Are Books Dead? Are Self-Publishers Killing Their Chances for a Traditional Publishing Deal? Will Libraries Survive in a Digital Book Future?
Ugh.
I usually avoid reading posts with hyperbole headlines about facets of The Future of Publishing. Sometimes, curious, I skim the post with an arresting title quickly, searching for a nugget of credible information. If none is found, I close the tab and fume a little (in the “did-this-writer-have-a-deadline-and-nothing-to-say??” genre which is followed by “I-should-have-known-better”) and then I remind myself that post writers rely on website traffic to justify their value on a blog, and a sensational headline works wonders for that. I know this is Blog Writing 101. I get that.
But sometimes, I read a post and I’VE GOT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
For instance, yesterday I came across a link in my Twitter stream for a GigaOm post entitled What Is a Book? The Definition Continues to Blur. I had just sat down after my very first Lit & Pie in the sun on my porch with a cold and tall glass of beer. I was high on Vitamin D, Dutch apple pie, and fantastic feedback from fanatic readers-turned-friends, and so I clicked the link to read what New Industry-Changing Thing has prompted the claim that the “book” is morphing.
Fasten your seat belts.
The post starts out with the definition of a book: “a collection of printed pages bound inside a cover (hard or soft) that you could place on a shelf in your library, or in a store.” OK, good.
Then it introduces a new type of story container, called a Byliner, which seeks “to reimagine the entire industry of writing and selling books.” Turns out a Byliner book is digital…not a “book” by definition, but rather an ebook. The GigaOm post calls Byliner “a publisher just like Random House or Macmillan, but (who) is going to publish small runs of e-books” and implies that it is this small run (I’m not sure what “small run” means to ebooks) and a fair royalty split from the sales of their digital books that is doing this promised reimagining of the publishing industry.
Perhaps fueled by the aforementioned tasty beer, sunshine and readership love, I still kept reading.
The post then mentions another ebook publisher called Atavist (“…digital form that lies in the space between long narrative magazine articles and traditional books and e-books”) and then Amazon’s Singles (“Compelling Ideas Expressed at Their Natural Length”), both of which concentrate on short form digital stories. Then there’s links to digital TED Books (from the famed TED Conference people).
So far, the post about the definition of BOOKS is talking about EBOOKS. I’m nearly done reading the post–I can see the end of this bait-and-switch narrative–so I keep going.
Then the author mentions Seth Godin’s (Powered by Amazon) The Domino Project, which is producing actual paper-bound-by-cover books as well as ebooks. Next is a couple of sentences about rags-to-riches digital book publisher/writer Amanda Hocking who has landed a traditional BOOK contract, and oft traditionally BOOK published author Barry Eisler who recently turned away from book contracts to try on self-publishing.
Now let’s review the headline for the GigaOm post again: What Is a Book? The Definition Continues to Blur
Despite my frustration that the post had, in my humble opinion, failed to explain how the definition of a BOOK as a “collection of printed pages bound inside a cover (hard or soft) that you could place on a shelf in your library, or in a store” is blurring, I left a comment:
A book is paper with words printed on it, bound together with a cover that gives its contents context. An ebook is words organized on digital pages and saved in a digital format, that uses a cover image thumbnail and meta tags to give its contents context. At the root of this question is the way words are CONTAINED. Books and ebooks and magazines and whatever else we come up with to bundle and distribute words are merely containers that contain content. Context distinguishes its container and content.
What is a book? That definition will not change. Ever.
Tell me I’m wrong, I double-dog dare you.
Yours in provocation,
M
I would have to agree with you. A container is built to contain.
Let’s see if a musician would agree to have his or her song categorized as a different product depending on the delivery method. I heard a song played around a campfire one night, and then chose to find the digital recording online at a later time. Does the difference in delivery or container change what the original product is? I would say no. It is a song, through whatever means my ears receive that Product.
A book is a message. A book illustrates a concept with words and anything else the author deems important to that message. Whether or not I read those pages on my computer monitor, my tablet, my phone, or sitting in a chair in the library does not change the fact that I am indeed, reading a book.
I will join in this feeling, because I cannot understand how the simple concept of Product escapes people…there is no blur.
The article in question is mostly talking about ebooks, not books (which are paper things). My point is that containers are: books, ebooks, magazines, websites, whatever. Content are the words. Context is meta tags, library directories, blog reviews, and so forth.
However, your song analogy is dead RIGHT. Songs are songs (content), regardless of file format (context) or device (container) in which the songs are enjoyed.
The nomenclature of distributing words should stay fixed (book, ebook, website page) because it provides context for all the awesome new ways to enjoy stories in the Digital Age.
Ya dig? :)