In the News--Amazon Again...

Today, the New Yorker, made available online an article they will publish in next week's issue, Cheap Words by George Packer. It describes how Amazon went from pubishing friend to foe in 20 years or less. I got sucked into yet another article about the big, bad, scary Amazon, because this article promised to examine how Amazon was not only the end of the brick and mortar business of selling books, but also the end of books themselves. There have been rumors of the coming end of books and the book business for years, even before the advent of the e-book. In reading Cheap Words, I was curious to find out if Jeff Bezos had finally figured out a way to kill off books; perhaps I could sleep in tomorrow--no need to go to the isle of Manhattan, red pen in tow if books were in fact dead.

In reading the article, I got a very thorough and thoughtful run down on the history of Amazon and intriguing anecdotes about the first time publishing professionals I know well met Jeff Bezos and what they thought of him then versus what they think of him now. I learned about Bezos' initial business model--that books were just a way to get customer data to sell them other things at cost later on. I found it interesting that though books represent only abou 7% of Amazon's billion-dollar business, because books were his "gateway drug", Amazon and the book industry find themselves inextricably linked (as publishing is unnervingly dependent on Amazon) while it hardly gets a second glance when Amazon prices an electronics business out of existene. But still, this isn't news to me. This is my every day existence. Where were the details of the much balleyhooed end of books? It wasn't there. Though the details of, in not the end,certainly the failure of Amazon publishing were quite clearly laid out, but not the end of books. Hmm...

Does that mean the book endures? Perhaps I am needed in the office tomorrow after all? That's good...because I like my office and my red pen. And I like that throughout Amazon's history and interesting relationship with the book industry, the book endures. As one publishing professional quoted in this astute article noted: “There are certain things it takes to be a publisher,” the head of one New York house said, hardly concealing his Schadenfreude. “You have to have luck, but you also have to have judgment, discernment. I have no sense of the character of their house. . . . We care more than they do. Bezos has moved on to diapers and jewelry—we’re still doing books.”

Amazon has done a lot of wonderful and detrimental things to the book business, but even in that they are synonymous with the book business, they are not,in fact, the book business. And they are not, in fact, god. And we must remember that. The book doesn't live and die by the life cycle of Amazon and I dare say the book will outlast even Amazon. Amazon may endeavor to be the store of everything, but a publishing lesson I learned a long time ago that proves true to this very day is that if you try to be everything, you'll get no one. That's a book lesson. I do books. Amazon, at 7% of its' business, is not so much doing books. This is as much a fact of life as the sky's deal with the color blue. This will probably be the last Amazon is killing books article I'll ever read.

Stacey

In The News--Another Tedious Opinion Piece on Children's Publishing...

This weekend, The NYT published yet another assassination of children's books titled "Our Young Adult Dystopia". The prevailing question asked in response to the opinion piece in my publishing circle is "why do these articles keep getting published?" I wish I knew. But it reminds me very much of the kind of critique I noted of the teaching profession when I was in the classroom. That somehow one did not themselves need to be an actual educator or have any other relevant professional qualifications before offering up critique of educators, that just because someone had once been in a classroom as a student that they had the necessary expertise to tell teachers how to do their jobs. Children's books is like that--a subject where people feel free to dissect and critique without actually being children's books professionals, not even considering that these people may exist and perhaps have something relevant to say about their own industry. So then often the discourse on children's books (a world that is not just picture books and dark YA) is led by people who actually have no idea what they're talking about.

I found this to be the chief quality of the latest attack of my industry--it was written by someone who actually had no true knowledge of children's books or what is going on in the industry beyond three best-selling series and even of those series mentioned in the article, the author seemed to have very limited, surface knowledge.

Below I share my initial response to the article shared in an online discussion with other industry professionals. I don't speak for all of children's publishing (though this comment got more than one pat on the back), but at least here's a word from someone who isn't watching from the cheap seats, but is actually a working professional and understands a few more things about children's publishing than the writer of what I think is an unfortunate Times opinion piece:

Twilight isn't my favorite series, but I won't disparage others who enjoy it. And it did open up the YA market just as Hunger Games and Divergent do and many other great or not so great books do or don't. It's the nature of the beast. Not everyone has the same tastes and just because the market has anointed something that is not your taste for whatever reason doesn't mean there shouldn't be a place for it, especially in the face of millions who decide it should have a place. Publishers can make a book but so can readers (and readers have a better track record in making books than publishers) and in all the cases she cited, I'd say the readers made those books. But the publishers get called cynical. None of these books were acquired and published because of cynicism. Someone loved the story (whether or not we think those reasons are valid) and had a vision for it. The readers either responded or as she pointed out for another case, they did not. If cynicism were a sound marketing ploy, more books would work and publishing wouldn't be as this author also says a poor coal mining town. I agree I don't understand why articles like this get published. I found it rather tedious. We can definitely discuss the literary merits of books in a smart way, and learn and get better, but I doubt the audience for any of these books feel like suckers as this author suggests. The readers who love these books defend their love for them ardently and articulately and in doing so tell us what they want. We'd be wise to listen to them, especially as it's a readership of varied tastes. They read across genre, they read contemporary, they read literary, they read commercial, and they have read far wider than the writer of this article who judges based on three top-selling series. This author is simply not the audience for what she judges and that's fine. But she also sounds like she's making a judgement about something she knows nothing about. And I have to admit this author lost me when she accused book editors of being ageist. I have never once known the age of any author I've acquired and it's not a question I've ever asked before acquiring a book. And I'm sure if she bothered to look, she'd find many successful YA authors across the age spectrum. Her argument just holds no merit, and made me a little angry as you can by now tell by my rant...


As I reread my comments what most strikes me about my initial and immediate and visceral reaction to the article is the question of why can't the readers know best? With so much complaining about gatekeepers, why can't the readers be trusted to know what they like? Because they are children (though the majority of the Twilight audience were middle-aged women who read romance) it's okay to second guess them? That perhaps they don't actually like what they like? Another industry colleague made the very astute point that, for some reason, children's literature is not allowed to be as varied as adult literature, that kids are not allowed to read for pleasure as well as to learn. Reading no matter what age you are is primarily a haven, an escape; and having books that you love to read as opposed to having to read also fosters a wonderful love of reading that allows the critical thinking skills to engage with more technical or academic texts. I've said this before elsewhere on this blog, but in light of the Times piece and for my own sanity, it bears repeating: fiction for children is incredibly nuanced, and yes, varied. Some of it is great and some of it not so great, just like adult books and the reader, whether a teen or a tween or an adult, should get to decide what they like and what they don't without being judged a "sucker". Millions of readers loved Twilight. Millions of readers loved Divergent. Millions of readers shouldn't be dismissed because this writer happens to find Veronica Roth's writing flat. 

Sometimes certain things just shouldn't be in the news...

Stacey

In the News--How I stopped Procrastinating

The New York Times opinion piece "How I Stopped Procrastinating" caught my eye last week. I shared it not only with EG members, but with my friends. It was really just an FYI of an article I found interesting, but I got a wide variety of responses, running the gamut from one friend who joked (but not really) "Why are you judging me?" to another who said simply, "But isn't this the Artist's Way? Hmm..." All the responses made me laugh (kindly) at my particular group of friends in one way or another and laugh at myself, especially the last comment. Because yes, yes, this is The Artist's Way. The idea of finding time to write, writing consistently and writing even when you don't feel like it and what you know you're writing isn't very good. I take my friend's point--that these lessons offered in this opinion piece aren't new, but that doesn't mean we all, especially, those of us who write and do so while raising families or working full-time jobs, don't need the reminder or the inspiration of someone who did it! Managed everything life throws at us, fought the good fight and still walked away with a book. Writing is hard and the very thought of writing and still managing life and all its challenges and still being able to write, still being able to produce is a personal story of triumph I'm happy to see again and again and again. Let's normalize it. It helps to know others are out there doing what we are doing or what we want to do and that in and of itself cuts down on the procrastination, lifts us up and motivates us until we're across that finish line ourselves. And perhaps this resonated with me also because I am a master procrastinator. So I understand procrastination often comes out of a feeling of inability--there's so much to do, so much you want to do that it overwhelms. How can you get it all done or do any of it well. The feeling paralyzing. Stories like these get me moving again, allow me to shake off the paralysis and remember what moving forward looks like, reminds me to keep moving forward even when I don't think I know how or when I don't think I'm able. This opinion piece is exactly The Artists's Way--a success story. And I for one don't think hearing about the success of writers can ever feel repetitive.


Consider this post this week's Sunday Inspiration/In The News two-for-one. I promise I didn't miss yesterday's inspiration post because I was procrastinating. ;-)

Stacey

In The News--A Response to Gender Wars

Last week EG's "In the News" feature discussed the idea of gender wars in publishing. An EG member James D. King, had a very thoughtful response that we share for today's "In the News" feature. Read the original EG post here and the original New Yorker article that spawned the discussion here.

And here is James King's response to to it all...

The EG blog of January 13, 2014, entitled “Gender Wars”, was about women writers not getting a fair shake in the writing world. EG saw the argument as being not so much about gender, but more about concept. Concept in the view of whether a piece was judged by The New York Times Book Review to be great literature or ignored as run of the mill genre writing. I agree with the author’s analysis of the situation that could be characterized as a “tempest in a teapot.” These are my thoughts:

My view of great writing can be summed up in the old saw about art; “I don’t know what great art is, but I know what I like.” In other words, a New York Times reviewer may tout an author as a fabulous literary writer, but I won’t buy the book if I don’t like the writing. Like vast majority of America, I don’t read The New York Times Book Review. I know that defines me as a literary troglodyte only capable of appreciating Spiderman comic books.

When you think about it, 99% of all books that have ever been printed no longer exist. Both pulp fiction as well as great literature went to the recycle bin side by side.Why? Because they served their momentary purpose of entertainment. Sure, some books educate, illuminate or fascinate the reader, but most exist to amuse us, to take us away from reality, to remove us from our daily lives. Some may quibble about the reasons people read books and I admit they are varied, but I would posit that all of those reasons can be summed up by the word, entertainment in its broadest sense.

Ultimately, what the book industry does is sell books. Without the profit motive we would be in the same situation as the 14^th century world where only the rich could afford expensive hand written books. Taken a step further, the books that I buy provide the profit margin that allows for the production of the often less profitable “great literature”. 

Consider this. The bestselling author in modern history is Dame Agatha Christie. Her writings have sold well over two billion books, not to mention inspiring movies, television and radio shows and the longest running play in London. Was she considered a great literary writer? No, but her books sold well because they did what the reader wanted, they entertained. When she wrote she had the reader in mind, not a New York Times critic. I’m thinking that a top literary critic would rather take poison than read one of her books. I’m also thinking that the profit from her books allowed more than a few publishers to print great literary works that were lucky to break even and that book critics approved of.

 Do I think that great writing should be abandoned? Of course not, it has its place as part of the writing spectrum. I envision this spectrum to be a bell curve, like the ones that were used to grade tests in high school. At one end is great literature, with a capitol “L”. At the other end are cheap, formulaic, genre paperbacks. In the middle is everything else, that is, what the majority of the public actually buys and reads.

I have purposefully ignored defining what should be considered great literature. I’ll let others more knowledgeable and caring argue that. I do know that really good writing can be entertaining and sell well. I also know that poor writing can be entertaining and sell well. I believe that writers are compelled to write and can only do the best that they can. The public will let us know where we fall in the literary spectrum. Erudite literary critics will continue to babble to those who will listen.

Jim is a native of Washington, DC and still lives close by in the Maryland suburbs. He has held a number of occupations some of which are, taxi cab driver, electronics technician, police detective, antique dealer, school security guard, real estate agent and author.

Jim has penned many articles for periodicals, such as “The Art Theft Archive”, “American School and University”, and the “Maryland Writer’s Association Newsletter.” His first traditionally published book, with co-author, Jack Burch, is “Ghost Burglar”. It is about a case that as a detective Jim investigated. “Ghost Burglar” won the Independent Publisher’s Associations 2013 “IPPY” National Bronze Medal in the True Crime genre.  Jim belongs to two author critique groups, is a board member of the Maryland Writer’s Association/ Montgomery County Chapter and also blogs about his book at www.ghostburglar.com. He also works occasionally at an independent book store.  

Ghost Burglar details the criminal life of Bernard Welch who ravaged the Washington metropolitan area and became America’s most “successful” burglar. It is estimated that in a few years this man stole over fifty million dollars in property. In the process he became a serial rapist and murderer. Welch lived openly in a Virginia mansion and had a summer home in Duluth, Minnesota, both with indoor pools. During his life Welch escaped from two escape proof prisons. Jim was a lead investigator in these cases and over a five year period met many obstacles, both personal and professional until Welch was arrested. One of the twists to this case is that it was responsible for stopping the funding in America of international terrorist groups.

 

Jim grew up reading science fiction and as a writer it has become his true passion. Since working security at middle and high schools his focus has been on the young and early adult markets. His stories do not contain the high tech aspects that are currently popular in sci-fi movies. Rather, he imagines the future to be a background to display the human ability to overcome problems and change.

In the News--Gender Wars?

Today, The New Yorker published an interesting profile on Jennifer Weiner ("Written Off"), describing her as "an unlikely feminist enforcer" for taking issue with offenses such as the lack of coverage of women authors in The New York Times, which stats do prove exhibits a bias in reviewing women as they absolutely do review far more men. Not one to sit quietly in the corner and recoil when called strident for speaking her mind, Ms. Weiner has developed a platform and voice speaking on the challenges of being a female author and calling out inequalities; as such she has found herself publicly at odds with the likes of Jonathan Franzen and Jeff Eugenides, referring to the review-love Franzen receives from The New York Times as "Franzenfreude" and spoofing a promotional campaign for Eugenides' novel The Marriage Plot. So while Weiner may have found herself in the position of "unlikely feminist enforcer" perhaps accidentally given the ease and immediacy through which social media allows one to respond to doings in the book world, she certainly relishes it and perhaps rightly so.

What I find most interesting about this gender war is that much like spot gloss lamination and endpapers, book details in-house book people often spend hours pondering, no one south of the Hudson River really cares. Now, this doesn't mean that if asked or if after having readThe New Yorker article or the sundry of other articles on this issue that the regular consumer wouldn't have an opinion, but the average consumer and the average reader of Jennifer Weiner's novels isn't thinking about how much coverage Weiner gets in The New York Times versus Jonathan Franzen (these authors probably don't even attract the same reader) and clearly the lack of coverage in The New York Times hasn't hurt Jennifer Weiner's bottom line in the least.

No, this gender war is largely an insular, publishing insider quandary. The fact is that The New York Times should be held to the fire and the hiring of Pamela Paul and the changes we've thus far seen at the Times, for which Jennifer Weiner can certainly be credited, needed to happen and were indeed overdue (says a publishing insider). So Brava Jennifer Weiner! But the reader doesn't care and isn't particularly invested in this fight. And because the reader isn't involved in this conversation, the concern of gender wars in literature largely amounts to a bunch of Twitter disputes where writers of note oddly fight over review ink. This is not to belittle the idea that women are not recognized in the ways that men are, but ultimately, I don't think what's actually happening is a gender war. What really seems to be happening is a war over what is deemed literary versus what is deemed commercial; and the idea that some people's work is somehow considered more worthy literature than others.  I don't know that that is strictly about whether the author is male or female.

And the fact that Jennifer Weiner also finds herself at odds with female writers such as Meg Wolitzer shows the bias is far deeper than men versus women. But it's the idea that there is a hierarchy to literature and that too many making publishing decisions, whether that decision is to publish a book or to review a book, pride ourselves in being literary snobs. Why? Because we have forgotten about the reader.

If the reader were kept more at the forefront of the conversation and the decision making process on what books get published and reviewed, we'd all likely stop being so surprised when books like 50 Shades of Grey become a runaway hit. And the problem of who and what gets reviewed at the Times wouldn't be such a talking point. Millions of readers like to read Jennifer Weiner's books. She's absolutely laughing all the way to the bank. I respect her voice on what the challenges are in being a woman author in an industry where male egos abound and are favored. But I don't think she's fighting a woman's war in the purest sense. And to use Sheryl Sandberg's vernacular, I don't think it's quite a "lean in" situation as I think any man writing "boy lit" would have the same challenges in being taken seriously at the Times, at least the Times of old, before the arrival of Pamela Paul.

I think what's also at work is this idea that we publishing snobs must somehow protect literature, protect its integrity and see that it's valued. But who are we protecting it from? Who are we ensuring values it? Oh, yes, the reader. But what this really looks like is gatekeepers--gatekeepers at the Times, gatekeepers at the publishing houses--telling the reader what they should be reading and thus what they should value and thus what literature has value and by not reviewing a certain author's work, even to negatively review it, by not acknowledging it at all, we tacitly determine it not to be literature, certainly not literature with a capital L and therefore not worthy. And yes, that can then get distilled down to the publishing industry being dismissive of women--either the author or subject matter--but I am not convinced that a woman reviewer/editor/gatekeeper will always give another woman's book a fair shake if she too is a traditional publishing snob looking only for literature with a capital L. Commercial Women's Fiction is a label that doesn't scream capital L literature, purposely so. That doesn't mean that it isn't and that it isn't important. Jennifer Weiner's books are important to so many for varied reasons. She reaches people. And that should be just as recognized by outlets like the Times. Not because she's a woman, but because she's a writer doing her job with a capital J.

In the News--Into That Good Night?

It seems loneliness is a theme this week at The Editing Life. But this time, I'm not talking about my loneliness, but the loneliness of the book reader. You see, in Sunday's NYT, Colin Robinson, co-publisher of OR Books, wrote an interesting opinion piece, titled "The Loneliness of the Long Distance Reader". Much of the piece summarized the general state of affairs in publishing: the lot of the mid-list writer, budgets being slashed, advances being slashed, indie bookstores disappearing, chains disappearing too and/or hiring virtually illiterate part-timers who might as well be working at McDonald's (my words, not his), the general problem of Amazon and price-cutting, the disappearance of the librarian and the book reviewer. The disappearance of so many produces, it seems, the lonely reader. Except, that the reader still has the writer, which is quite a lovely thought.

Robinson writes: "On the desolate beach that is the lot of the contemporary book reader, the footprints of one companion can still be found. They belong to the writer, who needs the reader not just to pay her or his wages but also to give meaning to their words. As John Cheever put it: 'I can’t write without a reader. It’s precisely like a kiss — you can’t do it alone.'"

Lovely, right? Not so fast...Robinson also writes: 

"The troubling thought occurs, however, that this last remaining cohabitant may also be about to depart the island. With falling advances, writing is evermore dominated by people who don’t need it to earn a living: Tenured academics and celebrities spring to mind. For these groups, burnishing a résumé or marketing a brand is often as important as satisfying the reader.

And then there are the hobbyists, those for whom writing is primarily an act of self-expression. This past November, National Novel Writing Month (Nanowrimo) encouraged more than 300,000 participants to produce a novel in 30 days. It would be churlish to gainsay the right of the legions taking up “noveling,” as Nanowrimo describes it, to exercise their creative selves. But such endeavors are not much helping readers. Indeed, to the extent that they expand the mind-boggling proliferation of new titles being published (more than 300,000 in 2012), they are adding to the problem."

While I'm usually more than happy to join the cynic's bandwagon, I'm reluctant to do so here.  I'm just one acquisitions editor and I receive roughly 200-300 submissions a year if not more; I'm literally drowning in submissions. Drowning. And while I've certainly had my hand in publishing celebrities and perhaps authors who aren't what you'd call literary purists, I don't often receive submissions from writers who are not sincerely trying to connect with readers or are doing this merely as a hobby. Writing simply doesn't work that way. Whether or not I am taken by the quality or premise of a submission, the writer's passion, ambition and drive to tell a story that matters to a readership is never in doubt. It is a brave act to write 300 pages, whether it took 30 days or not, and I respect it. Readers respect it.

And really if the reader were lonely, I'd be caught up on all my work and not awake reading at 4am. Yes, lots of things and people in publishing are disappearing, but the writer? Nah. For every bookstore that closes, for every review section of a major newspaper that is halved, and for every chain store employee who has never heard of A Moveable Feast and can't help me find a replacement for the copy I lent to a now ex-boyfriend (true story), another writer or two or two hundred is born. And they are not hobbyists or simply choosing not to write and publish because advances are falling and they have to attend to a "real" job. No. Writers write. That's how it works. Writers write at 4am if they have to and that thought is a comfort to me when at 4am I am reading.

Yes, as Robinson points out, and we also learned from Jill Watts' post, "There is as Much Dignity in Writing a Poem as in Tilling a Field", would-be humanities majors are maybe finding other more lucrative areas in which to concentrate their studies, but that doesn't make them not writers and that doesn't mean they won't write or seek publication or seek to connect with readers in a meaningful way. Writers are not abandoning their readers. I don't believe it. The obstacles seem to make writers more determined than ever, which is good, because I like my job. And if the writer disappears, so do I.

Robinson leaves the readers of his opinion piece with this:

"Faced with a dizzying array of choices and receiving little by way of expert help in making selections, book buyers today are deciding to play it safe, opting to join either the ever-larger audiences for blockbusters or the minuscule readerships of a vast range of specialist titles. In this bifurcation, the mid-list, publishing’s experimental laboratory, is being abandoned."

Hmm...nope. It's not in me to jump on this particular brand of publishing cynicism. My heart just isn't in it and everything in my day-to-day experience tells me this just isn't true. Perhaps, I'm being naive, but I don't think so. Into that good night, does not go the writer. Or the reader. Or me.

In the News--Booksellers Wary of Holiday Sales

Today the NYT ran another very typical publishing article, especially typical of this time of year. E-books flat. Consumer interest in the physical book possibly up? Publishers worried about the "health" of B&N aka publishers scared B&N, their largest account, may go the way of the Dodo bird or worse, Borders. No big blockbuster in the season for blockbusters. Independents up. Readers finicky and unpredictable. Nonfiction winning out over fiction? In other words, publishing like any other industries, is racing toward the end of the year, hoping for the best in terms of sales and trying their very best to understand consumer needs and how to meet them late in the fourth quarter.

An article like this, and this time of year in general, really reminds me of publishing's dirty little secret: publishing is a business. One with bottom lines, sales goals, and people who are holding on, hoping for a little something extra to make it a most merry holiday season.

Tis the season...for numbers. Some will fair better than others--as is generally the case in any business, but oh the speculation. The whys and why nots of what is working and not working is absolutely fascinating. At least I find so. But ultimately, no matter what industry observers decide what is happening in the marketplace and why, articles like this also remind me how pivotal the consumer is in this equation, how much power the consumer, the reader, really, truly has. And this is the time of year, more so than any other, that big publishing is really trying to understand what the consumer wants; this is the time of year big publishing is most aware and attentive. With their purchasing power, the consumer does tell the industry so much: what book media has resonated (or not), if the tried and true brand name authors still have the same allure (are Malcolm Gladwell's sales up or down?), did the bright orange cover really work or was it an overreach? (I'm looking at you Dave Eggers), was there a small, unknown, debut author that managed to break through in the toughest publishing season indicating big publishing is missing the mark on a market need?

This is the time of year publishing self-evaluates. While it may be too late for books slated to be published early in the new year, this is the time of year where publishers best learn the lessons the market (the consumer) has to teach. For consumers who say publishers are out of step and not listening, now's the time. I swear. But also, now's the time to do your part. Don't just buy that much ballyhooed book on Amazon, but find your local independent bookseller and talk to them, stake your claim. Tell us directly what will win your dollars. Break through all the noise and buy (tell us) what you really want. We're listening and the NYT wants to report on it (obviously). I know they wish they'd had your input to fill out this very typical end-of-year report. Because glaringly and fascinatingly missing in this latest publishing article in the NYT is the consumer voice, which is a shame, because like Frasier Crane, we're listening.
.

In the News--Can't Think of a Thing to Say

Monday is this blog's day to reflect on current news stories about the business of writing, but as I poured over the stories of the day, nothing really called to me. In truth, it has been a very slow news day. But I did stumble across this little tidbit: apparently, Stephen King has joined Twitter. (Big news, y'all.) And in three days, he has amassed 172,258 followers. Wow! Must be nice. (I should maybe think about joining Twitter, too, huh?) And the very first tweet from the prolific and beloved author: "On Twitter at last, and can't think of a thing to say. Some writer I turned out to be."

Stephen King delivers again. If I was on Twitter, I would have followed him no matter who he was just based on that one tweet alone. People have been asking me to blog for years. "You're so funny!" they would say. Or "You have such an interesting perspective." Or "People would love you." Well, I'm finally blogging and the pressure to be funny, interesting and loveable is exhausting, especially on those days when I truly can't think of a thing to say...Today is one of those days. Well, if Stephen King can admit to such a lack of inspiration in his very first tweet, I won't feel so bad.

Besides, sometimes, the day is not about the news, but about the work. Today was a day that was very much about the work.Corresponding with authors, responding to agents, reading, editing, building a website and schmoozing at the company party. Oh and life too: cats, when you have them, like I do, insist on being fed. And then there was the ice on the car that needed to be cleared. Life. And at the end of the day, when all that's done, nope, can't think of a single thing to say. Thanks to Stephen King for the permission to be quiet. And thanks to Stephen King for being on Twitter in the first place. I love when writers write no matter the medium. And no matter the medium their words affect in small, powerful ways. That's what's in the news today.

;-)

In The News

Today there was a curious article in The New York Times titled "Out of Print, Maybe, But Not Out of Mind". It was an article basically lamenting the death of the book (again) and all the ways in which technology is killing trying to improve it. I'm of the mindset that a physical book is a perfect thing. This will never change. I'm not exactly adverse to technology and how it is changing (and okay, in some instances improving) the reading experience, but I'm not exactly chasing after it either. To me there is nothing better than snuggling up on a chilly Sunday afternoon or evening with a really good book and a cup of tea. It's true. I'm a book-loving cliche. I have wall-to-wall bookshelves filled with stacks and stacks of...you guessed it: books. I get a thrill just thinking about my stocked bookshelves and wouldn't have it any other way. A Kindle filled with documents parading as books (no matter how many of those documents I can fit on a Kindle and thus in my purse) just doesn't give me the same thrill or the same sense of comfort. For me, the physical book is a comfort and I suspect I am not alone in this, which is why the many companies listed in this article endeavoring to improve a perfect thing are floundering. This quote from the article says it best for me:

“A lot of these solutions were born out of a programmer’s ability to do something rather than the reader’s enthusiasm for things they need,” said Peter Meyers, author of “Breaking the Page,” a forthcoming look at the digital transformation of books. “We pursued distractions and called them enhancements.”

So improvements are being made without thinking of the reader? Yes, that's wise... (This is sarcasm btw.)

And then there was this: 
 
“The ability to commit 10 or 15 hours to a book is going to be an increasingly fraught decision,” said Mr. Meyers, who came across Citia in the course of his research and found it so intriguing that he became its vice president for editorial and content innovation. “So we need ways to liberate the ideas trapped inside them.”

 But perhaps if this is the mindset from which these companies looking to "improve" the book and their ideas spring forth, then perhaps it is no wonder these companies are, in fact, floundering. They're regarding reading as a chore, when reading is actually a joy. A perfect joy.

Check out the article for yourself here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/02/technology/e-books-hold-tight-to-features-of-their-print-predecessors.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Stacey