Jonathan Franzen: e-books are damaging society

[djulian]

Originally Posted by MrReset

Excuse me for disturbing, but ...
who is Jonathan Franzen?

He writes bestsellers that nobody reads.

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by ficbot

I think people like Franzen also overlook the reality that keeping a large and permanent paper library is still an economic privilege for many people.

I agree. I remember a few years back reading a post from someone who was a self diagnosed bookaholic, and the scorn in his posts as he described visiting people's homes "and didn't see bookshelves!" with the conclusion that "people just don't like to read anymore" as being the obvious conclusion.

I borrow a LOT from the library. My exposure to books/music/other media is 99% library, 1% owned. I cannot afford to just go out and buy everything I like, especially if the option to borrow is there.

Owning books is not a necessity for me. Not that I need validation from a man who thinks writing books is a miserable job, anyway.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by Jedibeeftrix

I thoroughly agree that books must remain a product which I own rather than a service that i have temporarily contracted, and were this not possible with ebooks I would not buy them.

Then you must not buy ebooks. You buy licenses, not actual copies.

[elemenoP]

Originally Posted by djulian

He writes bestsellers that nobody reads.

Also famous for "dissing" the mighty Oprah: she selected his book "The Corrections" for her book club (guaranteeing it top best-seller status), and he said in the press that he didn't really want to be selected, because the other books she chose were so bad. So Oprah rescinded her nomination, and the book went on to have top best-seller status because of the controversy.

eP

[HappyMartin]

Instant gratification? Must be something wrong with my kindle. I still have to read the blasted books. Apparently you can have them directly injected into your brain or something.

I don't care for paper books and ownership is no big deal for me. Soon I will die and all my stuff that I "own" will be heading off to a new home or a land fill. So much for ownership.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by rhadin

I think Franzen has a valid point and that it is being missed. eBooks are subject to constant revision, and ultimately to revision by someone other than the author, whereas once a book is printed to paper, that version of the book remains -- there is a permanence to it that ebooks may not emulate.

I completely agree. When I look at an e-book file, I don't know what some overzealous person might have changed. E.g., when I download a book from the MR library, I can't tell what grammar, punctuation, or spelling might have changed. I can't tell if the uploader might have used a euphemism for an objectionable word. I have no reference point unless there is a printed copy of the book to refer to. If we reach a point when there is no printed copy, where are we? The digital file can be constantly in flux.

It's the same as a Web page that can be endlessly edited and updated.

People here have sometimes mentioned how they "correct" the e-books they buy--they "fix" the punctuation and the spelling to their liking. I find it extremely unsettling.

I'm not one who dislikes ebooks (obviously, or I wouldn't be participating here or own a couple of reading devices), but I distinguish between two categories of books: (1) those that I want "permanently" and as written and (2) those that once read are disposable. For me, the former category is made up of the hardcover books I buy whereas the latter category is made up of the ebooks that I buy.

Having said that, I also need to note that on an increasing number of occasions, I am buying both the hardcover and the ebook versions of a book. The hardcover version becomes a permanent part of my library and is the reference version I refer to; the ebook provides me with the means to read the book conveniently.

For me, e-books are a compromise--I would much rather have "real" books, but space considerations limit the number I can own. I have not double-purchased any new books, but I have retained in my library many hardcovers that I have also bought as e-books.

I am currently reading an old favorite in hardcover that I also bought as an e-book. It just feels like the right way to re-experience the book. And I don't have to worry that someone inadvertently or deliberately changed the text.

[LuvReadin]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Ya, new digital editions can come out, but how is that different than new versions of a paperback book? Is it just because digital text is easier to revise? But so what? how does that affect the digital edition that you bought before it was revised?.

Also, these 'unnamed' revisions tend to take place mainly with self-published books. Although the technology is still in its childhood (possibly gone past infancy!) most mainstream publishers, especially the ones that also own journals or other periodicals and so have had a longer time to get used to it, are far more circumspect about this, and don't generally allow changes willy-nilly. Instead, the book is brought out as another edition, or a correction page is added. This is partly due to the fact that...

Originally Posted by Catlady

When I look at an e-book file, I don't know what some overzealous person might have changed. E.g., when I download a book from the MR library, I can't tell what grammar, punctuation, or spelling might have changed. I can't tell if the uploader might have used a euphemism for an objectionable word. I have no reference point unless there is a printed copy of the book to refer to. If we reach a point when there is no printed copy, where are we? The digital file can be constantly in flux.

... in the UK and Ireland, publishers (which means anyone who's applied for an ISSN/ISBN) have a legal requirement to deposit a copy of the material with the British Library, so that is then the original copy. Not sure if a similar law applies in other countries.

[LuvReadin]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

I borrow a LOT from the library. My exposure to books/music/other media is 99% library, 1% owned. I cannot afford to just go out and buy everything I like, especially if the option to borrow is there.

Owning books is not a necessity for me.

So agree - I'd never be able to satisfy my book habit without libraries! I can't really see the point of keeping most books - there are too many to read to keep rereading old ones (there are a few exceptions, of course!).

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by ficbot

I think people like Franzen also overlook the reality that keeping a large and permanent paper library is still an economic privilege for many people. I live in a city where real estate is very expensive and I will never be able to afford a single-family home unless I get an inheritance or win the lottery. They just posted a story in the paper about a two-bedroom home that was badly in need of renovations and was right beside a train track, and even that fixed upper was half a million dollars! So where does Franzen expect I am going to store all this permanent paper in my cramped inner-city apartment? Ebooks have opened up the concept of 'owning a library' to people like me who would otherwise be borrowing the books they read from the public one.

It is fine to say he does not prefer them, but to imply that those who read ebooks are less 'serious' readers is downright offensive.

This, this, this, thank you. It's getting to the point where every time I hear someone sneer about "instant gratification", I mentally substitute "uppity poor/disabled people".

[taustin]

Originally Posted by rhadin

I think Franzen has a valid point and that it is being missed. eBooks are subject to constant revision, and ultimately to revision by someone other than the author, whereas once a book is printed to paper, that version of the book remains -- there is a permanence to it that ebooks may not emulate.

Paper books are subject to revision in pretty much the same way as ebooks. My copy of an ebook is as permanent as my copy of a paper books. The only difference the digital format makes is that the process is more efficient.

[elemenoP]

There was a flap about this a few years back over a pbook (major revisions in a new edition). It was Myla Goldberg's "Wickett's Remedy." When the hardcover came out, it got some bad reviews. When they were producing the paperback edition, there were some corrections that were necessary to make. Due to special typesetting in the book, they had to reset the entire book. So the author took the opportunity to rewrite some of it, including some things that reviews had been critical about. This was a major publisher (Anchor Books, an imprint of Random House) and I'm surprised they allowed it.

This kind of thing COULD happen much more often with ebooks. I don't know if it DOES, but it COULD.

(Interestingly, when I went to make sure I had the facts right about this, the Publisher's Weekly article about it is no longer on their website. I don't know if Publisher's Weekly doesn't keep all old articles up, or if they were made to take it down!)

eP

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Apache

So true. If others are like I was then those who state "Oh, but I am all about how it FEELS in my hands" have never actually used an ebook. After I was given my first one I found that I liked the advantages of an ebook more than the feel of a "Real Book".
Apache

I do miss the aesthetic experience of a paper book. But I haven't touched one since I book my book reader.

[Synamon]

Meh. Accessibility trumps permanence. eReaders and ebooks make it easier to read for a lot of people. Anyone with a smart phone or a computer or any number of other devices has millions of books at their fingertips. I don't consider that instant gratification so much as improved availability.

[susan_cassidy]

The author must be too young, or very fortunate, to not need reading glasses. Ebooks are much better, because you can make the font bigger. I still have thousands of paper books, but many/most of them are no longer readable for me, due to my bad eyesight.

[colinsky]

From the OP:

He said: “The Great Gatsby was last updated in 1924. You don’t need it to be refreshed, do you?

But, actually...

http://books.google.com/books?id=0yf...page&q&f=false

"Fitzgerald did, however, send Perkins corrections and spot-revisions through March and April 1925--six of which were incorporated in the August 1925 second printing of the first edition. Fitzgerald's revised galleys--after house styling and correction by the Scribners editors--became the text of the published novels." (Introduction, xxxv)

"After the second printing, the first attempt to "improve" the text of The Great Gatsby came when the novel was reset for publication with Edmund Wilson's edition of The Last Tycoon (New York: Scribners, 1941). Wilson was responsible for an undetermined number of the 134 alterations..... The plates of this second edition of The Great Gatsby were subsequently emended by Malcon Cowley for Three Novels of F. Scott Fitzgerald (New York: Scribners, 1953), making use of Fitzgerald's copy for the first time. No subsequent editions have authority, althought the plates of the "Scribner Library" editions have been altered from time to time. Inevitably, later editions introduced errors: the various resettings have obscured the space breaks by which Fitzgerald signaled shifts in time or narrative." (Introduction, xliii-xliv)