KINDLE BOOK READER

Curling Up With A Good Screen

Why should a civilization that reads electronically be any less literate than one that harvests trees to do so? AND WHAT KIND OF A STUPID QUESTION IS THAT TO ANSWER. THE ANSWER IS "OF COURSE, AND SHUT THE FUCK UP".


Jacob Weisberg
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Mar 30, 2009

I'm doing my best not to become a kindle bore. when I catch myself evangelizing to someone who couldn't care less about the marvels of the 2.0 version of Amazon's reading machine—I can take a whole library on vacation! Adjust the type size, if I needed reading glasses. THE ONLY THING I CAN'T DO IS READ WITH THE LIGHT OFF, AND BEZOS OF AMAZON SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THAT. OF COURSE THE NEXT MODEL WILL FIX THAT. THE BASTARDS.



Though the PC and the Internet taught us all to read on screens, they have not actually improved the experience of reading. I remember Bill Gates, back in Slate's Microsoft years, mentioning in an interview that he read our Webzine printed out—a tribute that underscored an inherent flaw. For all their advantages in creating and distributing texts, screens have compromised, rather than enhanced, the feeling of losing oneself in a writer's universe. You can't curl up with a laptop. Until now, Gutenberg's invention had yet to be surpassed as the best available technology for reading at length, or for pleasure.

NOT TRUE. THIS TECHNOLOGY WAS AROUND FOR YEARS. IT WAS JUST NOT PROMOTED. DO YOUR HOMEWORK.


AND FURTHERMORE, THE BIG PROBLEM IS THAT YOU CAN'T PRINT OUT A CHAPTER OR TWO, SO YOU CAN READ AWAY FROM HOME WITHOUT HAVING TO WORRY ABOUT A THREE HUNDRED DOLLAR INSTRUMENT. THIS "OVERSIGHT" IS NEVER MENTIONED, AND I THINK IT SHOULD BE. BUT IT WON'T BE. NOBODY GIVES A SHIT ABOUT ANY OF THIS.


For the past few weeks, I've done most of my recreational reading on the Kindle—David Grann's adventure yarn "The Lost City of Z," Marilynne Robinson's novel "Home," Slate, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, The Washington Post and The New York Times—and can honestly say I prefer it to inked paper. It provides a fundamentally better experience, and will surely produce a radically better one with coming iterations.

The notion that physical books are ending their life cycle is upsetting to people who hold them to be synonymous with literature, and terrifying to those who make their living within the existing structures of publishing. As an editor and a lover of books, I sympathize.

SYMPATHIZE MINIMALLY. TO A POINT. THIS PRODUCT HAS BEEN HELD BACK FOR WELL OVER A DECADE. AND YOU CAN DOUBT THAT, OR RUN SOME FACT CHECKS.

BOOK PRICES ARE ALWAYS SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW RETAIL. EBOOKS WILL NEVER COST AS MUCH AS PAPER. NEVER. IT IS CHEAPER.


But why should a civilization that reads electronically be any less literate than one that harvests trees to do so?

AND HOW COULD ANYONE EVEN CONSIDER THAT TO BE A QUESTION. YOU READ A BOOK. GOOD. DID YOU HAVE IT READ TO YOU? WAS IT AN AUDIO TAPE? DID YOU USE A PRINTED BOOK OR A SCREEN? IT DOESN'T MATTER, . BY NO STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION CAN IT POSSIBLY MATTER. THOSE ARE NOT THE QUESTIONS YOU ASK. YOU ASK IF IT WAS GOOD, IF YOU ENJOYED IT, IF YOU GOT SOMETHING OUT OF IT.

And why should a transition away from the printed page lessen our appreciation and love for printed books? Hardbacks these days are disposable vessels, printed on ever-crappier paper, with bindings that skew and crack.

BY THE WAY, THAT ISN'T TRUE. THEY ARE VERY WELL MADE. WHY DO WRITERS LIE TO MAKE A POINT. I MEAN, LIE TO MAKE A TRUE POINT. THAT IS STUPID AND WIDELY PRACTICED.

In a world where we do most of our serious reading on screens, books may again thrive as expressions of craft and design. Their decline as useful objects may allow them to flourish as design objects.

As to the fate of book publishers, there's less reason to be optimistic.

JUST LIKE BUGGY WHIPS. NOTHING MORE NEEDS TO BE SAID.

Amazon, which is selling Kindle books at a loss to get everyone hooked,

THAT IS A LIE. THE COST IS LOWER. YOU JUST PAY THE AUTHOR. NO STORES, NO TRUCKING, NO PAPER PLANTS ETC. WHY WOULD THIS GUY ACTUALLY MAKE A MISTAKE. HE'S SMART, BUT THAT IS STUPID. NOBODY IS SELLING E BOOKS AT A LOSS. THEY COST LESS. DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT AGAIN?

will eventually want to make money on them. The publishers will be squeezed at best and disintermediated at worst. Amazon is already testing the idea of becoming a paperless publisher itself. It recently released

FOUR YEARS AGO. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT. IT WAS RIDING THE BULLET. AND IT WAS A SHORT STORY.

a Kindle-only book by Stephen King. In the future, it could become the only publisher a bestselling author needs. In a world without the high fixed costs of printing and distribution, as the distance between writers and their audiences shrinks, what essential service will Random House and Simon & Schuster provide? If the answer is primarily cultural arbitration and editing, the publishing behemoths might dwindle while a much lighter-weight model of publishing emerges.



MORE UNEMPLOYMENT. AS USUAL BECAUSE OF NEW BETTER PRODUCTS.

What we should worry about is that the current system supports the creation of literature, if grudgingly.

WHO IS GRUDGING. I'M NOT. THE WRITER ISN'T. GRUDGING DIGITAL BOOKS SO YOU CAN TRAVEL WITH SEVEN OR EIGHT BOOKS, AND A SLEW OF MAGAZINES IS A GOOD THING.

SO WHY DID AMAZON LEAVE THE NIGHTLIGHT OFF THE SCREEN? EASY. SO IT COULD HAVE A NEW GENERATION TO SELL. THESE PIGS DISGUST ME.

There's a risk that what replaces it won't allow as many writers to make as good a living.

WHY? THERE IS NO SUCH RISK. WHAT IS HE TALKING ABOUT.



But there's also a chance it could allow more writers make a better living. For newspaper journalism, the future looks bleak at the moment. As the economic model for daily reporting collapses, we're losing the support structure for large-scale newsgathering. At the same time, the Internet has radically expanded the potential audience of every journalist while bringing a new freedom to experiment and innovate. When it comes to literature.


I'm optimistic that electronic reading will bring more good than harm.

WHAT HARM IS HE TALKING ABOUT. HARM?? WHAT HARM?

New modes of communication will spur new forms while breathing life into old ones. Reading without paper might make literature more urgent and accessible than it was before the technological revolution, just as Gutenberg did.


RIGHT. CHEAPER FOR ONE THING. THIS KINDLE IS OVERPRICED. ONCE THAT IS TAKEN CARE OF, THE FACT IS THAT E BOOKS COST LESS.


THIS IS NOT AS BIG AS GUTENBERG. A PRE GUTENBERG BOOK TOOK TWO OR THREE HUNDRED HOURS TO CREATE. AT MINIMUM WAGE THAT'S THREE BOOKS FOR A THOUSAND DOLLARS. SO DON'T BE SILLY.

AND BELIEVE ME, THERE WERE PLENTY OF CRAZY OLD LUDDITES THAT WERE AGAINST THIS NEW FANGLED PRINTED BOOK.


WHAT IS NEEDED IS FOR KINDLE TO BE IN STORES. AND IT ISN'T. AND IT NEEDS TO BE ADVERTISED, AND IT STILL HASN'T BEEN, AFTER THREE YEARS. SO ANYONE CAN SEE WHO IS IN WHOSE POCKET. AMAZON'S JEFF BEZOS OWNS A LOT OF SIMON AND SHUSTER, OR HIS SISTER DOES. OR SOMEONE IN HIS CLUB. DON'T EVEN TRY TO ARGUE AGAINST WHAT THAT MEANS. LOOK WHAT THEY DID TO THREE D MOVIES.



INVENTIONS THAT WIPE OUT OLDER BUSINESS MODELS ARE SLOWED TO A CRAWL.


YOU WATCH. THERRE WILL BE NO PLACEMENT OF KINDLE IN ANY MOVIE OR TV PROGRAM, OR MAGAZINE OR TV AD. THEY DIDN'T FOR THREE YEARS, AND THEY WON'T FOR ANOTHER TEN. INVENTIONS THAT WIPE OUT OLDER BUSINESS MODELS ARE SLOWED TO A CRAWL. OR DID YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT, OF COURSE, EVERYONE KNOWS THAT, AND JUST DECIDE NOT TO EVER MENTION IT.

MENTION IT. IT'S A HORRIBLE THING TO DO TO CONSUMERS.