I went to a Digital Skills evening, organized by the SYP, last night. There were three speakers, Nicholas Blake (Editorial Manager, Picador and Digital), Ros Kindersley (Managing Director, JFL Search & Selection) and Chris Meade (Director, if:book/Future of the Book, London).
While the other two people certainly had interesting things to say, Chris Meade’s talk really fascinated me, as I’m interested in the research Future of the Book are doing. He even managed to avoid using the phrase “two point oh” which is one of my pet hates… Basically, he thinks that the most successful publishers of the future are going to be those who are good at building communities around authors and interests. He also (much to my amusement, and the consternation of the big Macmillan boss next to him) said that all the majors are going to crash and burn because they are too involved with this idea of a book as an object rather than an experience.
This was interesting to me, as I’ve always argued that the physical manifestation of a book is meaningless. Sure, it’s nice to have good production values, but at the end of the day, it’s the content that matters. I’m not someone who gets all emotional about books. I love reading, but I don’t care about what happens to the book afterwards. My books have scribbles in them, dog ears, pages ripped and, to be honest, often get used as beer mats. That’s why I’ve always loved the idea of ebooks; I think reducing a book to its core, a document file, really isolates it from all the frippery and nonsense, and allows it to be what it is - a transfer of ideas or information from one person to another.
Back to work now, but does anyone have any thoughts on this? Do you like the idea of having a library or would you prefer a gadget with all the books you want stored on it? Do you like to scribble on your books or keep them pristine? What do you think are the pros and cons of physical print and digital? Inform me of your most excellent opinions!
Tags: books · me me me · publishing · web stuff · work4 Comments
4 responses so far ↓
I love books as tangible objects. I love the smell of them, I love the feeling of them in my hands. The printing, binding, design of them can be beautiful. They’re simple, but convey much. Which isn’t to say that they shouldn’t be dogeared and battered; they’re there to be used and absorbed.
That said, their tangible side is nothing compared to the words and ideas inside. That’s the important bit, and I think there’s huge values in forming communities around them. There is a danger, though, in making blanket statements; some books are intensely personal for some people, and worth shouting about for others. Whatever mediums spring up around them, they’ve got to be able to take on all the existing use cases.
But books are definitely social. Out of every ten books I buy, nine are probably for other people; a similar ratio applies for books I own. I regularly lend and borrow. The ecosystem of giving or lending books, and accepting them, is almost like a set of conversations in itself. I suspect the tendency with publishers - or at least, big ones - will be to DRM them up to the hilt and prevent this from happening. Similarly, if there are 9 different ebook readers which all handle different standards, the barriers will be too great.
Therefore, we need an open standard for ebooks, that allows people to lend or give without restriction. Because digital files lend themselves to post-scarcity economics, which publishers aren’t ready to take on, maybe they could be watermarked with the original owner’s name. The tangibility of the readers are improtant, and it’s also important that if a reader’s disk drive dies, or the drive of the host PC dies, you can take your library onto another set of machines.
If we can reach a standard that maintains the openness we enjoy with traditional books, why not use the benefits of a digital medium? As long as it’s in the right way. Embed links to resources like discussion forums and extra chapters - but make the mechanism for embedding resources as agnostic as possible when it comes to what’s being embedded, because you never know when some new technology is going to come along. Allow people to share the books they love easily. Let them discuss ideas, or ask questions. Let them highlight a word and look it up in a dictionary. That kind of thing adds real value.
I’ve waffled, but I guess I’m trying to say several things: 1) whatever devices arise must take on the best aspects of books, like an elegant design and shareability. 2) The technology must be open - anyone can print a book, so anyone should be able to make an ebook or an ebook reader. 3) Companies will try and control the market by locking people into their own technology, when in fact, the first company to produce an elegant reader that’s completely open will set the standard.
And a quick 4) the cost of ebook readers will be tens of times more expensive than a book, and you’ll have to buy books over the top of that, so most readers will need an extra push to bother with them. I think regular content - newspapers, magazines, blogs - could very easily be that. It certainly would be for me.
Yes, I totally agree. I was trying to argue last night that we need an open standard for ebooks and that having different readers with different files was a bad thing for the book industry. Macmillan dude’s response? But our technology (developed in-house, exclusively for Maccer’s use, and costing over a million pounds) can convert files for all formats, so we don’t see a problem with it. My response that independent publishers don’t have those kind of resources and that it would lead to an unhealthy lack of competition was answered with a smirk. Awesome.
I wasn’t trying to say that design and production values aren’t important. They clearly are, and a well designed and produced book (whether digital or physical) can give a vastly improved reader experience. I guess I was just trying to make the point that there is no point in clinging to physical books just for the sake of it. People will always love books, but I think mass market paperbacks, for example, or school books, will have no real place in print in the future.
RE: the price of ebooks - once readers come down below £99 I think there will start to be a real market for ebooks. Now, not so much. I totally agree with you with the regular content being an incentive; I’d love to be able to get all the papers on my reader everyday, along with the blogs I read and magazines.
Thanks for commenting in such depth :)
It depends on the book - if we’re talking novels, then I’ll destroy them by folding / highlighting / reading in the bath so the corners go crinkly.
But there are books that are more than just the meaning of the words printed. My husband’s ones, for a start, which are as much about the pictures and the noises and the turning of the pages to see what happens next! Those are aimed at pre-schoolers, but there are similar in the more grown up children’s world (e.g. The “Dragonology” book)
Or, there are your coffee-table books, or books of old maps, or of art or photographs with commentary… all “books” but not with the same purpose as a novel… you aren’t supposed to read them through, but dip in and out and marvel at the beauty of the book as a whole.
Novels could work on screen (though I used to read novel length fanfiction (yes, geeky, sorry) on my computer and it did give me headaches). Not sure these other kinds of books will though.
My great sadness with the age of the internet is the demise of the “encyclopedia” as a printed work. It’s just not viable now when internet resources are so much more up to date. But I loved looking at them, with so much information crammed into each page.