This all just reminds me of how much small press publishing relies on other companies, like their distributors to make them money which they need not only to run their press but pay there authors. It seems like there are a lot of middle men involved. Myself, personally, I've never really been interested in publishing with a small press, and after reading this, it's sort of solidified my original opinion. It's scary. You never know whether you'll make it or not, or if you'll get the money you've earned or if the company with fall through. It's weird. The new system of them collecting weekly instead of every 90 days seems like a good plan. I can't imagine having to wait 90 days for something that important, but then again, if you get published in a big press, you're waiting even longer for royalties! the more and more and I think about it, publishing scares me. But its still what I want to do. It's what I've always wanted to do and the only thing I really want to do.
It's just so awful thinking of how many publications are going under and all because of money. Money controls everything in the world and I really hate that fact. It's ridiculous to think that a green piece of paper can have such an impact on everything that goes on. It's really unfortunate to me honest.
This all just reminds me of how you really have to want to be published to deal with all you have to to get where you want to be. It really is a gamble and nothing is certain, ever. It takes a certain type of person to be willing to put themselves through something like that. And I just happen to be one of those people.
Now onto the reading.
After reading both articles about the collapse of the independent publishing world , I'm sort of freaked out. It's amazing how easy it is in this industry to lose money. Bankruptcy is a scary thing, and this article just proved how much it can affect things. I mean, all those books and publishers that were affected, that's crazy! Lucky for them they are hopefully going to be bailed out. I wonder what would happen if they weren't. This all just reminds me of how much small press publishing relies on other companies, like their distributors to make them money which they need not only to run their press but pay there authors. It seems like there are a lot of middle men involved. Myself, personally, I've never really been interested in publishing with a small press, and after reading this, it's sort of solidified my original opinion. It's scary. You never know whether you'll make it or not, or if you'll get the money you've earned or if the company with fall through. It's weird. The new system of them collecting weekly instead of every 90 days seems like a good plan. I can't imagine having to wait 90 days for something that important, but then again, if you get published in a big press, you're waiting even longer for royalties! the more and more and I think about it, publishing scares me. But its still what I want to do. It's what I've always wanted to do and the only thing I really want to do.
It's just so awful thinking of how many publications are going under and all because of money. Money controls everything in the world and I really hate that fact. It's ridiculous to think that a green piece of paper can have such an impact on everything that goes on. It's really unfortunate to me honest.
This all just reminds me of how you really have to want to be published to deal with all you have to to get where you want to be. It really is a gamble and nothing is certain, ever. It takes a certain type of person to be willing to put themselves through something like that. And I just happen to be one of those people.
Week5 Readings
What struck me was the constant pattern of greed, grant it, money makes the world go round but how to people have yet to understand the reprocussions of greed? im probably going to go on a rant as i am listening to britney spears right now and that girl's got me dancing out to circus but thats besides the point.
the san francisco chronicle article just reminds me of how people are too concerned with personal gain that they completely disregard how much they are affecting others, not only the publishers, the employees, the writers, the readers, etc. domino effect people. money does not just disappear, some one takes a little here, someone takes a little there and before you know it you are being offered money to stay afloat, though youre probably the reason youre on a sinking ship to begin with. I picture a warehouse full of books unable to be distributed because of mismanagement and too much self interest.
Reading the ChiReader article made me think how in love you have to be with wanting to publish or be published. It just seems you have to be aware of the obstacles and have the determination to follow through regardless of the dire economic situation and depressingly low success rate. you really need to want to do it to pursue something so difficult. you should have a plan, funds or source of funds, connections, and balls of steel to withstand those groin kicks.
But its good to hear that even with all that people continue to publish and be published, through the self, indie, corporate publishers, etc. The more people do not let this deter them, the more society as a whole seems to gain from the hard work, the art, the examples set before them. is it too cliche to compare it to the glass ceiling? wow, i really need to stop listening to womanizer. but it is the preceeding that makes it a little easier for those who follow, because they get to see what worked, what didnt, and how to improve on the ideas. maybe i will never get published, maybe i dont want to get published but im at least trying to grow an invisible set of steel balls.
the san francisco chronicle article just reminds me of how people are too concerned with personal gain that they completely disregard how much they are affecting others, not only the publishers, the employees, the writers, the readers, etc. domino effect people. money does not just disappear, some one takes a little here, someone takes a little there and before you know it you are being offered money to stay afloat, though youre probably the reason youre on a sinking ship to begin with. I picture a warehouse full of books unable to be distributed because of mismanagement and too much self interest.
Reading the ChiReader article made me think how in love you have to be with wanting to publish or be published. It just seems you have to be aware of the obstacles and have the determination to follow through regardless of the dire economic situation and depressingly low success rate. you really need to want to do it to pursue something so difficult. you should have a plan, funds or source of funds, connections, and balls of steel to withstand those groin kicks.
But its good to hear that even with all that people continue to publish and be published, through the self, indie, corporate publishers, etc. The more people do not let this deter them, the more society as a whole seems to gain from the hard work, the art, the examples set before them. is it too cliche to compare it to the glass ceiling? wow, i really need to stop listening to womanizer. but it is the preceeding that makes it a little easier for those who follow, because they get to see what worked, what didnt, and how to improve on the ideas. maybe i will never get published, maybe i dont want to get published but im at least trying to grow an invisible set of steel balls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)