On the Media - Bookish

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

On the Media, a radio show/podcast I listen to, just did an episode about the book industry. On the Media is an hour long NPR show made up of smaller stories. For this episode, all the stories are book related.

Give it a listen: On the Media - Bookish

Here's the episode description:


It's funny. They talk about how ebooks have not taken over, but most of the first story shows the advantages to everyone (except people wanting to impress others) of ebooks.

Those segments were originally broadcast in 2022 on the September 16th edition of On the Media but the show had recent tidbits between the segments as an update. I didn't listen to last week's show and assumed I had missed it, but it wasn't broadcast on the station I listen to it on until today, so the podcast dropped before the broadcast, the opposite from most podcasts that I download, but don't get around to listening to lately.

I experienced deja vu listening to it but was confused by the recent news tidbits until I found this:
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts...nt?tab=summary

One thing nice about On the Media is that transcripts are usually available a few days
after broadcast.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by tomsem

He's locked in his ivory tower, he cannot help it.

He seems unaware that you can give ebooks as gifts, and probably has never read an entire ebook in his life.

But IMO, books have never been a safe gift. It's not enough to know that someone loves to read, and who can presume to know another's preferences in reading? And just because I love a book, it's not likely that other people will have the same response. It's too personal and contingent.

Curiously, on Amazon, one of his books has two listings for the Kindle edition:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00F8K4756 <- $54.00

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B006LU0HKG <- $11.99

Friends and family learned that it was better to give me gift cards for books. Between my already extensive library and not understanding what genre's I read made it almost impossible to gift me a book.
Apache

[ownedbycats]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The phrase "serious readers" should really be retired (or at least renamed). It's use rarely seems to convey its intended meaning, and typically only angers those who get left off of the "serious" bus.

What does a 'serious reader' even mean?

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

What does a 'serious reader' even mean?

It means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.

Sorry, couldn't resist...

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

What does a 'serious reader' even mean?

By those snobs definition, Serious readers are sworn acolytes of the Big 5 publishers, they ONLY read books recommended by them. Which means they only read the recommended best seller books and pay serious money for them thereby keeping the Big 5 in business.

They STILL don't consider self-publishing to be relevant.

The hypocrisy though is if someone self publishes and becomes a hit, they will fall all over themselves to get them signed under their label so that they can make the money and not Amazon!

[issybird]

I’m not at all comfortable describing people as “snobs” based on their reading preferences, either. I think both sides need to dial way back on the judgy rhetoric.

It also seems to me that the Big Five publishes a lot of junk*, anyway, so using that as your litmus test says nothing at all. OUP or Yale? That would be different.

*Yeah, I know I just got the hackles up again.

[Quoth]

Aside from junk or not, the Big Five are poorer at picking winners than experts on horses at the races, if you go by percentage of books making advance in royalties (though those can make a profit). Also why only text books as POD? Surely nothing should be out of print now?

Profitable Junk: Hyped on media giving great sales, but vast qty in local charity shops that look pristine.
Unprofitable: Gets pulped, maybe without reviews. Might be a great book but they don't bother even with an ebook, so we will never know.
Snob literature: Very famous and highly regarded but only a small percentage of readers complete the book.

Traditionally a book snob bought a library of books and didn't read any of them. Maybe there is a better term.

Then there are people that invest / collect books, but don't read, like some so called fine Art collectors (I can hear my daughter shouting buy from living artists). Buying anything purely as a speculative investment isn't appreciation. It's knowing the price and not the value.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

What does a 'serious reader' even mean?

Depends on who is talking. In some context, it is folks who read literary fiction and think deeply about it, preferably while in a Parisian cafe.

For me, a 'serious reader' would be someone who reads regularly for pleasure.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by issybird

I’m not at all comfortable describing people as “snobs” based on their reading preferences, either.

I don't think someone is a snob based on their reading preferences. I think someone is a snob when they look down upon others based on their reading preferences.

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I don't think someone is a snob based on their reading preferences. I think someone is a snob when they look down upon others based on their reading preferences.

Precisely! I have no patience for that kind of attitude. Read what you like, or just display so that people think you read a lot, I couldn't care less. But don't scorn those who read genre fiction or romance novels, or even comic books. Reading is reading no matter what material you are reading, it makes you no better or worse than someone else.

[issybird]

I haven’t listened to the podcast.

Did the snob in question say that only or mostly genre readers read ebooks (which I’d say is false) or that most ebooks are genre fiction (which I’d say is true and Ezra Klein at the NYT agrees). In part because a book does not equal a book, necessarily; someone can read 10, 20 romance novels to one academic history. This is one of my issues with libraries in general, that they buy a lot more romance and chicklit than other fiction and serious nonfiction. It’s because of circulation, of course, but it’s not really fair on the person who likes doorstops and only reads one or two a month.

My other issue is the quibble between judgmental comments about the quality of books read and judgmental comments about readers based on what they read. I don’t think it’s as often the latter (although I’d not say never) as people claim.

To what extent are people really being judged on what they read? And yet, I think there’s justice in a qualitative assessment of books. Some books are “better” in the sense that they’re more informative, lead to greater engagement, exercise the critical facilities, etc. than others. That doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with lighter reading and I think perfect taste is suspect anyway.

Essentially I think distinctions are being fudged and positions misstated and a lot of fighting words applied injudiciously.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by issybird

I haven’t listened to the podcast.

Essentially I think distinctions are being fudged and positions misstated and a lot of fighting words applied injudiciously.

Your opinions would have a lot more resonance if you had first hand knowledge of what you were talking about.

But honestly, I don't care too much about what you think of who is using the word 'snob' anyway. More interesting to me is this:

...most ebooks are genre fiction (which I’d say is true and Ezra Klein at the NYT agrees).

Sure. But is that not the same case with paper books?

The main thrust of the story was that with the arrival of the Kindle in 2007 people assumed that ebooks would take over the way digital music supplanted physical media, and that has not happened. Instead, ebooks sales soared at first, leveled out and then dropped.

And while ebooks didn't completely replace paper books, I think that reports of their sales figures are way off. They don't take in sales from small/indie publishers or Amazon's own imprints.

If the most popular paper book segments are now the most popular ebook segments, then ebooks are doing just fine.

...someone can read 10, 20 romance novels to one academic history. This is one of my issues with libraries in general, that they buy a lot more romance and chicklit than other fiction and serious nonfiction. It’s because of circulation, of course, but it’s not really fair on the person who likes doorstops and only reads one or two a month.

Why not? If the library purchases one or two doorstops a month you are fine. Why should you care how many romance novels they purchase? And in the end the library is buying those books because they are the ones that get checked out the most. So it seems they are doing their job.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by issybird

I haven’t listened to the podcast.

The transcript isn't up yet, but you can read or skim the one for September 16th (original broadcast) at

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts...dia-fine-print

Did the snob in question say that only or mostly genre readers read ebooks (which I’d say is false) or that most ebooks are genre fiction (which I’d say is true and Ezra Klein at the NYT agrees). In part because a book does not equal a book, necessarily; someone can read 10, 20 romance novels to one academic history. This is one of my issues with libraries in general, that they buy a lot more romance and chicklit than other fiction and serious nonfiction. It’s because of circulation, of course, but it’s not really fair on the person who likes doorstops and only reads one or two a month.

My other issue is the quibble between judgmental comments about the quality of books read and judgmental comments about readers based on what they read. I don’t think it’s as often the latter (although I’d not say never) as people claim.

To what extent are people really being judged on what they read? And yet, I think there’s justice in a qualitative assessment of books. Some books are “better” in the sense that they’re more informative, lead to greater engagement, exercise the critical facilities, etc. than others. That doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with lighter reading and I think perfect taste is suspect anyway.

Essentially I think distinctions are being fudged and positions misstated and a lot of fighting words applied injudiciously.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

The transcript isn't up yet, but you can read or skim the one for September 16th (original broadcast) at

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts...dia-fine-print

Thank you. I had clicked on the link looking for a transcript and no joy.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Your opinions would have a lot more resonance if you had first hand knowledge of what you were talking about.

Because we’ve never been down this road.

But honestly, I don't care too much about what you think of who is using the word 'snob' anyway.

I only talked about the use of the term snob and not anyone who employed it. Thanks for illustrating my point!

Why not? If the library purchases one or two doorstops a month you are fine.

Lovely! Because doorstops are fungible. So nice that those who like them get a choice of one. Or two. Whereas purchasing mostly romance novels provides both selection and churn for those who like them.

Why should you care how many romance novels they purchase?

I don’t, in the abstract. But budgets are finite and the more romance novels, the fewer other books. In fact, I think that romance should account for a huge part of the purchasing budget, because they are so popular. I also think, however, that a library’s brief should be broad, but that they pursue high circulation figures to the detriment of those who like books with less turnover. I think the balance should be different.

And in the end the library is buying those books because they are the ones that get checked out the most. So it seems they are doing their job.

They get checked out the most at least in part because they’re short, quick reads. One Harlequin-type romance could be borrowed, read and returned 10 times in the time it takes to read the latest Walter Isaacson or Simon Schama, say.