On Technology and Dreams
My parents and technology . . . . well, it's a story. Over 15 years ago--at least--I bought them a WebTV. I showed my dad how to use it and he was delighted to discover the Information Superhighway. At some point, they upgraded to a WebTV2. It's only slightly better than the original (which means slower than slow and annoying uploads). Then my dad visited me two years ago and decided to get an iPod. The man does not have a computer. No matter. He was staying with me for two months and so he called Apple, ordered one, had it Fed Exed, and had me load stuff on it. He now has about 4,500 songs (big band recordings mostly) and calls me a piker for only having 3,000. Periodically, he calls Apple (I am not kidding about this) and talks to customer service to tell them things that they should tell Steve Jobs to make the iPod better. He told one guy one particular idea and said if the guy called up "Steve" and told him his idea, he would get a promotion, so feel free to steal my dad's idea. For real. And one time I considered smothering my father with a pillow at night in a pitched two-hour long battle over his understanding of how iPods work and why he CAN'T call the guys at Apple all the time. Well, he showed me. He got to be such pals with Kevin in Philadelphia (and Raj in India) that Kevin gave him his personal cell phone number in case my dad had more questions. Yeah. I can't make this sh*t up.
So when I got a Kindle, because my dad is legally blind, and because he can't read anymore, I thought it might be good to show him because you can increase the print size REALLY big [and no, before there are comments about books on tape, he finds them boring]. His response? "Eh . . . I can see it being useful for you, but I don't want one."
Which brings me to e-books. I am in a ladies book club. I also, like most people, travel from time to time. I go to the doctor's and sit in waiting rooms. I am out and about. I have spotted THREE Kindles in all that time. Plus mine. That makes four. No one in my book club has one. No one in my book club is INTERESTED in having one.
And yeah, I know it's growing. Fast. But here's the thing . . . I think WRITERS are about the only people who care. It SEEMS like a bigger deal because of the circles we are in.
Which brings me to the debate--the insane debate over uploading your unsold manuscripts to Kindle and writers not getting book contracts and . . . and . . . and . . . .
Do what you want.
I have been watching how friggin' CRAZY people get. NASTY and crazy (not a good combination) over this whole thing. And what it seems to boil down to is this. For some people, being published a certain way with a certain validation has been their dream since they could hold a pen. And now they are having to PERHAPS modify that dream. And modifying dreams takes time and adjustment. And sometimes it's even painful. And for SOME people, validating the way THEY choose to publish is important to them. For the record, I think an editor is important. I think vetting your manuscript is important. But I just saw a company advertised on Facebook that will turn your TWEETS into PRINTED BOOKS. And that's when I threw up my hands and thought the world has gone mad and it is what it is.
For me, this blog has always been a love letter to craft, and that's not likely to change. If you want to work on craft, visit it. But really? The rest of the insanity swirling over blogs? I just think let people do what they want. If they want a book of Tweets, for heaven's sake . . . or they want a book of laundry lists. Or blog posts. Or whatever? More power to them. Everybody has a dream.
Most of all? Be nice. If I see one more shrill response on other blogs, I think I will just stop reading certain blogs.
So? Thoughts? And yeah, I could write a book about my dad. :-) And Dynamo Boy got the eccentric gene.
24 comments:
Sis, you've captured two of my favorite (most basic?) rules of the road we call life: Let people do what they want and Be nice.
Well said!
Alan, my darling long-lost brother . . . thanks! :-)
I absolutely agree with you about the Kindle, e-book thing. Despite all the talk and all the growth... well, here's my story.
I chaperoned marching band camp a couple weeks ago. Two nights. 10 boys, age 13 to 17 (there might have been a 17-yo in the group, I'm not sure). About half of them had brought books to read in what little spare time they had. One brought a mini-DVD player.
Keep in mind that this is exactly the demographic that people expect to embrace e-reading technology over books in the future.
I pulled out my Kindle to do some reading before bed and 3 of the guys expressed an interest. I showed it to them. One of them asked me if it was an iPad. The general response was: Cool.
Then off to their paper books. (or their movie, handheld video game, or deck of cards, or inside of their eyelids)
But...
Here's the thing. Out of the kids in that group that had brought books, the only one who owned the book was my own son.
All the others were library books. I know there's a lot of talk about the $99 e-reader and in my family we've put a priority on making sure the kids have access to computers (both boys have their own laptops), but we understand that's not really typical.
There are kids in this group whose families don't have computers, let alone an e-reader. Probably even a couple that have basic cell phones that you can't text on (I'm suspicious that one or two didn't have a cell phone). The economics of my area are somewhat across the board--there are poor kids and monied kids and everything in between, but the area in general is still being hard-hit by the economy.
And I can guarantee you that most of the poor kids' parents aren't going to flip for an e-reader, even at $99, and the idea of being able to buy books, even cheap ones, isn't all that likely.
Do they have iPods? Generally speaking, yes. Did they BUY their tunes?
No idea.
But I think all this talk about the end of books as we know it not only caters to a small group in the population--writers, publishers, agents, some journalists--but ignores an enormous chunk of the general population. And I keep wondering about that very large segment of the population that just picks up a book once or twice a year when they're taking a trip. What will they do? Will they shrug and say, "It's not worth $99 to me for this one book, and I've got my laptop/iPad/magazine/sudoku book, so I guess I'll just skip it."
I don't know. I don't know. And I don't know.
Mark:
I had not even thought about that. Wow. Enlightening. Because I know a LOT of people who only buy books for plane travel or for vacation. And yeah, you're right. And "beach reads"--well, you want the cheap paperbacks so you don't care if you get sand on it or it gets wet.
And yeah . . . I think times they are a-changin' but it's not the madness, this apocalyptic sense. And the I-told-you-so-ing about NY . . . I don't quite get the venom. I know I've had by and large good experiences. But I also know I read some BEAUTIFUL books that precisely THOSE gatekeepers picked and edited and fussed over, often lovingly. Kite Runner? Ha Jin's books? My God, they're lyrical. And I still see a lot of really not very good stuff being pubbed independently. And I know it will sell to family and friends of those writers, and so if that's their dream, then great. But the gatekeepers are not all evil gnomes. :-)
We call it the granddaddy gene in my house and 5 of 8 grandkids got it. (Two of them are mine.)
I love my kindle app on my iPad. LOVE it. It's my favorite thing on there (which drives my husband to drink. He's the one who bought it for me and he's not a reader).
But seriously, going after someone because of how they publish? Crazy. In my class I actually did give advice to them about self-pubbing (they asked and they were paying me for my advice). Frankly I felt kinda weird about it and I tried hard to give a very balanced answer. But attacking someone on the open plains of the Internet? I don't get that.
Dude, live and let live.
I guess you mean going after the NY establishment? I missed that from your post.
Interesting. I do hear that from time to time. But you know, I've met a bunch of these people at cons (most writers really never get to conferences or conventions and they really need to--it's an eye opener). And seriously? Some of the nicest people I've met. I've met "high power" agents to executive editors and really, it's mostly been a fabulously positive experience.
Is there something in the air today? Last night I silently ruminated about e-readers and this morning I considered blogging about it, but you beat me to it, lol.
Yes, I have a Kindle, but my rumination encompassed the wide-spreading "tipping-point" attitude regarding publishing. One famous-to-some blogger keeps boasting about the "tipping-point" and he keeps throwing up unsubstantiated numbers regarding royalties, etc. He also stated that he doesn't need an editor. Well, good for him.
But new writers do. He most likely did, too, when he first started out. And here's where my rumination progressed. Required reads in school. To Kill a Mockingbird, Catcher in the Rye, Shakespeare, and more. These were the required works back when I attended school. And the books were given to us - we didn't have to buy them.
Fast forward to this century. In New York State school budgets are tight. Programs are cut. If the "tipping-point" occurs, who will balk over raised taxes so that schools can provide e-readers? And if e-readers not provided, will families shell out bucks so their kids can read the required works?
It is a madness, and it's an attack launched by those pushing their personal "tipping-point" with hopes to make it happen.
And as you mentioned, Erica, I too belong to a women's reading group. Some don't own computers. I can't imagine them running out to buy an e-reader just so they can continue to read.
P.S. Hope my comment wasn't "shrill," lol.
starbucks:
Well, I see negativity on both sides of the argument. And I agree . . . most of the editors I know have a GREAT love of books and the biz.
kath:
Not shrill . . . . all good points. If your goal is to make a living at writing--whether traditionally or some other route, craft, editors, care and hard work should be part of it. I don't think anyone wants a career that is about throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks. I mean, maybe, but eventually I believe the tipping point will swing the other way--i.e., people know when they are being urged to buy crap. LOL!
One time, a while back, a prominent blogger made the point that if you are getting a free book on Kindle, don't give it a bad review. I.e., it's FREE for heaven's sake. I don't buy that. My time isn't free. And I think that writers need to be cautious about thinking, "Heck, what do people want for $1.99? Editing? Quality? It's a good yarn." Like I said, I believe time is money . . . so price point is important, but so is quality. Maybe that's a post for another day.
Sometimes I just feel like saying: "It's a Kindle. It's not the end of the world as you know it." Both sides of the equation take it so personally. As a READER, I do get VERY upset when publishers take to treating those who prefer to read on digital devices as second class citizens.
As for writers? I just don't care. I'm happy to help when I can. As for me, I intend to be diversified. I'll do whatever is best financially. I hope. I do tend to hang on too long for loyalty's sake, but that's always been my downfall. *sighs*
A post about quality is necessary. Writers might tend to forget that it isn't easy to fool the buying readership. The women's book club that I go to rates the reads. Let me tell you, they can be quite heartless if the plot is sloggy, or the characters unbelievable. In fact, a few members stopped reading a certain multi-published author because they felt her stories weren't enjoyable anymore. That said, when I think of the multi-published authors who feel they no longer need an editor and are going the self-pubbed route, I have to wonder if arrogance will sell books.
It always gets under my collar when people are criticized for doing something that other people don't want to do.
I say to each their own.
BTW: Your dad cracks me up!
kath:
Again . . . I do think there's going to be some kind of backlash eventually. It's like Dawn detergent. Significant Other bought store cheap-o brand, and it sucked. We could not wash ANYTHING greasy. It left a film of grease on pots. We went back and got Dawn, which guts grease. It's more money, but our pots are wonderfully clean. We pay more but . . .
E
Natasha:
It's irritating--but do you really think the publishers are thinking, "These e-reader folks are second-class citizens"? Sometimes, an author may have negotiated something different on e-rights. And in its earliest of incarnations, some publishers wanted to do best by their authors and keep it off the Kindle while in hardcover . . . most have backed away but I think it was driven by a concern over royalty losses and forming policy on the fly--not prejudice against a specific reader subgroup. I think NOW they see it only harms the author.
I think Lee Goldberg might have said it best: just because people can publish with a click of a mouse, doesn't mean they should.
I'm all for live and let live and to each his own, but I do hope the buying public eventually realizes that they get what they pay for. Surely they will.
Well said, Jude.
Jude:
I think a few things he's said have really been wise on the subject. You know, I think of this person I know. He self-pubbed print books for very little kids that are--honest to God--about the worst things I have ever seen. Bad writing, worse (!!!!) illustrations, and kind of gross/bewildering concept. I can't imagine that he has sold more than a dozen, but he has money to burn and has turned it into a series. And again, these are insulting (in my opinion) to anyone who plunks down money to buy it, not being aware (he sells at flea markets, whatever). And he is SO invested, I mean SO invested in calling himself an author. He's got business cards, he has this and that (car decals, you name it). And I find it really puzzling behavior because there has got to be some level of denial going on. How can he go to a bookstore and see beautiful illustrations--colorful and lovely--and pretty simple language, and then look at what he has produced and feel it's right to charge children top dollar for it? I don't know. So I hear you.
I read something on a sample today that had some really egregious stuff in the first few pages. But I wonder do regular buyers see it or just someone with 20 years of editing experience. I don't know.
And like most things in capitalism, I presume at some point things really will sort out.
I agree about politeness (or whatever you want to call it) on the Internet.
I had to put moderation on my blog because some people know I am a minister, and they wanted to use that forum to argue religion.
I spent my life listening to people harp at me about religion. That's the last thing in the world I want to do in my retirement.
I also agree about electronic readers. They have real advantages for some readers. I like being able to enlarge the type. I also like being able to have access to books quickly and to have a lot of books available in a small machine.
But aside from that. Use an e-reader or not, whatever rings your bell. For me personally, I'm more likely to read a book on an e-reader. My hard copy wish list just keeps growing without my acting on it.
And finally, Hooray for your Dad! I suspect he is a pretty strong-willed person (like his daughter!).
Hi Joe:
I really like my Kindle a lot for the "instant" gratification of books arriving right away. :-)
I love my Kindle - and I've spent more money on books since buying the eReader. That's a good thing, right?
I'm not in a book club but I have a lot of friends who are voracious readers. Most of them DO NOT BUY BOOKS and most of them are upper-middle-class or above. I have less money than all of them and buy the most books. Of course, I don't buy all the things they do, nor do I want to.
They complain I can't share my Kindle books. I say - go buy it and they go to the library. I often wonder if they realize that authors get paid for writing books. I don't bring it up, perhaps I should.
I am very active on a writer's message board and someone posted something that made my blood run cold. She said, "There is no reason for someone to go unpublished." That's what worries me. She self-publishes and thinks everyone should because they can. To me, being published is when someone else pays you for the right to make your words a book.
But I do try to be nice.
Amy:
Well, here's the closest analogy I can find for a wacky comment like that (the one from the other board).
There is NO reason, if you love to write, that you shouldn't write. And if you want to self-publish, more power to you. But know there are tiers, distinctions, something, in quality. There is no reason if someone loves to PAINT that they should not. They just should not feel their work belongs in the Met. Some people might be fine hanging their pictures on their bedroom wall. Some people might be good enough that they give a painting away to a friend. Some might get good enough to sell their paintings in a restaurant or somewhere . . . their art on the walls with a business card attached. And some might get small gallery showings. And a few . . . well, they may be really great and actually hang in a museum.
However, the idea that someone would publish a book littered with typos and unreadable . . . and be an author because no one should go unpublished is kind of silly to me. Or even just a poorly written book. I'm not sure what the exercise is . . . and the validation. When I'm embarrassed FOR someone . . . it says something, the same as if someone came into my home and painted a God awful picture and wanted me to buy it--or worse, actually hang it on my wall.
AND . . . one more analogy. I love my kids. I hang their pictures on my walls and on my fridge. But I don't "indulge" them by saying, "Look, you are so terrific, I think you should sell your art to all our neighbors." And then my neighbors would awkwardly want to know how to avoid my kids and their peddling bad art. It's not that I don't think my kids should paint . . . just that I don't think it's COMMERCE.
But that's just me.
You're right as usual. Brilliant.
Post a Comment