So, gang, what do you think of this observation—tucked away in a Nation piece on the future or nonfuture of certain publishers?
On the other hand, any future successful e-book reader, whether the Amazon Kindle or something else, will surely have ads; but then again, if any one device really catches on, in its next generations it is bound to “generalize”: that is, you’ll be able to read books on it, but also undoubtedly catch what’s left of newspapers, check your e-mail, text friends, and probably take photos too. In other words, you’ll be in a new universe which, for better and worse, will only partially resemble book reading as we’ve known it—and worse yet, from the publisher’s point of view, the technology will be the property of someone else.
May I now introduce Nation writer Tom Englehardt to the iPhone? The iPhone isn’t a Kindle-sized tablet, and Stanza and other programs have a way to go in the interface department; but otherwise the iPhone offers the dreamed-of features now. Jeeze. The Nation article is just another example of the chasm between the lit and tech worlds, even if Englehardt presides over a Nation-related Web site. On top of that, the Nation misspelled “Macmillan” as “MacMillan.” Here at the TeleBlog, we commit barbarities daily, but do so without a copy desk.
Where Englehardt is dead on: He perceptively observes that in the Depression, people could turn to books as low-cost entertainment, but that now there are far more competing options. On top of that, I’d point out that many e-books are now free to readers, even modern titles—such as some Creative Commons-licensed works. Authors had better have the gall to believe their commercial books are unique. It’s what keeps me going. I challenge anyone to find another D.C. newspaper novel, set mainly in the 1970s, that ends in the late 21st century with a talking Afghan Hound doing a Truman act at the Cosmos Club.
Detail: The Englehardt piece may have been Web-only.
Related: At magazines it’s 2.0 steps forward, 1.0 step back in the New York Observer and Newspaper shuns Web, and thrives in the New York Times.
Now that Apple is the Walmart of publishing, refusing works based on words (words that they allow in their music, though — wonder if they’d have ever sold an ipod at all, had they banned all hip-hop and rap and most blues, a lot of rock and country, based solely on words and “adult themes), I’d had to be stuck reading there – halfway thru a book, it might disappear on you (as other retracted apps have). Or have large blacked out sections deemed inappropriate. Want to read Romeo & Juliet? Sorry, that contains children having sex, so it’s out. Watch a movie on itunes? No problem, we’ll give you the sanitized version (courtesy of one of the christian movie cutting organizations), not the version in the theater. After all, any R-rated movie will contain MANY of the words they are rejecting in literature. Want some tunes? Sure, here’s the walmart sanitized version.
I don’t know why they bother even checking book content – Steve has decreed that no one reads anymore, so that alone should be enough to protect all of us from the objectionable content.
Apple is setting themselves up for liability BY their action of censoring content. Remaining a neutral party, they would have been protected under laws regarding internet providers and publishers (after all, the objectionable book can be sold without a plain wrapper and on low shelves where kids could see or easily available on library shelves). Instead, by setting themselves as a gatekeeper, they become responsible for everything in the store and I guarantee the music they sell (let alone the videos) would not meet the same “community standards” they seem to be applying. I just wonder which community they picked; certainly not any in CA (even conservative Orange)? Rural Arkansas, maybe? Or, more likely, Utah, which now has great influence in CA politics.