« The new swine flu: this is not a joke | Main | Keynes symposium »
Markets in less than everything
But to other writers and editors, the Kindle is the ultimate bad idea whose time has come. Anne Fadiman, the author, was relieved to learn that her essay collection, “Ex Libris,” was not available on Kindle. “It would really be ironic if it were,” she said of the book, which evokes her abiding passion for books as objects.
Here is the article, interesting throughout.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on April 25, 2009 at 07:29 AM in Books, Web/Tech | Permalink
Comments
Anyone miss having stacks of CD's displayed in their home? This is just part of the evolutionary move into the digital world. But hey, maybe Amazon can start selling custom kindle covers that look like the actual cover of a classic literary piece.
Posted by: Jim D. at Apr 25, 2009 7:48:46 AM
One of the big points of having books or cds or dvds is that I hope that people and by people I mean women will come to my home see my perfect tastes and fall in love with me. "Oh you love Radiohead" she will say "I thought I was the only one!" and we will embrace. Or perhaps she will see my bookshelf, sort of careless run fingers across the spines of my books and happen upon my copy of the lonely planet guide to Toronto. "Ah!" she will think to herself "A man with a taste for adventure!" and we will together surrender ourselves to each other and revel in forgetting that there are walls between human minds.
Posted by: Michael Foody at Apr 25, 2009 8:00:40 AM
Michael Foody is an optimist. To take his example: no woman will visit his home--he can scan his shelves with his webcam for her entertainment and edification, however, which they can then discuss telephonically in e-harmonic bliss.
The disembodiment of "life" promises to leave our machines without the least vestiges of any ghosts in short order, hunh?
Posted by: Edward Burke at Apr 25, 2009 9:40:31 AM
Several years ago, L. Neil Smith wrote an unconvincing defense of music file sharing in which he compared it to libraries and used book stores, and I wrote to agree and to ask him where I could download one of his books in its entirety. It was a throwaway note that ended up in the letters to the editor, in which he tried to defend himself by saying that you could find his essays and sample chapters online. He failed to acknowledge that a song is complete in and of itself, while a chapter is but a part of a larger work; he also forgot that his friend in the original essay in fact downloaded a complete album for him, analogous to downloading a complete book.
This seems to be a recurring theme: authors (especially libertarian and left wing) who had no problem with Napster and Kazaa are finding all kinds of arguments against Kindle (the vanguard of the coming change to publishing), most of which echo previous musicians' arguments against the MP3 threat. It doesn't sound as good, you don't get the physical satisfaction of handling the album/tape/cd, you don't get the artwork and posters, etc., all of which strike me as variants on Hirschman's description of the Jeopardy argument. Eventually, they get to the naked Perversity argument: that the move away from strong copyright protection will result in less writing, which was/is the same claim made by musicians. Strangely, music (though not the music industry) seems stronger for the change, and I suspect as much of writing.
Posted by: Eric H at Apr 25, 2009 9:57:20 AM
Even more, I miss the heft of stone tablets. Inherently so much more substantial than paper.
Oh salad days, where have ye gone?
Posted by: Michael Drake at Apr 25, 2009 11:03:48 AM
…a line of literary fiction that “could fit precisely into the pocket of your Levi’s with the title slowing, and it was an advertisement for what kind of intellectual you were.”
In my book these “intellectuals” are of the same kind as those lowlifes defining themselves by DG sunglasses or Gucci bags or whatever the latest fad is - insecure, empty snobs. High brow my rear end…
If the temp would show up in my office flashing a copy of Ulysses he would never be called back again.
Posted by: Ozornik at Apr 25, 2009 11:16:25 AM
The "What I've been reading" blog post is the new equivalent of books on a bookshelf.
Actually, what Amazon should do is create a "My Kindle Bookshelf" feature on Amazon where you could show off your collection to everyone. Of course they'd have to let you hide the embarrassing ones "Under My Kindle Bed."
Posted by: msi at Apr 25, 2009 11:16:31 AM
With things like Facebook, where you can explicitly put your favorite books (and search with others that match), this seems to not be an issue. Now you don't have to own a book to show other people you like it.
Posted by: Andy at Apr 25, 2009 11:58:28 AM
Wow. Kindle (and similar devices, such as Ipod touches) opens up new opportunities to find new readers and create a new revenue stream. No good deed goes unpunished.
Question for the academics here: How much do you read the dead tree version of the journals any more?
FYI: when snooping somebody's bookshelves, I only pay attention to the stuff that looks "loved". I suppose I could be fooled by someone who buys a bunch of used books.
Posted by: Zbicyclist at Apr 25, 2009 12:05:11 PM
I suppose the article is "interesting throughout" from a signaling perspective. On the other hand, it's typical of the vapid, snobbish, localist lifestyle reporting that occupies so much of the Times.
Posted by: Jim at Apr 25, 2009 3:45:28 PM
"Eventually, they get to the naked Perversity argument: that the move away from strong copyright protection will result in less writing, which was/is the same claim made by musicians. Strangely, music (though not the music industry) seems stronger for the change, and I suspect as much of writing."
That's mostly the claim made by record labels, and the occasional musician who just doesn't get it like Metallica or Prince. That's certainly not the argument being put forth by Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, or System of a Down. Most musicians still make their money through their live show, not record sales. CDs are for the labels to make money, and to promote the artist. File sharing and Youtube are slowly eliminating the major labels, and making it all about the artist while expanding music diversity. Musicians who understand this are in favor of it.
By the way, as somebody under the age of 30, I felt really young reading an article like this, and not getting why anybody would think the Kindle was anything but brilliant.
Posted by: David C at Apr 25, 2009 4:07:41 PM
The article linked to was bizarre. Or was it a joke? I'm confused. Really confused. I have re-opened the article twice to try and figure out if the author is serious or not. No, it must be a joke. Or it's really the way the NYtimes.com readers roll... weird.
Posted by: Jonk at Apr 25, 2009 9:31:58 PM
I love books. I read a lot of them. Kindle comes as the answer to a question I never asked. Honestly, I haven't the slightest desire to read books on Kindle.
Posted by: priscianus jr at Apr 26, 2009 12:12:34 AM
See Jezebel blog: Pretentious Readers Don't Want The Kindle To Take Their Right To Be An Obnoxious Showoff Away.
I'm really curious, Tyler: What about the article did you find "interesting" as opposed to "trivial" and "boring"?
Posted by: Jim at Apr 26, 2009 1:43:15 PM
I can understand the authors' apprehension. Without the pretentiousness value of owning a book, far fewer people will buy the hot pretentious book and will go for something they'd rather read. People will only buy books they want to read, not books they think they demonstrate to people that they read.
Posted by: Mo at Apr 27, 2009 11:46:28 AM
Michael Foody is an optimist. To take his example: no woman will visit his home--he can scan his shelves with his webcam for her entertainment and edification
Posted by: GERICOM Laptop Battery at May 18, 2009 9:16:57 AM
