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.
I learned about the Amazon de-ranking debacle on Twitter (follow me @EdanL, y'all). People love to argue that Twitter is a time-wasting site for people to announce what they're doing: They're doing their taxes, or they're drinking the best beer ever, man, or they're on the toilet. And it's that, certainly, but it's also an incredible way to spread information and start a dialogue. Most of the people I know on Twitter are other writers, or editors, critics, or publishers. I've learned a lot about the book world since signing up.But I digress.I was by turns upset and confused by the Amazon story (known on Twitter as #amazonfail) and I still am. What am I to believe, and what will it mean, in the long run, even after the "glitch" has been fixed? Am I simply being paranoid? Is mine simply the blanket distate-for-Amazon of an independent bookseller? Maybe. I don't know. I do know there's been a lot of valuable dialogue on this "ham-fisted cataloging error," and I thought I'd highlight some of it here.Mark Probst's Live Journal post started it all, and Carolyn Kellogg's reporting at the Los Angeles Times book blog Jacket Copy helped me track the story as it evolved.There's this thought-provoking post from Richard Nash, who argues that we can't give Amazon the benefit of the doubt because, ...in a world where whiteness and straightness are 'norms' and males benefit from our patriarchal history, it is always the GLBTQ books, the queer books, the non-normative books that get caught in the glitches, the ham-fisted errors. As a contrast, here is Sara Nelson's (of The Daily Beast) interpretation of the reaction on Twitter and the blogosphere: That book lovers seized on this recent de-listing scandal as a vehicle through which to vent their frustration and rage at big bad Amazon makes perfect sense; to have a politically correct hook on which to hang one's argument makes whatever revenge one might wreak all the sweeter. Meanwhile, Clay Shirky had another angle about the Amazon fury: Whatever stupidities Amazon is guilty of, none of them are hanging offenses. The problems they have with labeling and handling contested categories is a problem with all categorization systems since the world began.At the Vromans Bookstore Blog Patrick used #amazonfail to talk about the danger of putting our faith (and dollars) into one company, and drew a connection to our shift to monoculture farming: It's taken us some thirty years (since the passage of Earl Butz's "Get Big or Get Out" Farm Bill in the 1970s) to realize that having a few corporations control our food supply was a really bad idea. (This post, actually, reminded me of these posts Patrick penned for the Millions almost two years ago.)There are many other posts and reports on #amazonfail, including this one from the New York Times. And there is a petition to boycott Amazon, which, at the time of this writing, has collected over 26,000 signatures.It feels funny reporting all this on The Millions, which links to Amazon. This is not my choice, but one I understand and accept. We also have our Collaborative Atlas of Bookstores and Literary Places, and an upcoming walking tour of indie bookstores in NYC (Can we do one for LA next year? Maybe by bus/metro?). It's this diversity, and our excellent content, that I admire, and why I'm proud to write for this blog, links or not.And, before I go... In the spirit of Twitter/Blog culture, I would love to hear your responses to #amazonfail in the comments.
A week ago, an article in the New York Times created a mini-furor in literary circles. As the resident Japan expert in my circle of friends, everybody was asking me, "So what's the deal with these cell phone novels?"The NYT article was the first I'd heard of them. I did a quick Internet search, and what do you know? The Times was right, they're all over the place. Google spits ups thousands of pages, and several of the more popular novels are listed on the Internet Movie Database as films in production.What does this mean for the English novel? Is this the future of literature? In Japanese, maybe. There are a number of features of Japan's language and culture that make a cell phone novel more palatable than it would be in English. First, Japanese grammar is much better suited than English to the kind of short sentences writing on a cell phone encourages. As a high-context language, a complete sentence in Japanese can consist of just a single, lonely verb. Japanese speakers and writers frequently and freely omit subjects and objects from their sentences, expecting the reader to figure out what's going on. Go figure. The use of Chinese characters also serves to compact sentences. Since you don't have to actually spell out entire words, as in English, but can represent them with an ideogram, you can say a lot more in a much smaller space.Secondly, and perhaps just as important, cell phone novels tap into long traditions of Japanese prose and poetry. First, even a cursory examination of a cell phone novel will show a visual connection to the poetic traditions of haiku and tanka. The connection doesn't end there, at its best the writing itself has an economy and - I'll regret saying this - poetry that taps into the same tradition. The medium - you try typing a novel on the keypad of a cell phone - forces the writers to make every word count, and (in Japanese at least) it shows. The themes, as well, harken back to traditional Japanese themes. The first "modern" novel (written by Murasaki Shikibu in 11th century Japan), The Tale of Genji, was basically a high school love story, and nothing has changed since then. In manga, on television and in literature, the amatory exploits of high school students have always captured the imagination of the Japanese public. And the long, long literary tradition there, combined with the frequent use of public transportation, means that books in general, whether written on cell phones or not, occupy a much more important place in Japanese culture than in the West.So what are these cell phone novels like? For the curious, I've translated a short passage from Sky of Love, the number one best seller by Mika, recently made into a movie. I've only read the first chapter, but apparently it's a heart wrenching tale of young love, as seen through a Jerry Springer filter of premarital sex, teen pregnancy, gang rape and mortal disease. Enjoy.Translation note: Two things. First, I've done my best to preserve the sentence structure and formatting of the original (at the expense of clarity and good prose, I'm afraid). This is more or less how it looks and reads in the original Japanese. Second, it's common in Japanese for people to refer to themselves in the third person. The protagonist here does that frequently. It's a habit that's considered somewhat childish and endearing.Sky of Love (the novel in Japanese, for those who'd like a visual reference.)PrologueIf I hadn't met you that day...I don't think I would haveFelt this bitterness.This pain.This sadnessCried this much.But.If I hadn't met you...This happiness.This joy.This love.This warmth.I wouldn't have known that either.Today, I'm going to look through my tears and up at the sky.Look to the sky.Chapter One- A smile"God, I am so hungry♪♪"Finally lunch time. Felt like I'd been waiting forever.Same as always, Mika puther lunchbox on her desk and opened it.School is a drag.The only thing I like about it is eating with Aya and Yuka, my friends from class.--Mika Tahara--She's a freshman, who started at this school in April.It hasn't even been three monthssince she got here.She's met some people she likes and gets along with. She's had some pretty good times.She's short.And stupid.And not that prettyDoesn't have any special talents.Or even know what's she wants to do with herself after graduation.Bright, tea-colored hair she dyed right after she got here.She's wearing a little makeup, but it looks strange on her, especially at this time of day.She stumbled out of middle school and right into average.She had normal friends.She had normal crushes.She dated three guys.I don't know if that's normal, or what.But, what I know is normal,is that those relationships all ended fast. That's what she's saying.She doesn't know real love.All she knows is how to fool around,Just that.Love...Who needs it?It was right then...I met you.Mika's life: she expected it would end in the same boring way it had begun. Meeting you was going to change all that.Like always, Mika and Aya and Yukawolf down their food.Why is it everyone gets so quiet when they eat?The classroom door rattles open,A guy with one hand in his pocketwalks overto the three of them.That guy, he stands in front of themAnd he starts talking. Casually."Hey! My name's Nozomu. I'm in the class next door. You heard of me?"The three girls look at each other.They pretend they don't know what he's talking about.Just keep eating their lunches.Since I'd gotten to school, I'd heard a lot of rumors about Nozomu.A player.A flirt.A playboyIt seemed like he was walking around schoolwith a different girl on his arm every day."Watch out for Nozomu!""If he's got his eye on you, you don't stand a chance."Didn't somebody tell me that...?He's got a well-proportioned faceon a tall body.Highlights in his hair,styled with wax for that "casual" look.Eyes looking right at you, like they could see... something.He's got the right stuff for getting girls. There's no question about that.The problem is his personality.Maybe... if he was a little more serious...With all those rumors floating around. I don't even need to tell you I'm not interested.The three girls continue eating their lunches, pretending they haven't even noticed him."Hey, now. You're ignoring me? Let's be friends. ♪ Come on, give me your number."His insistence makes me thirsty.Mika, annoyed, grabbing a bottle of barley tea in one handgulping it all down."What do you think I'm going to do? It's cool. Just tell me your number."There's silenceSuddenly, Aya breaks it.Mika and Yuka, looking at each other in disbelief.Aya gives him her number with a smile.It's hard to believe this is happening.I wait until Nozomu has left the room, all puffed up and full of himself. Then turning to Aya, blurting out:"Why would you give your number to a guy like that? He's trouble."Aya responds to Mika's worry, like it's no big deal."What can I say? I like cute guys. Ha."Aya's a mature, beautiful woman.She's stylish and her best feature isher long hair, a little wavy, and the red-brown of tea.She's got bad luck with guys. All the ones she's dated are just playing with her...That's why, even when she gets a boyfriend, it's just a few dates, quick break-up, repeat."Aya. Don't get serious with a guy like that."To Yuka, with the serious faceAya turns and lightly replies."Don't worry about it."School lets out.I go home, and lay around in my room, watching TV.That's when...♪Ring♪The ring echoes through the room.There's no name on the caller id.It's from a number that's not in my phone.I wonder who it is...I pick-up to find out."Hello...?""..."... silence."Hellooo..."I say it with a little more self-assurance.Click.Beep, beep, beep.They hung up.Prank call?Probably a wrong number.♪Ring♪Again, the ring echoes through the room.The same number as before.They're not going to say anything anyway, I think.So, I answer like I don't give a shit."What?""...lo? Hello. Hello?"On the other end of the line, I can faintly hearthe sound of an unfamiliar man's voice."Who is this?"The guy on the other endshouts in a voice so loud I think it's going to blow out my eardrum."...Mika? The signal's bad! It's Nozomu! You remember? The guy who talked to you at lunch today!"WTF? Nozomu?The Nozomu who hits on all the girls? That Nozomu?The guy who got Aya's number today... That Nozomu?I start to panic.I can't findthe words to reply.I should just hang up. Shouldn't I?
Not much news here, but a BBC story suggests that, as part of its digital book initiative, Google may sell e-books sometime in the future. CEO Eric Schmidt - being extra careful in this area it seems - said "that this would depend on permission from copyright holders." Google already provides links to online booksellers from its book pages, but, as far as I can tell, this would be the first time that Google was selling books directly.
A few months ago, I wrote about some of the oddities of Amazon's customer review system. I suggested that certain of Amazon's "Top Reviewers" had become semi-professionalized, and that some five-star customer reviews reach readers the same way reviews in the Times (and on blogs) do: as part of a well-organized press push. A story that appeared in Galleycat last week revealed something surprising (to me anyway): the Amazon push may work in the opposite direction, to keep an unwanted review from surfacing. Apparently, Deborah MacGillivray, a romance novelist, convinced Amazon to expunge the reviews and comments of a reviewer who had been critical of her work.Again, it appears that Amazon's customer review system is evolving beyond "helpful, tell-it-like-it-is product information" into an extension of the publishing demimonde. This is not to say that there's anything wrong with the American review system, in which publicists send advance copies of books to influential readers in an attempt to get press; it is, rather, to argue that Amazon should take a good hard look at its system. On one hand, it could work harder to protect the disinterestedness of customer reviews (by not kowtowing to authors, for example, or by getting rid of the reviewer rankings). On the other, it might recast the review system as less of an aw-shucks, communitarian forum.
In today's Guardian Nigel Newton, chief executive of Bloomsbury Publishing, rants about the danger presented by Google's ongoing endeavor to digitize the world's books. I'm sorry, but I just cannot understand the vehemence of the opposition to Google's plan. Newton tries to catch our attention by invoking the spirit of Charles Dickens, which he claims is being denigrated by the small ads that Google places near the text of the books it scans, but really, for Newton and other publishers who oppose Google, this is about protecting their bottom line and it has nothing to do with the best interests of authors, Dickens or otherwise.He begins by decrying Google's "inappropriate" advertising. It's very true that advertising can and does get out of hand in our modern world, but Newton is taking a particularly Draconian line to prove his point. Advertisements run in all of the world's most prestigious magazines and newspapers, and we don't call this "predation." In fact it's particularly amusing to me that Newton selects Dickens to focus on because many of Dickens' novels first appeared in installments in magazines like Harper's, which contained - surprise - advertisements for things like pianos and carpets and shirts. Scroll through the images of old issues of Harper's on this page and you'll catch glimpses of them on the margins, not all that different from the way Google does it.But it's not long before Newton gets to the real issue, money:At one level all this is quite funny. At another, it is shocking. The worst thing is that the actual money paid to authors and publishers for these silly ads is negligible. So is the number of book purchases arising directly from these links (certainly they were when Google's representative came to see me last autumn). Authors are being ripped off however you look at it. They need to say something about it, loudly.This betrays how little Newton knows about what Google is doing. Google takes a cut of the revenues generated by those "silly ads" and the rest goes to the copyright holder. If the copyright holder's take for a particular book is "negligible," so is Google's. Beyond the money, this is also about Old Media's desire for control versus New Media's push for openness. Newton can't see the potential monetary benefit of making his books more accessible to the public. If it were up to him, we'd have to drop a coin in before flipping through a book at a bookstore. Newton's real motives become clear when he reveals that he's not really against digitizing books and making money off of them, he's just against someone else doing it:Publishers also have the responsibility to make sure that when it comes to hosting electronic content in future, it is their own websites that host the downloads and the scans of text and audio. There is no reason to hand this content to third-party websites.What I would say to Newton is go for it, no one is stopping you, and while you are fretting over your books being stolen, Google is digitizing the world's knowledge so that future generations will have easy access to it - well, unless it was published by Bloomsbury, apparently. The point of Newton's diatribe, which is "an edited version of a speech given on Thursday to the Guardian Review's World Book Day forum," is that we should boycott Google to get them back for their trespasses. Good luck with that.Before I close this, I want to clarify one thing. Newton implies that what Google is doing is bad for authors and not just publishers. I don't think that's true at all. Google's effort - in the absence of a viable effort by publishers - can introduce readers to books and allow authors explore new ways of getting their books to readers and new ways of making money from their writing. The Internet has shaken the foundations of the music, film and news businesses and changed them all - for the better, I think - and there's no reason why the publishing industry should be exempt from this.See also: The publishers' big blunder, Richard Nash of Soft Skull on Google Print, HarperCollins starts its own little islandUpdate: Just spotted Hissy Cat's post which goes even further in picking apart Nigel Newton's ridiculous speech. It's worth reading.
A pair of interesting addenda to my post on Amazon from earlier in the month:The online bookselling giant went ahead and snapped up the piece of book cataloging site Shelfari that it didn't already own.As we had noted, after buying AbeBooks, Amazon suddenly owned the two big rivals in the book cataloging space, Shelfari and LibraryThing, and since, to this observer, it seemed like combining the two sites would be a non-starter, Amazon was likely to throw its weight behind one or the other. Unsurprisingly, Amazon picked Shelfari, as Tim Spalding, LibraryThing's founder, has long been wary of Amazon (though not hostile towards it). As TechCrunch speculates, Amazon may divest its shares of LibraryThing, and I'd guess that Spalding wouldn't mind that too much.Secondly, bookfinder.com, the extremely comprehensive used book search engine (now owned by Amazon via its purchase of AbeBooks), has released its annual report on the most sought after out-of-print and hard-to-find books over the last year. Once again, Madonna's relic from the 1990s, Sex, tops the list. But from there the list gets very eclectic and interesting, with books like Bob Dylan's Drawn Blank, The Jerusalem Bible illustrated by Salvador Dali, and Bruce Davidson's photo book Subway. The report also has lists by genre and offers up a little background on some of the more interesting titles.