Just as every one else has been doing, we at Women of Mystery spend a lot of time going back and forth over digital reading vs. the printed page. Well, as my father used to say, here’s another county heard from. Read what Stephen King had to say in an interview in the Wall Street Journal yesterday,
Comments, anyone?
Comments, anyone?
Terrie
Posts
12 comments:
Great link, Terrie!
I vote for BOTH!
We were talking about this very thing at dinner after the last Sisters in Crime meeting. If I'm a voracious reader (and I am), many books will be consumed quickly like a movie is watched, but they won't be re-reads or keepers. If I love a film, I'll buy the DVD or download a copy for long-term disk storage. If it's a book, I buy the physical copy. Often, if I know I'll refer to it a lot, it's easier to have a copy to flip through, as my visual memory can help me find something even quicker than a keyword search for references.
Today's novel, for example, has to compete with other entertainment media I can access remotely and at will, so having impulse book buying available from the sofa or waiting room is great. E-books, for me, now get purchased instead of streaming a rental movie to my TV, and that MUST be better for authors and publishers. I know I'm buying more books, and that stat is borne out among e-readership in general. E-reader owners buy more books of all kinds as a result.
Physical books won't die. There are too many advantages to them, but I'd argue that Publishing prints too many books already, and became cavalier over the last 20 years about pulping them, which is needlessly wasteful. First runs represent contract terms with authors or default settings, not sophisticated sales reality. (I've never seen an industry less in touch with the dynamic nuts and bolts of its inventory, pricing, and demand.) So, we get hundreds of thousands of unneccesary, doomed objects manufactured in ignorance that I, as a reader, am supposed to feel guilt-ridden about not consuming when they didn't give a fig about consulting my wishes in the first place.
I want beautifully-made books when I want them, but I'm always reading for content first. And e-delivery works for me as an additional way to access that. And just think about the advantages to students if they could download the latest version of textbooks into one light device instead of having to buy a new pile of costly back-breakers every semester. The college textbook market is an undeniable racket that doesn't deserve to continue. And we don't have to pulp those, or any quality book for that matter. We can ship all the "old versions" --revised for all of 6 errata in the footnotes and captions-- and ship them to classrooms devoid of any materials, both here and abroad.
If smart charitable people have figured out how to turn dumpster deposits into dinner, we ought to be able to figure out how to get our surfeit of mind-expanding, entertaining, and educational materials into the many, many rugged and daylit places in the world without reliable electrical service.
Can I just say ditto to Clare's comment?
Clare,
Great points about exactly where we are heading.
David,
Of course you can!
Terrie
I do believe ebooks will dominate in the future. I fear most books will never have a print edition but I'm sure a select few will.
What Clare said.
I've stated many times that I think and hope that there will be specialty print houses in the future, places where--once I've read a few of an author's books and decided I want them all--I can get them all printed in matching editions.
Is there any other subject just now. Oh, yes the election. Neither topic is much fun.
I agree that e-books are the wave of the future and that real books will always be around.
My real concern is that much of the world lives as I do. I don't have a book budget, or an entertainment budget. When I buy a book, the money has to be snatched from another budget line: the food budget, the gas budget, the family birthday presents budget, etc.
99% of what I read is borrowed from the public library, the library at my local Curves gym or cast off by a friend.
For people like me, reading is both costless and priceless.
Even if I could afford the Kindle, I can't afford to stock it.
Now that some towns have seen fit to privatize their library systems, and e-readers are so efficient for those who can afford to stock them, I fear that "free" libraries are going to go the way of "free" museums with a large donation "suggested" for use.
Terrie
Terrie-
I don't think libraries will disappear, though some are trying out book box systems for 24/7 service. You file a request for a book, ad go pick it up at a wall box within some time later. Not good for reference, but for simple checkout it can work, and be a cost savings for the library without eliminating service. The experiments are ongoing.
And keep in mind, beyond the coasts and the bigger cities, the e-reader hype isn't as ubiquitous. They're not for everyone or everything, but leave it to media companies to focus absurdly upon the only point of action, the e-fly in the room because they can hear the buzzing. It's easier to obsess on that than to admit to the stink that's gathered on the half-rotten thing it's circling.
Clare,
The "pick up your books like you pick up your dry cleaning" would work for me, but libraries serve as a communal places for a neighborhood. Where I live nearly every library has a latch key program for kids whose parents can't afford after school care. There is also homework assistance and reading programs, etc. The seniors gather to read newspapers and magazines during the day to keep their heat bills low or to enjoy free A/C. Queens is the most ethnically diverse county in the USA, so we have ESL classes in every library. I could go on and on with why the libraries are necessary and no one would disagree with me. I'm not blaming the ebook industry. I believe in progress but as a community we didn't think of the larger good when we started charging admission at all of the great museums. We took away free spaces for kids and adults to spend time without getting into trouble. We cannot afford to do that with our libraries and I fear that e-books will give some library systems the excuse.
Terrie
I don't plan to buy an e-reader, though it would certainly make my house a much neater place. (Or maybe not, given the nature of its inhabitants.) It's not so much that I want to own the books, because, as Clare said, I know I won't re-read much of what I buy. But I'm unwilling to give up that sensory connection.
Terrie, I wasn't aware of a move to privatize libraries. The loss of public libraries and the loss of newspapers--what could be more damaging to a democratic society?
On a positive note, our town managed to build a gorgeous new library after a very hard sell. Despite the negative voices claiming it was a waste of money because no one uses libraries any more, the place is packed seven days a week, and circulation is higher than it's ever been.
Anita- I'm not aware of privatizing as such. Many huge libraries are privately endowed, however, the "book box" changes are mostly ways to maximize service when so many places have had to absorb staffing cuts.
Hi Clare and Anita,
Privatizing public library systems was a hot topic on DorothyL a few months ago and this, more recent, article in the NYTimes talks about Library Systems and Services, a private company that runs public libraries in a number of states.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/business/27libraries.html?src=me&ref=general
My concern is that, just like Medicare Advantage and so many other government programs turned private, once the private companies get their teeth into a government program, things start costing a lot more.
Paying for public libraries may sound ridiculous now, but paying to get into the Museum of Natural History seemed ridiculous not so long ago.
Terrie
Post a Comment