I know computers are taking over the world, or have already taken over the world. I'm not against them or even their power necessarily, and I read an essay like Douglas Rushkoff's (or any piece of writing that holds a similar opinion) with an open mind, but on some levels, I remain unconvinced.
I know Rushkoff's essay was about a lot of things, but I still felt unsure of what he was getting at sometimes. For me, the argument for the inevitable marriage of publishing and computers, even books and computers, is often written for an anti-future audience, like Rushkoff and others think they are defending the microprocessor to a group of old-timey eccentrics that still send telegrams and wear pearls and fur to the picture show. Comparing people who are against (on any level) publishing becoming more and more virtual to record executives who didn't want songs played over the radio is really going a bit far I think.
To me, there is certainly a place for publishing on the Internet and because of the way the world works now, I think it'd be hard for any writer to argue that they can't take advantage of the Internet or computers to get their work out there. It is a necessity. Reading Rushkoff's article alongside two depressing examples of a dying industry does get one thinking about how We (the royal We of writers, publishers, editors, etc.) can embrace technological advancements and save the written word, even if it's written with electronic ink.
I don't think anyone is trying to argue that there aren't positive things about writing in every kind of media. It's more complicated than that. For one thing, Amazon.com might be fantastic for getting more peoples' hands on books, but what does that mean for the independent booksellers across the country that can barely stay afloat? And, aside from whether or not writers will see less profit, what does the Kindle mean for independent booksellers? We need to be figuring out how the whole community of book writing and distribution can benefit from electronic publishing, not just how it can be awesome for writers.
Well, it's sort of a specific tangent, but the Kindle is one aspect of this whole movement that I just don't understand. Probably, in the not-too-distant future, the benefits of the Kindle will seem inarguable as they become more popular. The part of Rushkoff's essay where he points out that the Internet gives everyone the power to publish independently (and using electronic books to do so) was a great reminder of the ways writers should be taking advantage of the new possibilities, that's one benefit I'm already starting to see getting past my stubborn position on electronic books.
Really, I have nothing new to say on this topic. I just like books. I mean. Real books. I'm not anti-computer, I see the benefits of a relationship between literature and the Internet, blah blah blah. But if one day, electronic books are to reading as MP3s are to listening to music, I'll be like the vinyl enthusiasts that still spend too much time and money on records, because the music just sounds better that way. I can't imagine ever being interested in reading a book on a computer.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
He's Right. Books Do Have Souls
Rushkoff brought up a point that I have yet to see in any other argument on the survival of books and literature through this media age; that, if the book business is in trouble, so are magazines, newspapers and other print.
It's true. If we were to look at this in the same frantic and frightened way the rest of the literary world was looking at it, we could be easily led to think that print journalism, fine art, photography, and basically any other print you could think of, was now in jeopardy of becoming extinct. Which- is outright ridiculous.
I don't see the thought of all physical forms of art being abolished any more ridiculous than the thought the death of book format. Literature, is, in fact art, right?
Further into the essay, Rushkoff presents several efforts publishing companies made to attract buyers to the art form: archival paper, choice typeface and design, limited editions. The thought, care and consideration going into these pieces of art are only making them more valuable to reader, right? We're just advancing the art form, right? No one is going around saying, oh well, better make these things poorer made, skim on the quality (with the exception of zines and their guerilla tactics, of course). Think about it. How cool are 8-track and record players? How many of you have splurged on these "ancient" art forms because they represented something rare and treasure-ful?
Yeah, we may not be there just yet but I see this wonderful booming technology age as being the dawning of an appreciation of simpler forms, a step closer to the day that blogs will be the commercial equivalent and society will yearn for a more tactile, personal experience.
"Computers haven't made people read less; they make us read more," Rushkoff writes. And our audience hasn't disappeared; it's expanded. And, as he argues further on, it is an avenue to reaching readers we may have otherwise not have reached.
The literary world is growing because of the recent turn of events, broadening its horizons into all probable corners of the publishing world. Books have the potential of being the hip downloadable commodity integrated in everyday life while keeping it's prestige tradition of the physically bound art piece which, suddenly, has more value.
Andi White
How Awesome...
...Was Rushkoff's "A Computer Ate My Book"? I gotta say I totally agree with everything he said here. Actually, it was really sort of a relief to read because it said a lot of things that I had sort of believed seemed logical but didn't really have the words or the full knowledge of the publishing industry to articulate. And actually, as Rushkoff does, I've usually thought about the possiblities of change with publishing concerning the internet and other newer technologies in comparison to what's been going on the last ten years or so with the music industry. It's actually only been fairly recently that I've even considered the effects of technology on book sales, pretty much when I first heard of the Kindle, which was really only maybe a year ago or so.
But, looking at the music industy I've always thought jerks like Metallica were just being, well jerks. It seems so backwards to think that these new inovations can't be used to writers and musicians and all sorts of artists' advantage. Metallica hasn't been able to hold their sales with more recent releases. But look at bands that looked at the internet as an avenue for new possibilites in advertising and distributing, Phish, Radiohead, King Crimson...
Actually, let me use Crimson as an example. They were dicked around for years by GE Records (the old, standard model that's supposed to work) and were ripped of a bunch of their copywrites and rights to do certain side projects or perform on other people's records or to even have choices in their album artwork, and man, it goes way beyond even this, but I won't get into it. Needless to say, they got screwed.
So Robert Fripp, head of the band, in the late 90's, after years of legal battles, creates Discipline Global Mobile and makes all of Crimson's albums available, remastered and the way he always wanted them to be. But he doesn't stop there. He makes everything he's ever been involved with (which is a ton of records) available online at the DGM website. Even stuff that has gone out of print on the original labels, he at least makes available as lossless Flac downloads, complete with album artwork.
Now this is what I'm talking about--using the internet to get the work out there and continue to make money. Later, he opened up an additional store offering "bootlegs" of hundreds of performances he's been involved with, all downloadable as either Flacs for 12.99 or mp3 for 9.99. So not only is he beating the boots (which, for a band like Crimson, there're a lot), but he's making use of the internet so he doesn't even need to spend the money on physical production. And people are willing to pay it because most of these "bootlegs" are full performances, so, if you were to burn them, 2 discs worth of material. And where are you gonna be able to buy two CD's worth of material for 9 bucks? In addition to this, he has a page that's a store for all sorts of hard copy CD's of similar genre artists (things like prog bands and 70's bands, so like, he'll sell Pink Floyd or Yes albums) plus contemporary things he just likes. So he (or DGM) works as a distributor for those albums as additional income.
Okay, I know that sounds like a huge tangent, but what I'm saying is, Rushkoff is right--it can work. And like he says, it's new technology, so it may take a while to test out what it can or can't do, so there may be some failures. But shit, people are still to this day testing out the possibilities of what books can do as a medium (look at McSweeney's fancy dancy beautifully thematically designed books). And they're not gauranteed success either. But like Rushkoff says, it's the choices of HUMAN BEINGS that sometimes make them fail. So it's also the responsiblity of the human beings to figure out the ways to make the technology work for them.
But, looking at the music industy I've always thought jerks like Metallica were just being, well jerks. It seems so backwards to think that these new inovations can't be used to writers and musicians and all sorts of artists' advantage. Metallica hasn't been able to hold their sales with more recent releases. But look at bands that looked at the internet as an avenue for new possibilites in advertising and distributing, Phish, Radiohead, King Crimson...
Actually, let me use Crimson as an example. They were dicked around for years by GE Records (the old, standard model that's supposed to work) and were ripped of a bunch of their copywrites and rights to do certain side projects or perform on other people's records or to even have choices in their album artwork, and man, it goes way beyond even this, but I won't get into it. Needless to say, they got screwed.
So Robert Fripp, head of the band, in the late 90's, after years of legal battles, creates Discipline Global Mobile and makes all of Crimson's albums available, remastered and the way he always wanted them to be. But he doesn't stop there. He makes everything he's ever been involved with (which is a ton of records) available online at the DGM website. Even stuff that has gone out of print on the original labels, he at least makes available as lossless Flac downloads, complete with album artwork.
Now this is what I'm talking about--using the internet to get the work out there and continue to make money. Later, he opened up an additional store offering "bootlegs" of hundreds of performances he's been involved with, all downloadable as either Flacs for 12.99 or mp3 for 9.99. So not only is he beating the boots (which, for a band like Crimson, there're a lot), but he's making use of the internet so he doesn't even need to spend the money on physical production. And people are willing to pay it because most of these "bootlegs" are full performances, so, if you were to burn them, 2 discs worth of material. And where are you gonna be able to buy two CD's worth of material for 9 bucks? In addition to this, he has a page that's a store for all sorts of hard copy CD's of similar genre artists (things like prog bands and 70's bands, so like, he'll sell Pink Floyd or Yes albums) plus contemporary things he just likes. So he (or DGM) works as a distributor for those albums as additional income.
Okay, I know that sounds like a huge tangent, but what I'm saying is, Rushkoff is right--it can work. And like he says, it's new technology, so it may take a while to test out what it can or can't do, so there may be some failures. But shit, people are still to this day testing out the possibilities of what books can do as a medium (look at McSweeney's fancy dancy beautifully thematically designed books). And they're not gauranteed success either. But like Rushkoff says, it's the choices of HUMAN BEINGS that sometimes make them fail. So it's also the responsiblity of the human beings to figure out the ways to make the technology work for them.
A book ate my colloquy
All of this talk about the internet, and the debate about what is better-- a book in the hand or a book on the net-- has been bringing to mind a book I read recently called Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain by Maryanne Wolf. Wolf talks a lot about Socrates and the early advent of written language. Socrates (or, if one is to credit my philosophy friend, possibly Plato speaking through the mouthpiece of Socrates) believed that written language would be the downfall of our civilization because, as opposed to discussion and oral language, a book can answer no questions. There is nothing beyond a book, no discovery, no conversation, no transmission of ideas back and forth. A book is one dimensional: It gives us only what is on its pages and asks nothing from us. It does not ask us to respond or care if we do. It does not ask us to retain anything. Wolf posits the question, without any hope of an answer, what Socrates might think of our technology today. Would he weep that we have distanced ourselves even farther from a tradition of language that requires vastly more of the human memory? Or, would he rejoice for a medium that encourages and acts as a vehicle for discussion, explication, exploration and discovery? Or, was he wrong? Is the opportunity to disseminate our ideas, worldwide if we want, worth the sacrifice of our abilities of retention, attention and IRL exchange?
I think that the internet has often unexplored and untapped depths for the reader, and I completely support its use as a forum for the reader, the writer, the publisher, the promoter, etc. but I agree with Rushkoff when he states that "As in any industry, computers only help when they are used by people."
Anyway, that which has been learned cannot be unlearned. Because of this transition from an oral tradition to a primarily written one our brains have physically changed. That which fired once in our brain fires no more; it remains blank and inoperable. Or, perhaps, it is put in to the service of some other related but removed function. Whatever the case may be, though our brains have not become any bigger or brighter, they have changed, and all of society is forever changed because of it.
I think that the internet has often unexplored and untapped depths for the reader, and I completely support its use as a forum for the reader, the writer, the publisher, the promoter, etc. but I agree with Rushkoff when he states that "As in any industry, computers only help when they are used by people."
Anyway, that which has been learned cannot be unlearned. Because of this transition from an oral tradition to a primarily written one our brains have physically changed. That which fired once in our brain fires no more; it remains blank and inoperable. Or, perhaps, it is put in to the service of some other related but removed function. Whatever the case may be, though our brains have not become any bigger or brighter, they have changed, and all of society is forever changed because of it.
Monday, March 2, 2009
A Computer Ate My Book & Week 5 Articles
Well, that's it... I'm changing my major. Kidding... but these two articles have done very little to raise my hopes of surviving in the publishing world. When I think about the hundreds of thousands of dollars single small publishers are losing because of stupid people or selfish people... well it kind of makes me want to vomit. Groups like Publishers Group West and Independent Press Association exist to bring hope and opportunity to the small publishers of the world. And they are also here, apparently, to go bankrupt and leave you missing unimaginable amounts of money. Great. Cool. AWESOME.
Anyways, let me move on before I consider becoming a film major or something. I'd say I agree with everything Douglas Rushkoff has to say. People are ridiculous and paranoid-- and no, libraries are not going to be extinct by 2010. I mean come on. How many people do you know that want to sit down and read a novel over the computer. I love reading and when I had to do this for a school project because I couldn't order the book in time, I was very close to wanting to throw my computer out the window. I agree that computers will always be the best way to get quick information, but reading a book is another thing alltogether. Without computers, millions of books would go unread. It is our best chance as writers for promotion. The first thing I do when I hear about a good writer is go to their website and read a sample of their writing. My first thought isn't, "wow I really wish I could illegally download this book over the internet and read it right here at my desk." I mean... come on... really people? I thought the analogy of record executives rejecting to be played on the radio and the fear that videocasettes would put the movie house out of business were great analogies.
After reading all of these it seems that people need to stop worrying about computers eating their books and start worrying about their publishers going bankrupt.
Anyways, let me move on before I consider becoming a film major or something. I'd say I agree with everything Douglas Rushkoff has to say. People are ridiculous and paranoid-- and no, libraries are not going to be extinct by 2010. I mean come on. How many people do you know that want to sit down and read a novel over the computer. I love reading and when I had to do this for a school project because I couldn't order the book in time, I was very close to wanting to throw my computer out the window. I agree that computers will always be the best way to get quick information, but reading a book is another thing alltogether. Without computers, millions of books would go unread. It is our best chance as writers for promotion. The first thing I do when I hear about a good writer is go to their website and read a sample of their writing. My first thought isn't, "wow I really wish I could illegally download this book over the internet and read it right here at my desk." I mean... come on... really people? I thought the analogy of record executives rejecting to be played on the radio and the fear that videocasettes would put the movie house out of business were great analogies.
After reading all of these it seems that people need to stop worrying about computers eating their books and start worrying about their publishers going bankrupt.
"Computers don't kill books--people do."
I think anyone who believes that books will die out are the equivalent of the people that ran out and bought jugs of water and canned green beans when the year 2000 hit. The Internet is just another way of distribution. It's easy and cheap and this is something that benefits both writers and readers. The critics of social networking are really just cutting off their own feet. You have to keep up with the times and no one gives a shit if you're "too old for that technology junk" or if you can't figure out how to use your email. Society (especially this one) will leave your ass in the dust and rightfully so. The only reason this debate is so heated is because of money. If publishers thought more about the art and less about the green lining of their pockets, this wouldn't be a big deal.
Personally, I will never stop buying books. Electronic things are great but sometimes they crash and sometimes you can't get back what you lost in that crash. If I had an electronic book collection like I have an actual book collection and I lost all of that...my life would surely be over. I also like to own books. I like highlighting, making notes, dog-earring and, yes, just like Kit says in her response, books just smell amazing. And I am sure there are more people out there that feel the same way about owning books. There's nothing better than having a library of hundreds of different worlds and stories right within your reach. And in this crazy world of technology, there's nothing better than knowing that you don't have to remember to plug in and charge your library or be without a book for the day.
Personally, I will never stop buying books. Electronic things are great but sometimes they crash and sometimes you can't get back what you lost in that crash. If I had an electronic book collection like I have an actual book collection and I lost all of that...my life would surely be over. I also like to own books. I like highlighting, making notes, dog-earring and, yes, just like Kit says in her response, books just smell amazing. And I am sure there are more people out there that feel the same way about owning books. There's nothing better than having a library of hundreds of different worlds and stories right within your reach. And in this crazy world of technology, there's nothing better than knowing that you don't have to remember to plug in and charge your library or be without a book for the day.
A Computer Ate My Book
I don't care about the possibilities inherent in incorporating electronic media into the publishing industry. I like books. The paper kind. With ink and bindings and no batteries. I don't care if I'm supposed to be a part of the i-pod generation or whatever we are, I'm going to stick with my extremist anti-technology grandpa on this one and say that a having a good hardcover copy of "Scaramouche" in my hands is one hundred times better than reading "Scaramouche" chapter by chapter off the internet on my laptop. And yeah, I've done both.
There are so many good reasons to keep books as they are and not bother with this electronic madness. First of all, how fucking boring would "Fahrenheit 451" have been if it were about a bunch of Geek Squad guys running round and wiping literature off of everybody's laptops? Incredibly boring is the answer to that one. Secondly, I don't care how freaking small Apple manages to make their next mac. Books have ALWAYS been portable, and unless you are toting around an unabridged copy of the Oxford English Dictionary, are still more portable AND more durable than even the sleekest of laptops. Third of all, let's not forget that reading is something that everyone should be able to do. It's easy for priveleged people like us (we may not be rich, but the fact that we all somehow scrape up the tuition to attend a private arts school definitely shows that we are priveleged) to forget that only 39% of Americans owned a laptop in 2008. I'm sure the remaining 61% like reading a good story during their lunch break just as much as we do, and they need actual books to do that. Finally, and most importantly of all, books smell good. They smell amazing. If there is a god and he has a scent, it is Old Book Smell. Even Doctor Who says it when taking his latest companion to a planet-sized library in the 51st century- " By now you've got holovids, direct to brain downloads, fiction mist, but you need the smell. The smell of books, Donna!"
Yes. I did just try to use "Doctor Who" as a valid reference in my argument. It's been a long day, ok?
Personally, and I may be a caveman for thinking this, but if I was one day blessed with the opportunity to publish a novel, I'd choose to publish it in a physical, paper-and-ink format in an instant, even if it meant losing a lot of readers who I would have been able to reach out to by publishing online.
Right. Now that I've made that clear, some of the other things that Rushkoff said make sense. Utilizing the internet as a means of promoting your book, for example, is a brilliant idea that I'm sure not everybody is taking advantage of yet. What he seems to be saying is that computers are a great resource when utilized by capable human minds, but that we have yet to see the day when their full potential will be recognized in the publishing world. I can agree with that. I just hope that their full potential isn't good enough that it wipes out printed word.
There are so many good reasons to keep books as they are and not bother with this electronic madness. First of all, how fucking boring would "Fahrenheit 451" have been if it were about a bunch of Geek Squad guys running round and wiping literature off of everybody's laptops? Incredibly boring is the answer to that one. Secondly, I don't care how freaking small Apple manages to make their next mac. Books have ALWAYS been portable, and unless you are toting around an unabridged copy of the Oxford English Dictionary, are still more portable AND more durable than even the sleekest of laptops. Third of all, let's not forget that reading is something that everyone should be able to do. It's easy for priveleged people like us (we may not be rich, but the fact that we all somehow scrape up the tuition to attend a private arts school definitely shows that we are priveleged) to forget that only 39% of Americans owned a laptop in 2008. I'm sure the remaining 61% like reading a good story during their lunch break just as much as we do, and they need actual books to do that. Finally, and most importantly of all, books smell good. They smell amazing. If there is a god and he has a scent, it is Old Book Smell. Even Doctor Who says it when taking his latest companion to a planet-sized library in the 51st century- " By now you've got holovids, direct to brain downloads, fiction mist, but you need the smell. The smell of books, Donna!"
Yes. I did just try to use "Doctor Who" as a valid reference in my argument. It's been a long day, ok?
Personally, and I may be a caveman for thinking this, but if I was one day blessed with the opportunity to publish a novel, I'd choose to publish it in a physical, paper-and-ink format in an instant, even if it meant losing a lot of readers who I would have been able to reach out to by publishing online.
Right. Now that I've made that clear, some of the other things that Rushkoff said make sense. Utilizing the internet as a means of promoting your book, for example, is a brilliant idea that I'm sure not everybody is taking advantage of yet. What he seems to be saying is that computers are a great resource when utilized by capable human minds, but that we have yet to see the day when their full potential will be recognized in the publishing world. I can agree with that. I just hope that their full potential isn't good enough that it wipes out printed word.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)