At Slate, Paul Collins points out that Google Book Search heralds a new era of outing plagiarists. The searchable database of many thousands of books is a boon to researchers, but it also greatly eases the discovery of co-opted passages. Collins mentions a couple of examples and posits that “given the popularity of plagiarism-seeking software services for academics, it may be only a matter of time before some enterprising scholar yokes Google Book Search and plagiarism-detection software together into a massive literary dragnet, scooping out hundreds of years’ worth of plagiarists – giants and forgotten hacks alike – who have all escaped detection until now.” He also predicts that “in the next decade at least one major literary work [will get] busted.”
It's no secret that newspaper book sections are endangered. Earlier this month, the Atlanta Journal Constitution eliminated its book editor position, placing the fate of the paper's well regarded book section in question. Many are assuming the worst, that the newspaper will eliminate the section entirely. There's even a petition to protect the AJC book review.With newspapers increasingly under fire from investors as once robust profit margins sag due to unprecedented competition from the Web and other forms of media and entertainment, many of these companies are looking to trim their operations in order to cut down on the costs of newsprint and personnel. Viewed in this light, book sections are dead weight.The problem is that the book section business model is broken. As The Wall Street Journal reported (sub. req.) last month, publishers, the natural advertisers for book sections, don't spend much on ads because they find the ads to be too expensive or ineffective. This fact puts book sections at a big disadvantage as compared to other parts of the newspaper, all of which must pull their weight. Business sections, for example, do well because the financial profile of their readers inspires a willingness among advertisers to spend big bucks to reach them.The broken business model of book sections has led a number of newspapers to take drastic steps. To this end, the LA Times recently unveiled a combined books/opinion section. The Chicago Tribune, the LA Times' sister paper, has taken a different tack, announcing that it will move its book section from Sunday to Saturday. The Tribune says that this move will "usher in a new era of the Tribune's coverage of books, expanding our coverage of books, ideas and the written word throughout the newspaper and across the week." In addition, "moving the section to Saturday will separate it from the Sunday newspaper, which already is bursting at the seams with essential reading, and make a prominent place for it on a new day of the week." This is all well and good - and certainly better than eliminating the book section altogether - but as the Chicago Reader noted over a year ago, when the book section switch was originally floated, "Saturday's press run is some 400,000 copies smaller than Sunday's. The annual savings in newsprint alone would reach half a million dollars." When the Tribune realized that stuffing an extra section into the Saturday paper would require them to pay their distributors more, they backed off, and converted the section to tabloid format, another newsprint saver. Seventeen months later, the paper appears to have realized that a switch to Saturday makes financial sense after all.Ultimately, however, none of these measures will be satisfying to book section readers, and the fact is, except perhaps at the New York Times, there is little future for book sections showing up with our Sunday papers. The future of newspapers isn't in paper, and the same is doubly so for book sections.I've been surprised that the many blogs that have decried the disappearance of book sections are the same ones that point out the obsolescence of newspapers - particularly their cultural coverage - in the face of a wealth of online alternatives. If our newspapers are going to be obsolete, our book sections will become obsolete as well. The tricky solution to all of this, of course, is the very medium that continues to beguile newspapers: online. There are still challenges here - as yet online ads don't pay nearly as well as print - but as book blogs have in some respects shown, there is a big audience for online book coverage, and online allows the discussion of books to break out of the "review" mold that may be contributing to the decline in the viability of newspaper book sections. The important thing to remember, I think, is that the disappearance of book sections isn't a book section problem, it's a newspaper industry problem, and the solution to book section woes will come with the solutions to the larger newspaper industry problems.
Using the words "advertising" and "books" in the same sentence seems to cause panic among fans of literature. Recall when Nigel Newton, chief executive of Bloomsbury Publishing, lashed out at Google Books for the "predation" of their "silly ads" over a year ago. In the intervening time, our favorite works of literature have not been overrun by ads, but some publishers, aware of the value of their Web presence, have begun to experiment with advertising, according to the Wall Street Journal.The WSJ article takes Frommers.com as a case study. The travel imprint of John Wiley & Sons drew at least 728,000 unique visitors in May and, along with the Web sites for its Dummies do-it-yourself series and CliffsNotes educational books, brings in $10 million to $15 million annually.For publishers of reference books, guides, and manuals, the compatibility with advertising is pretty obvious. After all, newspapers and magazines have loads of this sort of content - particularly in the form of reviews of films, music, restaurants, travel destinations, etc. - and they do quite well selling advertising against it. With loads of original content, there's no reason why a site like Frommers.com shouldn't experiment with making more of that content free to readers and ad supported.Moving away from the more utilitarian publishing categories, however, the questions become a bit more challenging, a fact that I think is betrayed by the confused identity of many publisher Web sites. Typically they offer what seems to be a hybrid of a catalog and original content, though neither end up being terribly useful. On the Web, people want access to all the available information. Why would readers browse for a book on the HarperCollins Web site when they could go to Amazon or Google Books (or even the library) and see everything that's available on a particular topic. Likewise, there is plenty of free, ad supported, quality original content available online from magazines and newspapers.While selling ads against an excerpt from the latest Philip Roth novel is not likely to be a winning proposition (though the New Yorker manages just fine), publishers could ratchet up their original content offerings in order to promote their own products as well as to bring in ad revenue and highlight their brands.Publishers have dabbled in this sort of thing before. Random House once had an online literary magazine called Boldtype, but cut it loose in 2003, and the site has enjoyed a second life as a part of the Flavorpill Network of sites. Bold Type in its current incarnation may not be the perfect model for publishers looking to create a new revenue stream on the Web, but the point for publishers to remember, I think, is that they are purveyors of content, and with a little creativity publishers could easily extend their expertise in this area to the Web.
It's not uncommon for a website based in Russia or Italy or Venezuela to link to The Millions. Keeping up with these mentions and trying to figure out how somebody in Milan or Caracas is reacting to an essay or review of ours has made me a frequent user of Google Translate, which lets you drop in a block of text and press "translate." In ever magical Google fashion, a passable English translation appears. What's interesting to me is that over the last few years the translation seems to have become more passable and it's now easier than ever for me to glean meaning and intent from the product of Google's machinations. If one assumes that the improvement in quality of these translations might continue in a linear fashion, then it follows that I might be reading a machine translated book one of these days. It's a liberating notion. I have no affinity for languages but I have often wished I could dig into to the untranslated oeuvres of favorites like Alvaro Mutis or Ryszard Kapuscinski or read their translated books in their original forms. But then again, the idea might inspire fear that some essentially human quality of the literature would, literally, be lost in translation. And certainly for translators, who would be replaced by stacks of processors in a climate-controlled warehouse somewhere, such a development would be devastating. Even if computers never approach the craftsmanship of Natasha Wimmer and Edith Grossman, Google or something like might get good enough at doing the heavy lifting and letting the reader clean up the language here and there. And indeed that might be fine for some applications even today, but using Google to create a passable translation of the blog posts of a Spanish or German blogger is one thing, using it to translate a work of literature is quite another. A translated novel needs to be perfect and Google's success in completing undemanding translation tasks was no guarantee that it would be able to manage the nuanced language of a literary master. An experiment was in order. In the interest of seeing how close we are to this brave new world of machine translation, I decided to give a recent work of fiction, written originally in Spanish, the Google test. I chose Roberto Bolaño's 2666 because I haven't read it and because I was able to find the same excerpt in both English and Spanish. I began with the Spanish: La primera vez que Jean-Claude Pelletier leyó a Benno von Archimboldi fue en la Navidad de 1980, en París, en donde cursaba estudios universitarios de literatura alemana, a la edad de diecinueve años. El libro en cuestión era D'Arsonval. El joven Pelletier ignoraba entonces que esa novela era parte de una trilogía (compuesta por El jardín, de tema inglés, La máscara de cuero, de tema polaco, así como D'Arsonval era, evidentemente, de tema francés), pero esa ignorancia o ese vacío o esa dejadez bibliográfica, que sólo podía ser achacada a su extrema juventud, no restó un ápice del deslumbramiento y de la admiración que le produjo la novela. I plugged that passage into Google and it spit out: The first time Jean-Claude Pelletier to read Benno von Archimboldi was at Christmas 1980 in Paris, where a university student of German literature at the age of nineteen. The book in question was D'Arsonval. The young Pelletier knew then that this novel was part of a trilogy (consisting of the garden, full English, leather mask, Polish theme and D'Arsonval was obviously French theme), but that ignorance or the vacuum or the neglect literature, which could only be blamed on his extreme youth, it detracts from glare and admiration that led to the novel. The result is hardly poetry, but it seemed surprisingly decipherable. There are some issues with sentence structure, and trying to figure out the antecedents of the various pronouns is difficult. So, and this wasn't an entirely unpleasant exercise, I jumped in and attempted to clean it up myself, knowing that I might be skewing the meaning of the passage badly, but interested in at least applying a certain degree of polish: The first time Jean-Claude Pelletier read to Benno von Archimboldi was Christmas 1980 in Paris, where he was a nineteen-year-old university student of German literature. The book in question was D'Arsonval. The young Pelletier knew then that this novel was part of a trilogy (consisting of the garden, full English, leather mask, Polish themes and, obviously, French themes as well), but beyond that his ignorance or a vacuum or neglect for literature, which could only be blamed on his extreme youth, detracted from glare and admiration that he would have for the novel. I decided that Pelletier is the nineteen year old and that Google's muddled translation was trying to tell me that the young Pelletier is reading to this Archimboldi and though Pelletier had some rote understanding of the book D'Arsonval, he was too immature to appreciate it as he one day would. Then I looked at Natasha Wimmer's translation, and I saw what Google and I got right and what we got very wrong: The first time that Jean-Claude Pelletier read Benno von Archimboldi was Christmas 1980, in Paris, when he was nineteen years old and studying German literature. The book in question was D'Arsonval. The young Pelletier didn’t realize at the time that the novel was part of a trilogy (made up of the English-themed The Garden and the Polish-themed The Leather Mask, together with the clearly French-themed D'Arsonval), but this ignorance or lapse or bibliographical lacuna, attributable only to his extreme youth, did nothing to diminish the wonder and admiration that the novel stirred in him. Pelletier is indeed the youth here, but he didn't read to Archimboldi, he read a book by Archimboldi. Worse, Google and I totally misread Pelletier's reaction to the book. We find that Pelletier, despite his youth, indeed appreciated D'Arsonval on a gut level, but did not yet appreciate its literary context, essentially the reverse of what the machine translation came up with. And Google and I totally flubbed the idea that the parenthetical list was a list of titles and not descriptors for D'Arsonval. Natasha Wimmer, your job is safe. Despite my failed experiment, machine translation might one day be able to figure out how to properly align those pronouns and antecedents and it might make short work of that complicated list of book titles, but would a machine ever, as Wimmer has, be able to convey the urgency in Pelletier's literary discovery? If a machine could one day do that, we might no longer think of it as a machine. It would have passed the Turing test (which tells us a machine has demonstrated intelligence when you can no longer distinguish a machine's actions from those of a human). J.M. Cohen, a prolific translator whose efforts included Don Quixote and Rousseau's The Confessions, put it another way: "It is impossible... to imagine a literary-translation machine less complex than the human brain itself." [Image credit: Jared Tarbell]
● ● ●
Hillel Italie, the AP's publishing beat reporter, has a story about how a couple of major book stores aren't getting behind the impending release of the Sony Reader. According to Italie, both Barnes & Noble and Amazon won't be carrying the device when it comes out this summer, while Borders will be carrying it. In a post from a couple of months ago, I mentioned the Sony Reader, which had gotten rave reviews from people who'd tried it out. Sony now has the Reader up on its Web site, and I have to say, even in the pictures, it looks a lot more usable than I expected. It's small and relatively elegant looking, but the quality of the text on the screen is most impressive. There is certainly a paper-like quality to the display. Despite all this, I don't think I'll be pulping my books anytime soon. I simply enjoy all the non-textual aspects of books too much. I do think, however, that if this device is as pleasant to use as people have described it to be, then surely there will be some use for it, and certainly some categories of books will be ripe for transition to this format. Textbooks come to mind.Truthfully, I'm really not all that surprised that Barnes & Noble isn't carrying the Sony Reader because I would imagine that the transaction of buying books for the device and the act of reading books on the device won't have any real connection to the typical brick and mortar book store experience. Not unlike how the way many people now buy and listen to music doesn't have much of a connection to the Tower Records down the street, and Tower Records (probably to its detriment) isn't in the "eMusic business." As for Amazon sitting this one out, that's a little harder to understand, but I'd imagine it'll jump on board if there's any inkling in the early going that the Sony Reader is taking off. Ultimately, I think the Sony Reader will be a success if Sony manages to sell it as a comfortable reading device and not a replacement for books. There are a few other issues, of course. It's expensive, set to retail for $300 to $400, and there are many handheld devices, and many more on the way, that can function as "eReaders," though without Sony's special, paper-like display, while also doing a lot of other stuff - I'm talking Palms and the like here. Regardless, though, 2006 should be an interesting year to watch the ongoing digital future of books.Supplemental Links: Another pic of the device at Gizmodo; Kevin 2.0 asks if dedicated eBook readers are really needed; Bookninja, on the other hand, calls it the "iPod for nerds."
1. More than a few times, my father has waxed lyrical about my future appearance on David Letterman. "You'll tell him how your dear dad is your greatest influence." In this fantasy, I'm not an movie star, or even someone with a talented pet. I'm a novelist. "Dad," I say, "why would Letterman have me -- a writer -- on his show?" My father doesn't have an answer. He just shrugs, as if to say, Why not? My father also believes Oprah would take his call. And that he can hand-sell a thousand copies of my (as yet unpublished) novel to people who owe him favors. "Make it ten thousand," he says. "Show those numbers to your agent." Sure, Dad. Okay. But wait. If my father can make good on his promise, and actually sell a decent number of copies of my book -- over the phone, from the trunk of his car -- then why not do what so many other writers have done recently, and self-publish? In August, droves of self-published authors commented on my essay, "Shutting the Drawer: What Happens When a Book Doesn't Sell?" about the death of my first book. There was that clichéd rallying cry: "Traditional publishing is on its last legs," as well as cheerful exhortations for me to take matters into my own hands. E-publishing and print-on-demand, commenters assured me, has made D.I.Y. publishing affordable and easy. After receiving all this feedback, I decided to talk with a few self-published authors to find out why they went that route, and what its benefits and drawbacks have been. I first corresponded with two of my high school English teachers who have used CreateSpace, Amazon's self-publishing wing. Daniel D. Victor self-published his novel A Study in Synchronicity after he'd queried agents for some time without success. Victor has already published one novel; in 1992, St. Martin's put out The Seventh Bullet, which was recently re-released in England by Titan Books. Both of Victor's novels are inspired by the work of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle; the former is a "Sherlock Holmes pastiche" while the new one intertwines a Victorian-era whodunit with a modern-day mystery -- it's a clever tale of fiction-coming-to-life. Victor told me he's been very happy with CreateSpace, both in the process and the results. "People have told me how great my book looks, how professional. And the procedures, once I got the hang of them, were straightforward." When I asked him about readers' response, he said, "People have been very receptive and complimentary. Of course, most all of the books have been bought by people I know. What else would I expect them to say?" Victor's colleague and friend, Barry Smolin, has self-published two manuscripts: Wake Up in the Dream House, an image-driven book of prose, and Always Be Madly in Love, a poetry collection. Aside from teaching high school, Smolin hosts a radio show on KPFK and makes music under the moniker Mr. Smolin. After self-producing albums for so long, self-publishing made sense. He didn't even attempt the traditional route. Like Victor, he found CreateSpace user-friendly. (Or, in Smolin-parlance: "I ended up digging it.") When I asked how readers had responded, he said he hasn't received any feedback. "But, then again," he added, "I didn't publish them for feedback." Smolin later sent me a second email, in which he described his life as an artist: I... have spent the last 35 years making art (music, poetry, fiction) that absolutely nobody cares about. For whatever reason, it just doesn't resonate with folks. It saddened me more when I was younger; now I just accept it. That reality has had no effect on my creative output whatsoever. I can't stop doing it. It's just a burning need in me. It's who I am. I am an artist even if nobody else on earth thinks so. I'd be miserable if I was not sitting down each night to write or make music. So, I've learned to create without the need for any kind of audience. It has just been a survival mechanism I guess. I can't NOT write, I can't NOT compose and record music, but I also can't just create all this stuff 24/7 and stick it in a drawer... I like knowing it's "out there" whatever that means, that it's in the cosmos and available to be received if any are interested. It's an intriguing contradiction: the desire to publish a book without an expectation for readers. Neither Victor nor Smolin seemed to anticipate an audience when they decided to self-publish -- at least not a large one. Unlike many other self-published authors, they haven't been tirelessly (some might even say obnoxiously) promoting their work. And yet, both Victor and Smolin maintain a hope for readership. In this regard, self-publishing provides the manuscript with a liminal existence -- it's technically available to the world, even if hardly anyone in the world is aware of it. There is potential, and that's what matters. Neither of my former-teachers approached the topic of self-publishing from the perspective of platform-building or money-earning, as I've seen other self-published writers do. They were both quite noble about the process, actually, and their quiet belief in their own work made me want to read their books. I realized, talking to them, that self-publishing provided a conclusion to their artistic projects. Victor and Smolin are writing other books now; their previous ones have been brought to the world, and are thus finished. 2. Okay, I'm just going to go ahead and say it: At this point in time, self-publishing lacks the cool factor. It's... dorky. Go ahead, call me a snob (check), call me the mean girl (check). You can also call me someone who loves a well-made, beautifully designed book that makes me shiver with desire. To me, a good-looking book implies an understanding of the marketplace and how to maneuver within it. Most (though not all) self-published novels look, well, self-published. I've met enough self-published authors at festivals and conferences to know most of them aren't doing things right. Don't wear a baggy T-shirt with the cover of your book screen-printed across the chest. Don't wear a cape made of crushed velvet. Don't refer to your "fiction-novel." And don't pay some questionable publicity company to spam staff writers of The Millions with press releases. There are, of course, self-published authors who actively market themselves, and do it well. Two of my peers -- Los Angeles-based writer Matthew Allard, and my former classmate at Iowa, Jason Lewis -- have both published their own fiction, and made it seem hip to do so. I've actually never met Allard; he and I are friends on Tumblr, where he maintains a thoughtful and amusing blog. Last year, he self-published a collection of short stories, To Slow Down the Time, illustrated by the artist Ian Dingman. Allard produced two versions of the book: a limited edition hand-bound hardcover, and a print-on-demand paperback (published by CreateSpace), and made them both available for pre-order. The limited edition sold out in a week, and these sales financed the production costs. "To be honest, we had profit immediately," Allard told me. "I didn't make enough money to quit my day job, but I made more than drinking money. I used some of my money to buy a nice new MacBook Pro (to write another book with). I was very surprised." I own the paperback version of Allard's book, and it's lovely. Many a visitor has picked it up and asked me about it, which proves that you don't need the letters FSG on your book's spine to woo a reader. Allard did not submit To Slow Down the Time to agents and traditional publishers. "I am impatient," he said, "and I liked the idea of turning it around and of having full control over our project." He will most likely self-publish a second collection of stories, which are notoriously difficult to sell these days. Again, he mentioned the swift turn-around time between finishing the manuscript, and presenting it to readers. Clearly, this aspect of self-publishing is seductive: readers get your work while you're still passionate about it. After meeting a handful of writers who can't stand their books by the time they're released, I can understand the appeal of a faster timeline. However, I worry what that acceleration might do to my own work. For instance, there's a difference between this blog post and the novel I'm writing now, and that difference is time: to ponder, to revise, and to receive feedback. Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat. When I asked Allard about his self-publishing experience, he said: I learned that this is absolutely a viable option for intrepid, Internet-savvy authors. Self-publishing levels the playing field a bit. There is certainly not the same kind of cachet attached to self-publishing as the traditional route. Maybe there's no pleasure of saying, "Random House is publishing my book in the fall," but self-publishing does offer the same quality product (providing your product is quality to begin with) and you get to be in charge. The absence of a marketing budget is the other drawback. You made a book! It's real! Getting it into readers' hands is a whole other ballgame. In my case, I was lucky to have amassed a decent Internet following that was interested in what I was working on. Self-publishing is simply cutting a corner and taking charge of your work from start to finish. You don't have to sit around waiting for a publisher or agent to notice you and believe in your project. If you believe in it, you can make it. There's less glamour or paycheck attached, though. I'm struck by how clear-eyed Allard is about the process. He understood self-publishing's limitations, and the work required of him to render the book a success. He'll be in fine shape if he sells a book to a publishing house down the line. The publicity budget for a traditional published book usually isn't huge, and nowadays the writer is expected not only to be an artist, but also a talented promoter of that art. Allard already knows how to tap-dance for his dinner, and to do it gracefully. Like Allard, Jason Lewis has published an atypical book. His novel, The Fourteenth Colony, comes with an album of songs written from the perspective of John Martin, the book's main character, a musician who returns to his hometown in West Virginia to try to put his life back together. Lewis wrote and produced all the music, and funded the project via Kickstarter. As with Allard's, Lewis's book was financed by readers, and he has a guarantee of an audience, however modest, by the time the book goes to press this month. Any copies he sells on top of this will be profit. This is in contrast to the traditional publishing model which puts money up front in the form of an advance, and sets about building an audience for a work that's already created. It's not hard to see which model offers greater risk. Lewis used to have an agent, but she left the business a few years ago, and he had trouble finding representation for The Fourteenth Colony. He began writing new work as he sent out the manuscript to agencies, but he couldn't get his first novel out of his head. "In another era, that might just have been the itch I couldn't scratch while I moved on," he said. "But in this era, indie publishing has really very quickly become a viable option." Notice that Lewis uses the phrase "indie publishing" -- a smart move, in this fraught moment in books. Although Lewis has enjoyed the outpouring of support from family and friends, and from strangers who are simply enthusiastic about his unique project, he admits, "It would still be great to have someone else to take care of a lot of what I'm doing for myself." Allard, too, envisions publishing a novel traditionally some day. "For me and my career as an author, it is a goal to have a publisher take interest in my work and back it. There is a different sense of accomplishment in selling a book that way, obviously. I want that." This intrigued me, though I wasn't surprised. Even writers who self-publish well, who successfully produce books that don't fit into the publishing industry's rubric of what's marketable, let alone categorizable, still want entrance into the established world they initially turned away from. If only for assistance with production. If only to say, "My book's for sale on the front table at Barnes and Noble." Even in 2011 that value can't be denied. 3. For some self-published authors, the traditional industry may be dying, superfluous to their needs and success as authors. But many of the self-published authors who commented on my initial essay suggested that I publish my own book as a means to get the industry's attention. They seem to be saying: Screw the industry... that is, until they recognize my genius! Matthew Allard self-published a book that probably couldn't have been produced by a large house, but the story of that book, and the attention it's received, could no doubt help him get representation and sell another book down the road. Daniel D. Victor might amass a following for his second novel, proving to those gun-shy agents that his subject matter is indeed of interest to a wide readership. In my estimate, self-publishing won't replace traditional publishing, but it might supplement and influence it. There's another trajectory for an author's success; alongside the debut novelist who's an MFA graduate with publishing credits in The Missouri Review and Your Mom's Journal, there's the writer who proved herself with self-publishing and now has a book deal with Random House. But to think every self-published author makes it big is as foolish as thinking every MFA grad does. In a recent New York Times article, Amazon executive Russell Grandinetti said, "The only really necessary people in the publishing process now are the writer and reader. Everyone who stands between those two has both risk and opportunity.” It's a good point. Self-publishers essentially cut out the middle man (except, of course, outfits like Amazon...), and in shouldering the burdens of editing, design, publicity, and so on, they stand to reap all the benefits of that work. It's how Amanda Hocking made her millions. It's also how many, many other self-published writers spent a lot of time (if not money) putting out a book that no one bought. With my first novel, I suffered rejection from editors. The writer who self-publishes sidesteps that rejection, only to face possible rejection in the form of readers' silence. If you self-publish a book and it doesn't do as well as you'd hoped, does it hurt your chances to sell a novel to a traditional publisher in the future? Maybe in an industry that's changing so rapidly, it's too early to answer that question. Talking to these self-published writers certainly opened my eyes to the various reasons why one might try it, and how gratifying it can be. These are writers I admire; how their books came to me doesn't matter. That was an important lesson for me to learn. Even so, I'm not running to the press with my first book. In a second essay, I'll further explore why not. I'll also examine what self-publishing means for readers, and what traditionally published authors think of all these D.I.Y. developments.
● ● ●
In a short piece at silicon.com "futurist" Peter Cochrane talks about a potential business idea that I'm surprised doesn't already exist: digitizing personal book collections. As I've said in the past, I support the various book digitization efforts from Google and others for these projects' potential to make the sharing of knowledge easier, not because I want to read all my books (for free or otherwise) from my computer. However, I am intrigued by the option of digitizing at least some of the books I own - perhaps books I've read and don't intend to read in full again. It would be nice to have searchable, digital copies of these books to refer back to, but there are some books that I could never trade in for digital doppelgangers.