The problem with Kindle . . .


. . . You can't throw it across the room when you come to a part of a book you don't like.

Well, actually you can - it's just that you're going to seriously regret it after it lands. Unlike a paperback.

I was thinking about this fact while listening to some of the speakers at the BEA book industry conference this past weekend. And while it started as an irreverent, wise-ass remark-toid, it provoked ideas about the future of books that are, maybe, more relevant.

Books - the physical objects - have played a critical role in transferring and preserving knowledge for two or maybe three thousand years. They've gone through relatively few major changes in that time, each one connected to technology. They've also also evolved as mass entertainment media. While they've never really been dominant in that role, it's been as critical in their history as the transfer of knowledge has.

Like the printing press, the possibilities of electronic/digital media and networks has once again thrown the fundamentals into flux. Books' role as the primary reservoir of knowledge has been challenged if not superseded by the internet. Go into any elementary school and ask the kids what they are using for their research projects. The first answer they give will be "the internet."

You can debate whether that's good or bad, but the bottom line is, it's a fact.

As entertainment media, books face a similar, though not quite as fundamental challenge. For the moment at least, they are physically the most efficient means of providing a long-scale imaginative experience - or whatever it is that a novel delivers. But that, too, is changing, and whether people will lose the taste for that form of entertainment - as they have mostly lost their taste for poetry - remains an open question.

Most people in the industry today think that books will basically migrate on-line, where they will resume their traditional role as reservoirs of knowledge and providers of entertainment. I don't know that that's a good assumption. Even if it is, their nature will surely change. If you look at the books being produced in medieval monasteries and those being produced after the invention of cheap paperbacks (and the distribution system that made their sale on a mass market level possible), you can't help but realize the difference is so vast that you're essentially talking about a different product.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that books do migrate and survive successfully to the electronic realm. Digital media makes a large number of things possible that ink and paper can't, at least not economically. Graphics are only the beginning; video, audio, live links to other media - the possibilities are vast.

Given that, it seems logical that the electronic or digital version of a book will be considered, should be considered, more valuable than a print version. If, for example, you're reading about a World War II battle - Dieppe - and you can instantly see a map of the battle site, view newsreels, etc., etc., that's worth more to you than simply being able to read the text.

Yes?

Well, duh. It's not a radical assumption at all. But I didn't hear anyone mention that at BEA, and in fact have yet to hear anyone point that out when discussing E-books. On the contrary, E-books' value is seen primarily in terms of their distribution system - they're cheap (and quick) to get to market, since you don't have transport costs, etc., etc. (Amazon and Google are doing their best to corner and add to the transport costs, but that's another post.)

The nature of books, storytelling, knowledge transfer and the book industry are all very much in flux. But the people who are mostly looked on for direction mostly don't seem to have much of a clue. We're often not even picking the right people to listen to.

Panel after panel at the BEA featured people who were supposedly experts on topics simply voicing opinions from very limited positions. Can a group of authors, none of whom actually make their living publishing books, really provide insight on the role of publishers either in the present or the near future?

It's an interesting, if difficult, time to be a writer. I'm not sure whether it's a consolation knowing everybody else is confused, too.