Roth's Complaint: "Age of books is at an end"

[NatCh]

I read more novels than I did 20 years ago, and I watch less TV than I did 10 years ago, for all I'm following more shows (but that's a side-effect of Tivo -- it allows me to watch the shows I will watch when I actually want to watch TV, rather than watching those particular shows when they come on, and watching whatever drivel happens to be on when I get the TV urge, usually late at night when there's nothing but drivel on)

I don't know that novels are more intellectualized than video formats, but I do know they're a lot cheaper to produce. Think about it, something like the Star Trek franchise shows (to pick one that everyone is familiar with) has a huge production budget -- on top of the writing that has to be done before the show gets anywhere near filming. But if you were to present the same stories in a totally written format, all you'd have beyond the cost of writing would be the cost of printing and distribution/marketing/etc. And of course e-books cut a lot of that out of the equation.

I think novels still do a good job of telling stories that don't parse well to video. Some of those stories continuously cross the line, as the special effects capabilities improve, but then there's always someone else writing something that's even farther out on the frontier of 'hard to film.' Then there's the fact that video is never nearly as good as the written word for capturing internal action, but that largely goes back to the human condition aspect.

Just my thoughts (and it's early in the morning!), salt to taste.

[nekokami]

I read more novels now than I did 20 years ago, partially because I can afford to. And probably the fact that I no longer watch TV helps, too. But I know I'm atypical in that regard.

I think, though, that with the development of portable electronics capable of using as book readers as well as a variety of other functions, book reading may come back into style. When book content is as easy to obtain as video content (e.g. you can turn on a channel and get some), it may compete better than it has in the past couple of decades.

[rjnagle]

I realize this is a self-selected crowd, but nonetheless, your feedback here is certainly encouraging.

It's funny. Although I consider myself an ebook freak, I still spend a considerable amount of my reading time reading print books. (I just received Oreilly's Information Architecture 3rd edition book in the mail yesterday and read a few chapters of an Italo Calvino book). Just yesterday I wrote away asking for review copies for myfavorite classics in translation series . (I did mention in my pitch that I'd prefer it in ebook form).

I spend more time "reading" before a computer screen than ever. But that does not mean I am reading novels.

Jeremy, btw, thanks for the titles.

[Madam Broshkina]

Phillip Roth's "The Great American Novel" is one of the funniest books I have ever read!

Go Ruppert Mundys!

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Book reading is under stiff competition for peoples' time, especially from more interactive and media-rich distractions like TV and video games. However, it's not as if this competition only just began to heat up... in fact, books have been competing against video games for the past thirty years, against TV for the past seventy-five years, and against all sorts of other entertainments and activities for over two hundred years. The rise of the paperback is most likely attributed to this competition, an effort to make books more portable and affordable (for the consumer, as well as the publisher).

The development of the e-book is similarly a reaction to the realities of the times. As computers and electronic delivery systems become more ubiquitous, and as consumers demand more flexible options for content access, so e-books will rise to the occasion and provide that flexible electronic access. That will keep literature accessible to the consumer, improving its portability and affordability, and enhancing its flexibility.

Are books being read less? Sure... a lot of things are being done less, as there are more and more things to occupy peoples' time. But I do not believe that's an indication that the age of books is coming to an end, any more than it has over the past few hundred years. It just means that the book is going through another change in its development, one as significant as the transition from hand-written texts to press, and from big, expensive hardbacks to cheaper, portable paperbacks.

Books aren't ending, they're evolving. The next age of books will certainly be different... but hardly unrecognizable.

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Books aren't ending, they're evolving. The next age of books will certainly be different... but hardly unrecognizable.

As you say! Just think as how one of us would appear to someone in the fifties. The book similarly might be hard at some point to recognize but there will always be a place for linear stories.

[nekokami]

Cory Doctorow has an interesting take on this in his article Why Publishing Should Send Fruit-Baskets to Google, about the Google book-scanning debate.

This all comes down to obscurity versus visibility. There was a time when there was a giant market for books as social tools -- read the right book and find people who shared your values, whether that was the guy on the subway with the Dungeon Master's Guide, your hippie co-worker with The Celestine Prophecy, or the latest smartypants volume lauded in the pages of the Times Literary Supplement.

Less and less so every day, though. If there's one thing the Internet is good at, it's connecting people with comparable interests: if you're a Civil War re-creator with a penchant for extreme knitting and left-of-center liberal political beliefs, you can be sure that somewhere on the net there's a group of people waiting to welcome you in. These days, science fiction fans can find all the camaraderie and fellow-feeling of sf without having to do all that tedious reading -- that's why at a con I attended a couple years ago, the two big-name authors on the ticket drew six people, while the guys who made the hilarious video-game-based cartoon Red Vs Blue had a full house.

It was once true that reading was a good way to get some light entertainment -- whether you were stuck on a train or in your living-room, a lightweight novel was just the thing to tick the hours away. But here again, the Internet, video-games and the mobile phone are hugely disruptive. Any overland commuter train has is dominated by phone-conversations, with readers in an ever-dwindling minority.

It's easy to see why: content isn't king; conversation is. If you had the choice of bringing your friends or your books to a desert island, we'd call you a sociopath if you took the books over the breathing humans.

Between vegetative media like TV that leaves your hands free to eat and IM and knit and cook dinner and conversational media like IM and multiplayer games and phones, books are a big loser in the field of providing empty entertainment in the dull moments.

Doctorow goes on to point out that Google's Book Search puts books in front of readers again, which he says is a Good Thing. I'm inclined to agree with him. Books may have much stiffer competition these days, but those same distractions could, conversely, end up directing people back toward books, IF the books can be as easy to access as other internet content.

Which brings us back to e-books, again, of course.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Right. Just as paperbacks made books more accessible a hundred years ago, e-books will do the same thing today, making them as easy to carry with you as your cellphone and your PSP. Add some other incentives to them (color covers and back-page ads were the thing with paperbacks), and you have a new product for the 21st century. (Hmm... now where have I heard that phrase before? )

[nekokami]

I just happened across this article in Science News about the use of mathematics to study the popularity and evolution of novels: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/...6/mathtrek.asp
The researcher is looking forward to more novels being available in digital form.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by nekokami

I just happened across this article in Science News about the use of mathematics to study the popularity and evolution of novels: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/...6/mathtrek.asp
The researcher is looking forward to more novels being available in digital form.

Just looking through his graphs, that emphasize how long books have been with us... through the ages of movies, radio and TV, and into the Internet... is pretty much all you need to refute Roth's opinion about the age of books coming to an end, I'd say. Books aren't going anywhere.

The article does suggest, however, that books may be due for a sea-change, or evolution of sorts. Hmm... maybe to digital formats?

[JSWolf]

I have some bad news. I think the evolution of books is going backwards. Some companies are putting out paperback books in the taller thinner format and charging more for it. The same width and depth as a mass market paperback, but now just as tall as a trade paperback. Naturally, they're more expensive than a mass market at $10 a pop.

Jon

[yvanleterrible]

If they are limited edition classics or something just as interesting like coffee table books, that's OK. Even if I prefer the ebook reader, there are some instances where a big heavy book is a pleasure to browse through. Books like those will always retain value and are worth continuance.

Most paper back is what we should achieve to diminish in print and transfer to ebooks. There is a big judgement call to selection that has to be done and I would not like to be in that person's shoes.

There will always be a place for print and as long as all texts are available to those who prefer an e-format and that the technology of printing brings us to a more mature way of treating nature, I'm all for it.

Eco paper is on its way. Partly recycled paper as we know, sustainable crop yields, vegetable inks, less polluting chemical treatment are factors that lessen an impact on the environment but the most interesting are new sources of fibre that come from tiny easyer controlled vegetals.

The book is not the major paper consumer, it is the office report and the wrapping and cardboard industries.

[nekokami]

I think JSWolf is talking about books like McGuire's Son of a Witch (sequel to Wicked, which is only available in this oversized, overpriced trade paper version. (Or hardcover, of course.) Trade paperbacks have been around for quite a while, but whether books go through a trade paper phase between hardback and mass market paperback has fluctuated over time. It seems to be on another upswing at the moment. I see it as just a gimmick publishers use to try to get consumers to pay more for the same content.

[yvanleterrible]

I see.

On an other line of thought. To publish such works those companies should be liable to sell every copy in advance. Then the sky's the limit, they can carve them on stone tablets if they wish.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I have some bad news. I think the evolution of books is going backwards. Some companies are putting out paperback books in the taller thinner format and charging more for it. The same width and depth as a mass market paperback, but now just as tall as a trade paperback. Naturally, they're more expensive than a mass market at $10 a pop.

Jon

I've noticed the same thing... there are paperbacks I have not bought because of the size and price. I think they're trying to con us into paying hardback prices for paperback books. Either that, or their making them bigger for all the aging boomers and their bad eyesight.