I don’t know how many books I’ve bought simply because they
were beautifully put together. The cover
design, quality of the paper, stitching, typeface, leading — the right
combination of these qualities might convince me to buy a book that I might
otherwise have ignored.
That this approach to book buying may be the dominant force
keeping paper books alive in the digital age was one of the major themes in a Charlie Rose discussion on the future
of publishing. The panelists in this
discussion were New Yorker literary
critic and writer Ken Auletta,
author Jonahan Safran Foer, former
executive at Harper Collins and co-founder of Open Road Integrated Media Jane Friedman, and open source
supporter as well as media company owner Tim
O’Reilly.
However, the pretty books approach is not enough to prevent
mammoth and painful change in the nature of books.
Foer was visibly shaken by some of the discussion which
seemed to indicate that books as we know them will become extinct sooner or
later. He is fearful that culturally, we
would experience “a narrowing of the emotional spectrum,” should that come
about. Browsing on the Internet, he
said, was vastly different from browsing in a bookstore. He admitted that on the Internet it was
easier to find what you’re looking for. but in a bookstore “you can find things
you are not looking for.”
But there seemed to be some gleeless agreement that
traditional publishers are in deep trouble and that without significant
reinvention, most bookstores are as well.
Friedman suggested that there may be some interest for some
time to come in special books on paper — though she basically declared the
hardcover dead. Popular fiction, she thinks, will almost totally move to e-book
formats. Though not necessarily the
newest generation humans, but the ones after that will be “digital
natives.” They will know very little
else. Friedman also admitted what we all
suspect. While authors may or may not
think of themselves as creating “literary art,” appreciated by “readers,” those
in the business look at (perhaps must
look at) books as “products” bought by consumers.
And here there is agreement by O’Reilly and the others that
it makes no sense for publishers to pay for the paper, the printing, the
distribution and risk any number of returns, when e-books basically have no
such costs while having several additional advantages, portability being a
major one. He entered into a short
debate with Auletta about what is literature and what is something else. But in
the end, does the argument about literature versus popular fiction matter that
much? Those who believe that there is
this higher level of writing that can be called literature and this too might
extend the printed book’s life span.
Such a thing might happen, but the cost would either rise ridiculously
or the books would have to be subsidized as symphonies and operas often are.
And, of course, is it still a book if that novel you are
reading contains click-access to videos, graphics and research related to your
read? Call these new features “mixed-media
enhancements.” And given this electronic
mentality, and the development of the attention span of a goldfish, will we lose
the idea of immersive reading?
No comments:
Post a Comment