Print is Dead: Books in Our Digital Age

Here’s a YouTube video of Benjamin Higginbotham, from the blog Technology Evangelist, taking Amazon’s new eBook reader, the Kindle, for a test drive (not to mention comparing it to other eBook readers out there). This is informative and really well done.

Over the weekend, Motoko Rich had a piece in The New York Times entitled “A Good Mystery: Why We Read.” Using the recent NEA report “To Read or Not To Read” as a springboard, Rich asks a very basic question: “Why do we read?” But first, in the shadow of the NEA’s pessimistic report, she sets the stage by also asking the following: “But is all hope gone, or will people still be drawn to the literary landscape? And what is it, exactly, that turns someone into a book lover who keeps coming back for more?” She then, in order to find the answer to why people read, asks a few people how they were initially turned on to reading. And while many writers of course have eloquent thoughts on the subject (including Junot Diaz, who is quoted in the piece), the problem with such tales is that the fan of every conceivable art form (not to mention hobby) has one. Yes, people discover things, and then get into them and love them. And yes, people will always do that with books. But that doesn’t mean that books are relevant, alive, or important in our society. Far from it. After all, someone, somewhere is discovering Desmond Dekker for the first time, and because of this will get into ska music. But that doesn’t mean that ska is either popular or relevant (indeed, it’s quite the opposite). That being said, there are currently small enclaves of fervent fans who are still into ska, and for them it’s their music of choice. But they exist outside the mainstream of music and the discussion taking place around it. And this, to a certain extent, is what’s going to happen more and more with books. (Indeed, the fact that we’re discussing readers as a potentially dying breed shows that it’s happening already.) So instead of asking, “Why do we read?,” what’s more interesting to ask is, What is everyone doing instead of reading? Because the Web, and all its attractions (from Myspace and Facebook to Youtube and iTunes), is luring away the younger generations for whom a computer provides the entry to another world. As Norman Mailer once said of his generation, “fiction was everything.” And now, even though young kids will of course still discover writers the way that Diaz describes in the Times piece, more and more kids are having their time sapped, and their imaginations snatched, by other, more immersive technological interfaces. And older generations can debate the merits of electronic versus print books (with ardent fans on both sides), but younger generations are skipping the debate altogether. So while the “literary landscape” that Rich refers to in her essay will always exist, that landscape — instead of looking like a Where’s Waldo illustration stuffed with figures — will increasingly resemble a sparsely populated Hopper painting.

On the Institute for the Future of the Book blog last week Sebastian Mary wrote about a recent online discussion based upon the question of whether or not it’s snooping to examine someone’s bookshelves, and contemplated what the results could mean to a relationship (the title of the entry was “would you date someone with no books on their shelves?”). I was personally thrown into the mix because Mary mentioned that my book Print is Dead is a “narrative [that] pits books against the internet.” While this isn’t exactly correctly (I’d say that my book is a narrative that pits one form of technology against another: the printing press versus the Internet), Mary’s comments on the discussion, which is big on the mere presence of books but short on their utility, only reinforces my thesis instead of negating it.

Because, in terms of the “snooping” factor, books on a nightstand are just about at the bottom of the list in terms of potential discoveries. These days most people don’t wait to get inside someone’s apartment to start snooping. Instead, they start doing online research on their potential partners as soon as they possibly can. Indeed, Google is the new digital apartment inside which we all live, with Facebook and Myspace pages being the new bookshelf or nightstand into and onto which we all peek. This is where first impressions and opinions are being made; this where more people are getting turned on or off. True, someone might see the boxset of Man Without Qualities sitting on a bookshelf, and decide that its owner has qualities, but Musil is no match for a Myspace page filled with drunken photos and a Limp Bizkit soundtrack.

Besides, all of this has already happened. I mean, where’s the blog entry about dating someone with no CDs on their shelves? And if someone’s shelves are indeed empty, that doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have or like music. These days, a lot of music collections live on innocuous looking hard drives, rather than as a stack of vinyl or plastic. And as books become a smaller and smaller part of our lives, the same will hold true. (In Annie Hall, Woody Allen spots a copy of The National Review in Diane Keaton’s apartment, and is aghast. That can’t happen these days with Slate or Salon.)

However, in the present tense, the fact that books are now mere props in our lives, inert commodities on the same level as the clothes we wear or the paintings we hang on our wall, proves my thesis more than ever. If books were truly alive the discussion would be about reading and talking about them; instead, it’s all about snap judgments or a glimmer of recognition as we peruse them on a shelf, as if they were a police line-up or a collection of mugshots. In fact, not only is print dead, but it also seems — since its true purpose is now to be admired in display rather than read or absorbed — to have been stuffed and mounted

The National Endowment for the Arts (also know as the NEA) yesterday released a follow up report to its landmark 2004 study about literacy, “Reading at Risk.” What the 2004 report stated was that Americans were reading less across all social and economic sectors, while kids — despite the success of Harry Potter — were turning away from reading in near-record numbers. The new report, entitled “To Read or Not To Read: A Question of National Consequence,” delivers yet more bad news on the state of reading in America. Put bluntly, the decrease we witnessed three years ago has continued unabated, while troubling new statistics are starting to rear their ugly heads.

But first, here’s some background on the report, according to the NEA website:

This report is a new and comprehensive analysis of reading patterns of children, teenagers, and adults in the United States. To Read or Not To Read assembled data on reading trends from more than 40 sources, including federal agencies, universities, foundations, and associations. The compendium expands the investigation of the NEA’s landmark 2004 report, Reading at Risk, and reveals recent declines in voluntary reading and test scores alike, exposing trends that have severe consequences for American society.

All of this shows that recent downward trends are beginning to look permanent, and that literacy is becoming an endangered species. As NEA Chairman Dana Gioia states in his preface to the report, “It is no longer reasonable to debate whether the problem exists. It is now time to become more committed to solving it or face the consequences. The nation needs to focus more attention and resources on an activity both fundamental and irreplaceable for democracy.” I couldn’t agree more, which is why I think we waste valuable energy with battles between eBook aficionados and bibliophiles, with one group saying you can’t “curl up” with an electronic device while the other insists that you can. (Just for the record, I think that you can.)

Because what’s rarely mentioned in the future of the book debate is the fact that people are reading less and less. So what’s the point of discussing the future of the book if no one will care enough to read one, whatever format it happens to morph into? It’s like debating the future of the automobile while we run out of oil (which is, to a degree, happening). The NEA’s most recent, and depressing, report should act as a wake-up call, rousing us all from the narcotized sleep which inhaling the fumes of our books has lulled us into. The real battle is now being fought — and potentially lost — and it has nothing to do with pages or screens, bindings or devices. It has instead to do with eyes and words.

Long discussed and eagerly anticipated by those in the eBook community, Amazon today launched its Kindle eBook reading device, which is now available for $399. Considering that this is Amazon’s first bit of major merchandise it has produced and sold under its own name, I think it’s a pretty big development. After all, it was years before Microsoft starting producing consumer electronic goods with the Xbox and now the Zune. And yet, even though Amazon’s road (or should we say river?) has been a little longer and winding than Microsoft’s, this decision makes perfect sense. Because even though today Amazon can sell you everything from a humidifier to plate stands (two recent purchases of mine, actually), where it all began — back in 1995 —- was with books. Books were the item that Jeff Bezos finally decided upon after driving to Washington with the idea to start an online business. And now, after the huge and explosive growth of the Internet, it’s to books that Bezos is once again looking in terms of Amazon’s next big development.

And while this will no doubt cause the usual hand-wringing amongst the literati and bibliophiles, it really shouldn’t. That Amazon is making available electronic books is not much different than when they made books available online over a decade ago. Back then the idea was selection and customer service. The same is true today, except instead of the convenience of overnight shipping, Amazon will be offering instantaneous download and delivery. Works of great literature will now never be more than a mouseclick away.

In terms of the device itself, I’ve seen it and think it’s pretty nice. In terms of layout and feel, the closest thing to compare it to (mainly because its screen uses the same eInk technology) is the line of Sony eReaders. However, the big (and, I think, crucial) difference is that the Kindle is wireless and has a web browser along with a small keyboard. So while most other eBook devices insist on you being at home, and online, with your device hooked up to your desktop or laptop computer before you can buy and download a book, with the Kindle you can be just about anywhere in the world and have access to a great bookstore. For instance, if you’re in the middle of Central Park and a friend says you just have to read The Kite Runner, you can pull out the Kindle and access the Amazon eBook store, and seconds later it’s yours. You can then start reading it on the subway ride home. And so while I won’t at all declare that the Kindle represents the “iPod moment” for eBooks, with its web integration it is indeed a step in the right direction. It is also yet another evolution in the dissemination of ideas, continuing in the long line that began with the written word, passed through the era of Gutenberg, and continues today with advances (like this) in digital delivery and consumption.

Last week Joe Wikert, Vice President and Executive Publisher in the Professional/Trade division of John Wiley & Sons, Inc., interviewed me for his Publishing 2020 blog. Joe’s blog is really great, so I was honored to be asked. He’s also a very nice guy, and he asked some great questions.

Here’s a sample question and answer:

JW: Which of the various monetization models do you feel will work best with e-content in the future (advertising, subscription, price per unit, etc.)?

JG: All of the above. I also love that you called it “electronic content,” since that’s what it really is. And that content will vary widely, from things that we would consider today to be either a magazine or a newspaper or a book, but in the future that will all come under the heading of “content”; it will consist of words on a screen. And some material will be better suited to advertising than others, while some material will work on a subscription basis. There won’t be just one monetary model; there will be lots of them.

To read the entire interview, click here.

In Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times, Kevin J. Martin, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, had an opinion piece entitled “The Daily Show.” And no, the essay’s not about Jon Stewart’s satirical talk show. Rather it is yet another plea for the preservation of newspapers (which just happens to appear in — wait for it — a newspaper; that being said, I found it and read it online). Martin begins by painting the usual bleak picture of past and recent developments, beginning with, “In many towns and cities, the newspaper is an endangered species. At least 300 daily papers have stopped publishing over the past 30 years. Those newspapers that have survived are struggling financially. Newspaper circulation has declined steadily for more than 10 years. Average daily circulation is down 2.6 percent in the last six months alone.” Martin then concedes that newspapers are seen as not only old-fashioned, but seem increasingly anachronistic, stating that “nearly one-third of all Americans regularly receive news through the Internet.”

But Martin — as have many others — sees all of this as a bad thing and not a good thing (presumably he’s going into Lorax mode here and speaking for the newspapers, for the newspapers — like the trees they used to be — have no tongue). For instance, here are the stakes as he sees them:

If we don’t act to improve the health of the newspaper industry, we will see newspapers wither and die. Without newspapers, we would be less informed about our communities and have fewer outlets for the expression of independent thinking and a diversity of viewpoints. The challenge is to restore the viability of newspapers while preserving the core values of a diversity of voices and a commitment to localism in the media marketplace.

Martin’s thesis in the above is ridiculous; he seems to put all newspapers on equal moral and intellectual ground. Indeed, he seems to state that any old newspaper is a good thing. What about tabloids like The New York Post? I would argue that the Internet keeps us just as, if not more, informed about our communities. For instance, I live in Hoboken, and the website Hoboken 411 is always a great source of information for what’s happening in our small town. When there was a water main break a couple of months ago, this website gave us minute-by-minute coverage — supplied by people who lived in the city — of who had water and where they had it. By the time any local newspapers got around to reporting the incident (on either their website or their print edition), the water main problem had been fixed.

And in terms of newspapers being an “outlet for the expression of independent thinking and a diversity of viewpoints,” this is also ridiculous. The blogosphere — in just the past couple of years — has done more for “independent thinking” than newspapers have done in the last hundred years. Because, in reality, the “diversity of viewpoints” you get in The New York Times is strictly limited to the writers the Times has on the payroll (and of course the occasional contributor, such as Martin). So what Martin’s saying isn’t too far removed from those at the NBCC who think that the only ones who can deliver criticism are critics. And what Martin really means when he writes about a “diversity of viewpoints” is that we have a choice between Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd, Thomas Friedman or Paul Krugman. Talk about diversity!

But of course, since Martin is chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, his piece really isn’t about newspapers but is instead more about how certain laws pertaining to media ownership should be changed. This is Martin’s greatest miscalculation of them all; he still thinks that news and information is in the hands of the big media providers. Has he seen Digg or Reddit? Does he know that a million friends on Myspace can turn into a show on MTV, or a Youtube rant about Britney Spears can turn into a development deal? The days when the FCC could mandate change by rearranging the flow of the mainstream media is long past; because while the big guys fiddle with the aqueducts up in the air, the rest of us are rushing by in a raging river down below.

Last week I was invited to the BBC News offices in midtown New York to record an interview for a BBC 4 radio show entitled “Open Book.” According to the BBC website, “Open Book spotlights new fiction and non-fiction, picks out the best of the paperbacks, talks to authors and publishers, and unearths lost masterpieces.” For the show, I was interviewed by the host Mariella Frostrup, as was Richard Charkin (former head of Macmillan UK, current head of Bloomsbury UK, and all-around good guy). We had a really great discussion on the future of the book, and seeing as how this is the closest I’ll ever get to recording a Peel Session, it was a great honor. The program aired this past Sunday, but you can also listen to it on the BBC website; my interview with Mariella and Richard starts at about 11:30 into the overall 28 minute program; for the direct episode link, click here.

I’m happy to say that Print is Dead is now available for purchase in both print and electronic formats. I would say that it’s been a long road to get to this day, but it really hasn’t been; I wrote the book in a couple of fevered months late last year and early this year (as well as another bout of composition in May and June). I was also pretty impressed with the speed that my publishers put it together. (That being said, in some places we were too speedy and I would have liked to have had more time for another round of proofreading, but alas the schedule didn’t allow for it, which means that some typos have inevitably creeped into the text. For this I apologize and I hope that they’ll all be corrected by the paperback edition.) When I sold my first novel, in 1994, there was a sixteen month gap between when I signed the contract and when the book appeared in stores. For Print is Dead that period was barely more than a year (and, when I signed the contract, the book had not yet been written!). Of course, just because it went by so fast doesn’t mean that it was easy; it’s been a long year of writing and researching, in addition to working my regular job, moving, teaching a class, and trying do a few other creative things to retain my sanity. So, thanks to everyone for their support, and I hope that those who choose to read the book in addition to this blog will find it worthwhile. And, of course, if you’re still not convinced that you want or need the book, here’s a website where you can read and/or listen to one-third of book’s content.

Thanks.

–J